Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

[lilymc]

That's how He was able to obey the law. He worded it so the others would accuse themselves and decide not to condemn her.

No the law just stated that two or more witnesses were necessary.

The point here is that He didn't violate the law.

Right, but my question was if there had been two accusers, do you think he would've said go ahead and stone her?

The bottom line is Jesus is the new covenant, He brought change and taught them not just the letter of the law, but God's heart and what God actually wants from us. It was never my claim that Jesus sinned, my claim all along was that he showed them the true way.

[donnay]

So was Jesus a sinner for not stoning the woman caught in adultery? Jesus is the new covenant, he showed them a new way… He showed them that HE is the way. You seem to be ignoring that and instead focusing on temporary laws, that were superseded by Jesus

Jesus didn't stone the woman because the scribes and Pharisee were not without sin--what do you think he was writing on the ground that made each one split the scene? Plus, where was the man that the woman committed adultery with? The scribes and Pharisee were trying to temp Christ.

John 8:3-11 (KJV)

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[Dr.3D]

Right, but my question was if there had been two accusers, do you think he would've said go ahead and stone her?

The bottom line is Jesus is the new covenant, He brought change and taught them not just the letter of the law, but God's heart and what God actually wants from us. It was never my claim that Jesus sinned, my claim all along was that he showed them the true way.

My claim was that Jesus never sinned or broke the law.

This is because we were talking about how Jesus would have had to break the law if He hadn't eaten the Passover.

My argument was that He never broke the law and that means he had to have eaten the Passover.

I don't want to get sidetracked with something that isn't pertinent to this discussion.

[lilymc]

Meat on the other hand is something God told us we can eat, I can't fathom why he would tell us we can have something for food if he doesn't want us to ever eat it. I believe animals as food are part of his perfect will for us.

There are a number of different views on this. What I do when I'm not sure about something is reserve judgment, continue to study and seek the truth, and trust that eventually all these things will become clear.

However, based on what I've studied so far, I'm leaning more toward it being a temporary concession… based on the hardness of man's heart, a sort of "giving us over" to what we want.

The very verse before that states, "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky;".....which to me sounds a lot like the consequences of this fallen world, a mere description of the reality, as opposed to what God actually wants and what His perfect will is.

I don't believe God changed at all. I think when he invented animals it was in part to be food, he just didn't mention it in the very beginning of Genesis. Bottom line he did tell Noah and Moses he was all for slaughtering and gorging on their flesh. Maybe you can tell me why he did.

You are adding on to the text and speculating. I completely disagree that that is in line with God's character. God is love, God is merciful and compassionate. Do you really think God would create beautiful, sentient and innocent beings, who have the capacity to enjoy life and have a strong will to live… only for their lives to be cut short and for them to be callously slaughtered and eaten? There are numerous scriptures that show God cares about the animals, values them and even enjoys them. So speculating that God originally intended for them to be food but just didn't mention it is simply not in line with the scriptures and with the character of God.

OK, so why in your view did God permit us to eat meat? That's something that I don't understand about your views on this. You admit he allowed it, but you seem to think it doesn't fit in with his original plan so why did he allow it in the first place? Sacrifices were only a few animals, but God has allowed us to eat entire species.

I kind of answered this above, but as I said I still want to do a lot more studying on this.

I believe that animal products such as meat and dairy are generally needed as a part of a nutritious diet, I'm not just following my taste buds here, I feel strongly about diet and the work of Weston A Price and others in the same way you do about Veganism being healthy. And for me it makes perfect sense and fits in with why God gave us both plants and meat, they are both important parts of a healthy diet.

I strongly disagree. That is what we have been conditioned to believe for a long time… but it is simply not true. You can get all the nutrients you need from a whole foods, plant-based diet. And it has been shown more and more as time goes on, that it's the healthiest diet. Animal products have been linked to cancer, heart disease, and other health problems. It's just that the meat and dairy industries are very powerful, and have been a part of this conditioning that it's necessary for a healthy diet.

