I can separate eating meat and cruelty as eating meat is not unnecessary. In other words, if you want to say it is cruel then go ahead and say the God of the Bible is cruel. Say God is wrong and you're right. Will you say that? Or will 'you' be dishonest and deceptive, and insincere?
I didn't want to go back and forth with you, but for now I do want to reply to a couple things you said. If you're talking about what you mentioned earlier, that "God fed His people meat in the wilderness"....that it is one of the WORST examples you could have brought up.
That event was written about mainly in two places, in Exodus and in Numbers. In the Exodus account, if you read the whole thing in context, you will see that the Israelites were non-stop "grumbling" (complaining) to God, because they were accustomed to eating meat in Egypt (a pagan country) and that is what THEY wanted! Keyword: THEY.
In verse 8, of Exodus 16, it clearly states:
“because he has heard your grumbling against him”.... That is why God gave them what THEY wanted. But that is
not the end of the story, as I'll get into a little later...
As you probably already know, because most believers know this...God sometimes "gives people over" to their desires, but it doesn't mean it's what GOD wants, and it's always for a purpose. For example, in the Bible it is clear that God's design and intent is heterosexuality. Homosexual sex is a sin. But God will "give people over" to their sin, because sometimes the only way a person will learn is to experience the negative consequences of their actions. This is clearly stated in Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts." God doesn't FORCE people to honor His perfect will, sometimes people have to learn the hard way.
So in the Exodus account, AT BEST it was a concession, which doesn't mean it's what God wants, it means God giving mankind what WE want. So for you to use that as an example is misleading to anyone reading who doesn't know better.
However, in the NUMBERS account, it is blatantly obvious that the quail was not a "gift" or even a concession. In fact, it turned out to be a punishment, because they were not satisfied with the manna God gave them, they kept complaining that they wanted MEAT. That is what they lusted after, and remember that word lust, because it will become important later.
In regard to that event, I'm going to copy / paste something I wrote to someone else on another thread, who brought up the same event. The copypasta will start under the little line below:
_____
Oh my word. You couldn't have picked a worse example if you tried.
When God gave the Israelites the quail, that was out of anger and it was actually a punishment because He was fed up with their complaining and them wanting flesh instead of the MANNA HE GAVE THEM TO EAT.
Read the part in bold. (Numbers 11:20)
The Lord heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the Lord will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, 20 but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it.
And then afterwards
He struck them down with a plague!
"But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the Lord burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. Therefore the place was named Kibroth Hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had craved other food." - Numbers 11:33-34
If anything, that passage shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to show.
The name of the place where that event happened, Kibroth Hattaavah, actually means "Graves of Craving" or "Graves of Lust"
Does that sound like something God WANTED for them? Obviously not, it's what THEY wanted!
So, are you saying if I raise my own hogs, and kill and butcher them, then it's alright?
No, I never said that. In fact, I specifically said that killing an animal unnecessarily in and of itself is cruel. Keyword: unnecessarily. You don't have to eat pigs. Pigs are even smarter than dogs! They are no different than dogs in their sentience, they are just as social as dogs, and have their own personalities like dogs do.
Do you think killing and eating a dog when you don't have to is cruel? Yes or no?
But if I send them to a slaughter house, then it is cruel and wrong? If I do the killing myself, does that make it right? I will say this, for what it is worth, and you don't have to believe me, as I myself don't trust personal stories on a forum. I have raised hogs. I raised them to eat. Fed and watered them. Then came the day to kill and butcher them. It is a difficult day. But, it is something you have to do if you want to eat them.
You either have poor reading comprehension, or you are being intentionally obtuse, as a debating tactic. I'm not going to repeat myself at length, but in a nutshell getting "meat" from a factory farm is WORSE than the hypothetical scenario of someone killing an animal who didn't go through all the abuse and torture they go through on factory farms. But as I already said two or three times, even the latter is cruel, when it is unnecessary.
I'm not going to go through the other stuff you brought up, because it's just the standard replies that people always bring up in these debates. Nothing new or original. Maybe Carl, if he wants to, will reply to that other stuff.
