Zone1 Is Your Body a Temple or a Graveyard?

[Woodznutz]

In the Bible, it was how it was in the beginning, before the fall and for many centuries afterward. Outside of religion in the sciences currently dealing with earliest people it has to be conceded that gathering food from plants including grains was a very huge part of diet if not exclusively so, animal products are used much more in this culture than they ever have been, unless you want Inuit and other Eskimos included for being compared to, and they have the excuse that foods from plants are not so accessible to them. Healthy food from plants are available to us and just using those, without use of processed foods, any junk food included, will be much healthier for us. Studies show this and there are doctors who have been saving their patients' lives with whole food plant-based eating they direct them to have, reversing cancers, heart attacks and strokes, and other very serious issues. We really don't need to have demand from having animals used and being slaughtered for us, and honestly, they never do anything deserving that, but very very few people do either.

The health and wealth that animal agriculture provides is a blessing from God.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

The health and wealth that animal agriculture provides is a blessing from God.

What God provided that is being proclaimed as "permission", which only applies to having something without any blood, is a concession as God did not permit it in the perfect design, and prophecy shows it would not last, since Christ sacrifice of animals must be regarded as obsolete, so we do not need animals killed for us, God regards abuse of animals as wickedness, and eating animal products is not even as healthy for us, with cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, and many other issues possible that whole food plant-based eating by itself works against. God actually would want what is better for us, not to make us worse which having animal products still would be doing.

 

[Woodznutz]

What God provided that is being proclaimed as "permission", which only applies to having something without any blood, is a concession as God did not permit it in the perfect design, and prophecy shows it would not last, since Christ sacrifice of animals must be regarded as obsolete, so we do not need animals killed for us, God regards abuse of animals as wickedness, and eating animal products is not even as healthy for us, with cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, and many other issues possible that whole food plant-based eating by itself works against. God actually would want what is better for us, not to make us worse which having animal products still would be doing.

It's not what we eat that kills us. It's how we eat, how much we eat, and when we eat. After you swallow your food it's all chemistry from there on down.

Also, it's not wise to invoke scripture to make a point for veganism as the NT scripture supports eating meat.

 

[Woodznutz]

What God provided that is being proclaimed as "permission", which only applies to having something without any blood, is a concession as God did not permit it in the perfect design, and prophecy shows it would not last, since Christ sacrifice of animals must be regarded as obsolete, so we do not need animals killed for us, God regards abuse of animals as wickedness, and eating animal products is not even as healthy for us, with cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, and many other issues possible that whole food plant-based eating by itself works against. God actually would want what is better for us, not to make us worse which having animal products still would be doing.

Can you support that position with scripture?

 

[buttercup]

Can you support that position with scripture?

"What God provided that is being proclaimed as "permission", which only applies to having something without any blood (Genesis 9:4) is a concession as God did not permit it in the perfect design (Genesis 1:29-30) and prophecy shows it would not last (Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:25) since Christ sacrifice of animals must be regarded as obsolete (Hebrews 10:1-18, Matthew 9:13) so we do not need animals killed for us, God regards abuse of animals as wickedness,(Proverbs 12:10) and eating animal products is not even as healthy for us, with cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, and many other issues possible that whole food plant-based eating by itself works against. God actually would want what is better for us, (3 John 1:2, 1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 6:19-20) not to make us worse which having animal products still would be doing."

You're welcome.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

"What God provided that is being proclaimed as "permission", which only applies to having something without any blood (Genesis 9:4) is a concession as God did not permit it in the perfect design (Genesis 1:29-30) and prophecy shows it would not last (Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:25) since Christ sacrifice of animals must be regarded as obsolete (Hebrews 10:1-18, Matthew 9:13) so we do not need animals killed for us, God regards abuse of animals as wickedness,(Proverbs 12:10) and eating animal products is not even as healthy for us, with cancers, heart attacks, and ustrokes, and many other issues possible that whole food plant-based eating by itself works against. God actually would want what is better for us, (3 John 1:2, 1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 6:19-20) not to make us worse which having animal products still would be doing."