This is coming from someone who was an enthusiastic carnivore for most of my life. I had said a few times, "I could never be a vegan or vegetarian." So although many people may believe that it's necessary, it really isn't. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people want to satisfy their taste buds.

[lilymc]

Jesus didn't stone the woman because the scribes and Pharisee were not without sin--what do you think he was writing on the ground that made each one split the scene? Plus, where was the man that the woman committed adultery with? The scribes and Pharisee were trying to temp Christ.

John 8:3-11 (KJV)

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I agree, I was just trying to point out to Dr. 3D that Jesus came to bring about a new covenant, and to show people who were focusing on the letter of the law what God's heart actually was.

[donnay]

I agree, I was just trying to point out to Dr. 3D that Jesus came to bring about a new covenant, and to show people who were focusing on the letter of the law what God's heart actually was.

The new covenant would come when Christ was crucified. The scribes and Pharisee's would be the very ones who yelled out, "Crucify Him!" All those statutes and ordinances went with Christ on the cross. The law remained and remains to this day.


ETA:

Adam an 8th day creation
http://www.bibledunamai.net/2009/03/...-day-creation/

Getting back to the Garden of Eden...on the 8th day God created the farmer, Adam (In Hebrew it is: Et Ha'Adam)

Paul Harvey: So God Made A Farmer

(Video) – Dodge re-aired this Paul Harvey story during the 2013 Super Bowl halftime show. Bless them for doing so.

Transcript:
And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need a caretaker.” So God made a farmer.

God said, “I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the field, milk cows again, eat supper, then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board.” So God made a farmer.

God said, “I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt and watch it die, then dry his eyes and say,’Maybe next year,’ I need somebody who can shape an ax handle from an ash tree, shoe a horse with hunk of car tire, who can make a harness out hay wire, feed sacks and shoe scraps. Who, during planting time and harvest season will finish his 40-hour week by Tuesday noon and then, paining from tractor back, put in another 72 hours.” So God made the farmer.

God said, “I need somebody strong enough to clear trees and heave bales, yet gentle enough to yean lambs and wean pigs and tend the pink-comb pullets, who will stop his mower for an hour to splint the leg of a meadowlark.”

It had to be somebody who’d plow deep and straight and not cut corners. Somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed, and brake, and disk, and plow, and plant, and tie the fleece and strain the milk, . Somebody who’d bale a family together with the soft, strong bonds of sharing, who would laugh, and then sigh and then reply with smiling eyes when his son says that he wants to spend his life doing what Dad does. “So God made a farmer.”

http://worldeventsandthebible.com/20...de-farmer.html

[Dr.3D]

I think Romans 14 pretty much covers all of this.....

[Lamp]

The Weak and the Strong

14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]

[lilymc]

The new covenant would come when Christ was crucified. The scribes and Pharisee's would be the very ones who yelled out, "Crucify Him!" All those statutes and ordinances went with Christ on the cross. The law remained and remains to this day.

Jesus is sovereign and is the Passover lamb, so I think it is putting the letter of the law above the true meaning of the law by stating that Jesus would've had to have eaten the Passover lamb. God clearly stated "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" - and as I have stated many times before, Jesus heart was for God's original design. So we're going to have to agree to disagree for now, because I simply do not believe that Jesus would go against God's original design, and the very heart/nature of God.

ETA: Something else to consider is that when we take communion and remember Jesus sacrifice, what did He use as a symbol of his body? Why didn't he use lamb? Why didn't it go this way: Jesus took a piece of lamb meat, and said “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

But it was bread. Thank God.

Just some food for thought… Pardon the pun

[donnay]

Jesus is the Lord of the Passover, so I think it is putting the letter of the law above the true meaning of the law by stating that Jesus would've had to have eaten the Passover lamb. God clearly stated "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" - and as I have stated many times before, Jesus heart was for God's original design. So we're going to have to agree to disagree for now, because I simply do not believe that Jesus would go against God's original design, and the very heart/nature of God.

Christ became our Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy [Love], and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

[lilymc]

Christ became our Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy [Love], and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Yes, again, I agree. In fact, I posted that same scripture earlier.

[donnay]

Jesus is sovereign and is the Passover lamb, so I think it is putting the letter of the law above the true meaning of the law by stating that Jesus would've had to have eaten the Passover lamb. God clearly stated "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" - and as I have stated many times before, Jesus heart was for God's original design. So we're going to have to agree to disagree for now, because I simply do not believe that Jesus would go against God's original design, and the very heart/nature of God.

ETA: Something else to consider is that when we take communion and remember Jesus sacrifice, what did He use as a symbol of his body? Why didn't he use lamb? Why didn't it go this way: Jesus took a piece of lamb meat, and said " “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

But it was bread. Thank God.

Just some food for thought… Pardon the pun

I will agree with you on that ETA. He was the lamb sacrificed, hence became our Passover.

Luke 22:19 - 22:20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

[Dr.3D]

Why didn't he use lamb? Why didn't it go this way: Jesus took a piece of lamb meat, and said " “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

But it was bread. Thank God.

Just some food for thought… Pardon the pun

Because that meal was the night before the Passover meal. They most likely didn't have any lamb to eat that night.

Jesus was in the tomb the night of Passover that year.

[donnay]

I think Romans 14 pretty much covers all of this.....

Great choice.

[lilymc]

Because that meal was the night before the Passover meal. They most likely didn't have any lamb to eat that night.

Jesus was in the tomb the night of Passover that year.

Yes, because HE was the Passover lamb.

However, if he had wanted the symbol of his body that we consume on a regular basis to be lamb, he could have used lamb meat for that teaching. Instead he used bread.

[donnay]

Revelation 22:1 - 22:2
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.

[Dr.3D]

Yes, because HE was the Passover lamb.

However, if he had wanted the symbol of his body that we consume on a regular basis to be lamb, he could have used lamb meat for that teaching. Instead he used bread.

Yes, He instituted Communion that night and it was to be performed as often as Christians felt it necessary, rather than just once a year as was the Passover.

[William Tell]

You are adding on to the text and speculating. I completely disagree that that is in line with God's character. God is love, God is merciful and compassionate. Do you really think God would create beautiful, sentient and innocent beings, who have the capacity to enjoy life and have a strong will to live… only for their lives to be cut short and for them to be callously slaughtered and eaten? There are numerous scriptures that show God cares about the animals, values them and even enjoys them. So speculating that God originally intended for them to be food but just didn't mention it is simply not in line with the scriptures and with the character of God.

No I'm not adding on. If God didn't want us to eat meat he would have told us not to eat meat, but he never ever anywhere in the Bible told us not to eat it. He did however say we could. I don't think that makes him cruel, he makes the rules.

Genesis 9:³ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Leviticus 11

11 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,



² Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.



³ Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

I shall indeed eat. I'm not concerned that God actually meant the opposite, his word is pretty clear.

I strongly disagree. That is what we have been conditioned to believe for a long time… but it is simply not true. You can get all the nutrients you need from a whole foods, plant-based diet. And it has been shown more and more as time goes on, that it's the healthiest diet. Animal products have been linked to cancer, heart disease, and other health problems. It's just that the meat and dairy industries are very powerful, and have been a part of this conditioning that it's necessary for a healthy diet.

There are all kinds of studies that link everything to something bad, everyone just picks and chooses the ones that line up with what they want to think. Bottom line is the animal products that most of us on this forum advocate for are not the factory farm garbage they do tests on anyway.

This is coming from someone who was an enthusiastic carnivore for most of my life. I had said a few times, "I could never be a vegan or vegetarian." So although many people may believe that it's necessary, it really isn't.