You're welcome.

Perfect Scriptural response, but it will be ignored as though he never heard it because it doesn't fit what he prefers to believe

A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The health and wealth that animal agriculture provides is a blessing from God.

It's a product of Satan's world

 

[buttercup]

Perfect Scriptural response, but it will be ignored as though he never heard it because it doesn't fit what he prefers to believe

A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still

Yep, I've seen how he operates on threads on this topic.

Btw, just in case you thought otherwise, that quote was from FredVegbarfuss, (post #302) I just added the scripture references.

 

[Woodznutz]

"What God provided that is being proclaimed as "permission", which only applies to having something without any blood (Genesis 9:4) is a concession as God did not permit it in the perfect design (Genesis 1:29-30) and prophecy shows it would not last (Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:25) since Christ sacrifice of animals must be regarded as obsolete (Hebrews 10:1-18, Matthew 9:13) so we do not need animals killed for us, God regards abuse of animals as wickedness,(Proverbs 12:10) and eating animal products is not even as healthy for us, with cancers, heart attacks, and strokes, and many other issues possible that whole food plant-based eating by itself works against. God actually would want what is better for us, (3 John 1:2, 1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 6:19-20) not to make us worse which having animal products still would be doing."

You're welcome.

The perfect design was Eden, where God killed a lamb, skinned it, and made clothing for Adam and Eve. Yep, there were lambs in the garden of Eden. One generation later Abel was a "keeper of sheep" and actually offered lambs as an offering to God.

 

[Woodznutz]

Perfect Scriptural response, but it will be ignored as though he never heard it because it doesn't fit what he prefers to believe

A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still

If you're careful you can tear this verse out of your Bible without disturbing others.

Romans 14:2
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

 

[Woodznutz]

It would be a poor world indeed without our animals (they produce great leather). Even horses seem to enjoy being ridden.

 

[buttercup]

The perfect design was Eden, where God killed a lamb, skinned it, and made clothing for Adam and Eve. Yep, there were lambs in the garden of Eden. One generation later Abel was a "keeper of sheep" and actually offered lambs as an offering to God.

We've been over this before. Many times. Nowhere in the text does it say that God killed an animal, that is YOUR assumption due to your post-fall, carnist mindset. Also, nowhere in the text does it say that Abel's offering to God was a dead lamb. Again, you are adding to the text.

In fact, first century Jewish historian Josephus said “But Abel brought milk”. In the phrase ‘the firstborn of the fat of his flock’ the word translated ‘fat’ in Hebrew is חֵ֫לֶב (cheleb), which is identical to the Hebrew word for ‘milk’ חָלָב (chalab), but with different vowels. Since vowels were not added to the Hebrew alphabet until hundreds of years after Josephus, it makes sense that the original word describing Abel’s gift was milk rather than fat. If this is the case, then Abel likely presented to God a firstborn baby lamb nursing milk from the baby’s mother..... which I think God would be more pleased with than a dead lamb, at a time when flesh eating did not even exist.

 

[buttercup]

It would be a poor world indeed without our animals (they produce great leather).

You're just trolling, obviously. It is truly sad to me when a professed Christian has zero mercy, love or compassion for the innocent and defenseless....especially when you have been shown time and time again that it was never God's true intent or desire, as we can see in both the beginning and the end.

 

[Woodznutz]

We've been over this before. Many times. Nowhere in the text does it say that God killed an animal, that is YOUR assumption due to your post-fall, carnist mindset. Also, nowhere in the text does it say that Abel's offering to God was a dead lamb. Again, you are adding to the text.

In fact, first century Jewish historian Josephus said “But Abel brought milk”. In the phrase ‘the firstborn of the fat of his flock’ the word translated ‘fat’ in Hebrew is חֵ֫לֶב (cheleb), which is identical to the Hebrew word for ‘milk’ חָלָב (chalab), but with different vowels. Since vowels were not added to the Hebrew alphabet until hundreds of years after Josephus, it makes sense that the original word describing Abel’s gift was milk rather than fat. If this is the case, then Abel likely presented to God a firstborn baby lamb nursing milk from the baby’s mother..... which I think God would be more pleased with than a dead lamb, at a time when flesh eating did not even exist.