Being an enthusiastic carnivore got you where you are, now maybe you can survive on vegetables.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people want to satisfy their taste buds.

Well even if that's the case God gave me my taste buds along with meat, eggs, milk, plus all the great veggie things you like!

Dietary debates are really the definition of a First World problem. Also it reminds me of 1 Timothy 4:3

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It's interesting how it compares marriage and food, and to see how some churches want their followers to abstain from marriage but then get lots of scandals. I think I recall you don't believe that verse actually means meat, but surely we can agree it means foods in general. It is wonderful to be free in Christ!

[lilymc]

No I'm not adding on. If God didn't want us to eat meat he would have told us not to eat meat, but he never ever anywhere in the Bible told us not to eat it. He did however say we could. I don't think that makes him cruel, he makes the rules.


I shall indeed eat. I'm not concerned that God actually meant the opposite, his word is pretty clear.

You seem to always ignore Genesis 1, which should have far more importance than his post-sin, post-flood temporary concession. As I said, we can see from the previous verse that it seems to be descriptive of this fallen world, and our fallen nature. As a matter of fact, I think it is reminiscent of God's words in Genesis 3, as he told Adam and Eve what the consequences were of their disobedience, describing the cursed earth.

“Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you….”

Did it make God happy that Adam and Eve rebelled and the earth was cursed? No I don't think so, His words in Genesis 3 were a description of the consequences, and of what the future would be like. The Genesis 9 verse has that same ring to it, when I read it, a description of the world we live in, and in the case of Genesis 9, a sort of "giving us over" to our fleshly desires.

So wouldn't you agree that it's more important to look at a) God's original design, and b) His ultimate will, as stated in prophetic scripture such as Isaiah 11 and other scriptures? Why focus only on the temporary concession in this current fallen world? As I've said before in other threads like this, Jesus told us to pray for God's will on earth as it is in heaven. In heaven there's no suffering and death, but love and harmony and peace. As followers of Christ, shouldn't we aim for Gods ideal?

There are all kinds of studies that link everything to something bad, everyone just picks and chooses the ones that line up with what they want to think. Bottom line is the animal products that most of us on this forum advocate for are not the factory farm garbage they do tests on anyway.
Being an enthusiastic carnivore got you where you are, now maybe you can survive on vegetables.

No, I don't see studies showing that fresh, healthy whole, plant-based foods are bad... unless someone is doing the diet completely wrong. A person can not only survive on nothing but plant-based foods but thrive and even reverse disease. Can a person survive on nothing but meat alone? I highly doubt it.

It's also interesting that before the flood, people lived to be hundreds of years, and then after the flood, when meat eating was prevalent, the lifespan of mankind got shorter and shorter. I'm not claiming that one thing caused the other, just noting that it happened and it's interesting to me.

Well even if that's the case God gave me my taste buds along with meat, eggs, milk, plus all the great veggie things you like!

With all due respect, we're not supposed to think with our stomach or our physical desires. If there was no victim, then that would be a different matter… But there is a victim. And if God commands us to be merciful and gentle and kind… (which He does, in numerous places) why should our taste buds be more important than that, and more important than the lives of those innocent beings that belong to God?

Dietary debates are really the definition of a First World problem. Also it reminds me of 1 Timothy 4:3
It's interesting how it compares marriage and food, and to see how some churches want their followers to abstain from marriage but then get lots of scandals. I think I recall you don't believe that verse actually means meat, but surely we can agree it means foods in general. It is wonderful to be free in Christ!

Yes, in the ancient days the word "meat" was used to describe solid foods. Often, to describe what we think of as meat, the word "flesh" was used.

Yes, I agree that it's wonderful to be free in Christ… But I believe that if we live in a way that pleases God and honors God, (honors God's original design and ultimate will) that is far more wonderful and fulfilling and healthy than satisfying our own personal desires.

Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not claiming that I'm always in center of Gods will, because that's not the case. I have lots of faults and many areas that I need to change or improve. But there are some things that I changed in my life that required some amount of personal surrender, and those things ended up being the best decisions I ever made.

[RJB]

So looking over these 170 or so posts, I see no conclusive evidence that Jesus was a vegetarian nor that Christians should be vegetarians.

I would say that it is a reasonable guess that 170 more posts won't change that either.

[donnay]

So looking over these 170 or so posts, I see no conclusive evidence that Jesus was a vegetarian nor that Christians should be vegetarians.

I would say that it is a reasonable guess that 170 more posts won't change that either.

Just planting seeds...

[pcosmar]

Just planting seeds...

In this world nothing is as it should be..

in the beginning there were no carnivores.
And it will be so again..

"The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

But it is not so in this time and in this place.

[donnay]

In this world nothing is as it should be..

in the beginning there were no carnivores.
And it will be so again..



But it is not so in this time and in this place.

This dispensation of time is short. As long as we are in the flesh, all will go according to God's plan.

[Jamesiv1]

Lily.... you're starting to sound a lot like Sola_Fide

just sayin'


The argument for a meatless diet is a lot more compelling from a Hindu point of view than a Biblical point of view.

[William Tell]

You seem to always ignore Genesis 1, which should have far more importance than his post-sin, post-flood temporary concession. As I said, we can see from the previous verse that it seems to be descriptive of this fallen world, and our fallen nature.

No, Genesis 1 is good, it mentions eating veggies and fruits, that's great but it doesn't say we shouldn't eat meat.

As a matter of fact, I think it is reminiscent of God's words in Genesis 3, as he told Adam and Eve what the consequences were of their disobedience, describing the cursed earth.

“Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you….”

Did it make God happy that Adam and Eve rebelled and the earth was cursed? No I don't think so, His words in Genesis 3 were a description of the consequences, and of what the future would be like. The Genesis 9 verse has that same ring to it, when I read it, a description of the world we live in, and in the case of Genesis 9, a sort of "giving us over" to our fleshly desires.

No, was God giving in to fleshly desires when he said he liked the smell of BBQ? Eating meat wasn't some concession he made to us, in fact a peaceful vegan lifestyle would have violated the old covenant because God insisted on meat offerings.

Numbers 29:2

And ye shall offer a burnt offering for a sweet savour unto the Lord; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year without blemish

I imagine you will say this isn't important now, but I wonder if you lived back then, would you have said you have refused to have offered a sacrifice because you thought God was demanding something mean?

So wouldn't you agree that it's more important to look at a) God's original design, and b) His ultimate will, as stated in prophetic scripture such as Isaiah 11 and other scriptures? Why focus only on the temporary concession in this current fallen world? As I've said before in other threads like this, Jesus told us to pray for God's will on earth as it is in heaven. In heaven there's no suffering and death, but love and harmony and peace. As followers of Christ, shouldn't we aim for Gods ideal?

I don't think God was going against his ideal when he said we could eat animal products. In fact the closest thing to paradise on earth was the idea of a land flowing with milk and honey, both animal products. And in the story of the prodigal son the father kills a fatted calf as celebration. God gave us animals to eat for a reason, and I have no interest in trying to explain away the hundreds of verses where he clearly does in order to make the Bible fit in with Veganism. Why would God prescribe meat as a food anyway if it went against his ultimate will and he didn't want us to eat it? I mean I wouldn't tell my kid to take up smoking if I didn't want him to. It's especially worth noting that God bothered to tell his people not to eat certain foods, but clean meats were not among them. He could have just as easily forbid beef as pork in the OT but he didn't.

No, I don't see studies showing that fresh, healthy whole, plant-based foods are bad... unless someone is doing the diet completely wrong. A person can not only survive on nothing but plant-based foods but thrive and even reverse disease. Can a person survive on nothing but meat alone? I highly doubt it.