We have been over this before. How did the skin of the lamb that covered Adam and Eve appear? Someone had to kill the lamb. There were only three people there. Adam and Eve had already covered themselves with fig leaves. However, God required a blood sacrifice.

The killing of a lamb in the garden prefigured the sacrifice of Christ, so a 'substitutional offering' preceded Abel. One must be wary of Jewish scholars as they have denied all references in the Bible to Jesus and his sacrifice (note that we share the same OT texts).

You (and others here) really need to counsel with a pastor or two to get this straightened out in your mind. Reinterpreting scripture is a dangerous thing for you to do.

 

[buttercup]

You (and others here) really need to counsel with a pastor or two to get this straightened out in your mind. Reinterpreting scripture is a dangerous thing for you to do.

^ Says the person who not only has zero mercy and love (which are commanded by God) but actually mocks the suffering, cruelty and exploitation.

Modern day animal ag is about as opposite of the fruit of the Spirit as it gets. And if you don't believe that, you are either blissfully unaware of how horrible it actually is, or you just don't care, because you're thinking with your belly.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You (and others here) really need to counsel with a pastor or two to get this straightened out in your mind. Reinterpreting scripture is a dangerous thing for you to do.

You do know there are pastors who actually understand this don't you? Or should "we" look to pastors who agree with you? The fact is, you've never been able to refute the Scriptures given to you, but you choose to ignore them.

Should I look to Catholic "pastors" for revelation? Mormon pastors? JW pastors? I fellowshipped with a Sabbath keeping church in my 20s and have never changed. Do I need to get my mind right by following MEN who teach Sunday?

I follow men who follow Christ as I understand the truth.

Maybe you should stop looking to men until you can actually refute what you've heard in this thread. You never have. You're disingenuous

 

[Woodznutz]

^ Says the person who not only has zero mercy and love (which are commanded by God) but actually mocks the suffering, cruelty and exploitation.

Modern day animal ag is about as opposite of the fruit of the Spirit as it gets. And if you don't believe that, you are either blissfully unaware of how horrible it actually is, or you just don't care, because you're thinking with your belly.

I know how bad it is, but I wouldn't toss the baby out with the wash water.

 

[Woodznutz]

You do know there are pastors who actually understand this don't you? Or should "we" look to pastors who agree with you? The fact is, you've never been able to refute the Scriptures given to you, but you choose to ignore them.

Should I look to Catholic "pastors" for revelation? Mormon pastors? JW pastors? I fellowshipped with a Sabbath keeping church in my 20s and have never changed. Do I need to get my mind right by following MEN who teach Sunday?

I follow men who follow Christ as I understand the truth.

Maybe you should stop looking to men until you can actually refute what you've heard in this thread. You never have. You're disingenuous

Choose your own pastors. Pick a dozen from different denominations, including Catholic scholars. Report back.

I was in a Sabbath keeping church as well. By the end of the day I was exhausted as were many others, especially families with children. The Sabbath is a day of rest (which I keep regularly). Sunday is a great day for church and associated activities. You're well rested, wide awake and ready to receive God's word. Meeting on Sunday doesn't dishonor the Sabbath, it allows the fulfillment of its true meaning.

I refuted Buttercup's argument with a single scripture from the NT. Here's the full discourse, written by a man inspired by God. This is the last Biblical word on the subject. Have your favorite pastor explain it to you.

Romans 14​

​

King James Version​

​

​

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I know how bad it is, but I wouldn't toss the baby out with the wash water.

"What the hell even is that?!"

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I refuted Buttercup's argument with a single scripture from the NT. Here's the full discourse, written by a man inspired by God. This is the last Biblical word on the subject. Have your favorite pastor explain it to you.

Romans 14​

You've refuted nothing.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction -- II Peter 3:17