Spoken like someone from California, go ask the Inuit how they survived up there for thousands of years without greenhouses or gardens.

It's also interesting that before the flood, people lived to be hundreds of years, and then after the flood, when meat eating was prevalent, the lifespan of mankind got shorter and shorter. I'm not claiming that one thing caused the other, just noting that it happened and it's interesting to me.

Well its worth noting that Abel was a shepherd, and the only product mentioned that he produced was lambs to sacrifice to God. I think its pretty clear meat was eaten before the flood. Unless God just wanted to keep BBQ for himself during that period, which is possible I suppose, the scriptures don't say either way.

With all due respect, we're not supposed to think with our stomach or our physical desires. If there was no victim, then that would be a different matter… But there is a victim. And if God commands us to be merciful and gentle and kind… (which He does, in numerous places) why should our taste buds be more important than that, and more important than the lives of those innocent beings that belong to God?

The entire purpose of food is to fill our stomachs. If I'm hungry for a pear I will eat it, if I'm allergic to peanuts I won't eat them. Filling your body with food is a physical thing not a spiritual one, the only spiritual aspect is when I thank God for my meat and you thank him for your salad. I would be happy to never eat again, I would save a lot of money. But God made me with a stomach and taste buds, I'm not going to go all Buddhist monk since he never asked me to. I don't think God plays mind games, if he tells us something is food it is food.

Yes, in the ancient days the word "meat" was used to describe solid foods. Often, to describe what we think of as meat, the word "flesh" was used.

But can't you see the Bible is warning us about trying to manipulate people to eat the way we want them to?

Yes, I agree that it's wonderful to be free in Christ… But I believe that if we live in a way that pleases God and honors God, (honors God's original design and ultimate will) that is far more wonderful and fulfilling and healthy than satisfying our own personal desires.

Of course pleasing God is important. But if we combine your vegan worldview and if we take the Bible at face value at the same time, then you are pleasing God as a vegan more than Jesus did eating fish. That is beyond absurd and unbiblical. Which is why you are looking for sources that suggest his family was vegetarian so you can infer he was, because if Jesus was not a vegan your whole argument falls apart since he was perfect.

Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not claiming that I'm always in center of Gods will, because that's not the case. I have lots of faults and many areas that I need to change or improve. But there are some things that I changed in my life that required some amount of personal surrender, and those things ended up being the best decisions I ever made.

I respect that, I really do. I know my own faults and they are many. But I can't find anything in the Bible that suggests eating meat is one of them. In fact everything I read in the Bible points towards a balanced diet which includes certain animal products being the best. If milk and honey wasn't healthy, I don't believe God would have given it to the Israelites, if eating meat was going to shorten Noah's lifespan, then God was really cursing him telling him to eat it which doesn't make sense at all.

[lilymc]

In this world nothing is as it should be..

in the beginning there were no carnivores.
And it will be so again..

Exactly, thank you.

But it is not so in this time and in this place.

Unfortunately that is correct, however as I've mentioned a few times… Jesus taught us to pray for God's will on earth as it is in heaven. In heaven there is no suffering and killing and death. I for one believe we are very close to the last days. So if we are going to be vegetarian anyway, and if God's heart is for peace and harmony among humans and animals, no meat eating… Shouldn't we honor God by bringing His perfect will to this world, instead of living in this fallen world in the same way everyone else does?

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think it's embarrassing that Christians are among the biggest carnivores of all, and that many non-Christians are the ones promoting compassion and gentleness and kindness toward animals. Christians should be leading the way, imo, because I have no doubt that it breaks God's heart to see what is going on in factory farms, to see His creations being tortured and terrorized and treated like garbage. Not to mention the horrible impact animal industries have on the environment and how we have been terrible stewards of this planet that God put us in charge of. We will have to answer to God for that, one day. And that should be a sobering thought for many people.

I read an excellent article yesterday about this… about veganism from a Christian perspective. I might start a new thread to share that article, because I think it's a must-read.

[Anti Federalist]

Not to mention the horrible impact animal industries have on the environment and how we have been terrible stewards of this planet that God put us in charge of.

You know, that's another thing that chaps my ass.

How, exactly, are we such terrible "stewards of the planet"?

40 years ago I was being preached to in screwl about how mankind is such a terrible steward of the planet, that all natural resources would run out by 2000, that mass starvation and death was right around the corner, that industry and capitalism and human endeavor was going to kill us all.

It had that same evangelical Christian progressive ring to it then as it does now.

Yet here we are, with more people then ever before, and lowering rates of disease, of war, of poverty, of illness and increasing rates of material abundance.

In spite of all the warts, and in spite of my natural negativity, man and the planet are, in fact, doing pretty well, in spite of the Christian progressives wailing about global warming, polar bears falling over and poor innocent chickens being treated poorly.

It makes sense that Malthus was a Christian progressive.

[lilymc]

You know, that's another thing that chaps my ass.

How, exactly, are we such terrible "stewards of the planet"?

40 years ago I was being preached to in screwl about how mankind is such a terrible steward of the planet, that all natural resources would run out by 2000, that mass starvation and death was right around the corner, that industry and capitalism and human endeavor was going to kill us all.

It had that same evangelical Christian progressive ring to it then as it does now.

Yet here we are, with more people then ever before, and lowering rates of disease, of war, of poverty, of illness and increasing rates of material abundance.

In spite of all the warts, and in spite of my natural negativity, man and the planet are, in fact, doing pretty well, in spite of the Christian progressives wailing about global warming, polar bears falling over and poor innocent chickens being treated poorly.

It makes sense that Malthus was a Christian progressive.

I don't believe in the "climate change" thing, but if you think that we've done a fine job taking care of this planet, I completely disagree. The amount of waste (literal sh!t) that comes from the animal industries is mind-bogglingly enormous, filling up lakes, going into the ocean, piling up more and more as time goes on. Then there's deforestation, pollution, and the insanely enormous amount of water it takes to continue the animal industries.

Plus all the food that's going to farm animals, the whole thing is unnecessary and bad on so many different levels.

I know you would probably search for the opposite viewpoint, but if you have Netflix, watch the film Cowspiracy. It's actually very interesting. I didn't want to watch it for a long time because my view on environmentalism is similar to yours, but it wasn't about "global warming" as much as it was about the overall toll the animal industries take on the environment and the outright deception that's going on, even among some so-called environmental organizations.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't believe in the "climate change" thing, but if you think that we've done a fine job taking care of this planet, I completely disagree. The amount of waste (literal sh!t) that comes from the animal industries is mind-bogglingly enormous, filling up lakes, going into the ocean, piling up more and more as time goes on. Then there's deforestation, pollution, and the insanely enormous amount of water it takes to continue the animal industries.

You can disagree to your heart's content.

It does not make your point correct.

The fact is we support more people, in a smaller ecological footprint, than ever before in human history.

And if we were to adopt the food production and ecological mandates of communist Popes and Christian progressives, millions, perhaps billions of people, would die.

[lilymc]

You can disagree to your heart's content.

It does not make your point correct.

The fact is we support more people, in a smaller ecological footprint, than ever before in human history.

And if we were to adopt the food production and ecological mandates of communist Popes and Christian progressives, millions, perhaps billions of people, would die.

I never said anything about going along with communist Popes or progressives. In fact I am diametrically opposed to what they want. I think it is willfully blind to think that just because some improvements have been made, everything in the environment is peachy. It seems that many are choosing to ignore the toll the animal industries have on the environment, which is arguably the biggest cause of the problems, of all. As I said before, we have done a horrible job taking care of this planet, and that doesn't mean only the physical earth but the animal kingdom.