Veganism and health.

[The Duke]

I didn't say that meat defiles the temple. I said that the passage you brought up wasn't about eating anything we want. The context was eating with unwashed hands and putting man-made traditions above obeying God. As I said in post #129, there were still plenty of food prohibitions after Jesus made that statement. For example, abstaining from consuming the flesh of strangled animals, from blood, and from food offered to idols, as it says in Acts. And Revelation 2:20, which also talks about eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Yes, our bodies are a temple. So why would you want it to be a tomb of abused, exploited animals who literally begged for their life before being brutally slaughtered? Especially when it's completley unnecessary.

What goes along more with the Fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control) - showing love and mercy and honoring God's perfect will which is peace and harmony among all creation.... Or participating in cruelty and abuse, when it is completely unnecessary? That's the part you are ignoring. You are acting as if "meat" is just an object that is completely detached from anything bad. That ignores the reality. In today's world the animal industries are horribly exploitative and cruel... many of the practices are diabolical. When you partake in that, you are supporting that cruelty, which goes against numerous commands and God's statement that animal cruelty is wickedness. (Proverbs 12:10)

Also, flesh eating has a demonic origin. It started with the Nephilim, who had ravenous appetites and started eating animals, people, anything. That's why the earth was filled with violence at that time (before the flood) mainly because of the Nephilim and their violent ways. The Book of Enoch talks about that. Just because God allows bad things to happen in this world doesn't mean it's what He wants from us. He wants MERCY. So if we have the choice, why choose something that was never God's idea or intent for this world in the first place? Again, God's perfect will is clearly stated in the beginning (Genesis 1:29-30) and in the prophetic scriptures about the future, when God restores that initial world of peace and harmony that was His intent in the first place.Slut

As for the many other things you brought up, that's going to have to wait until another time, because I've already spent too much time on this forum today. And as I keep saying, we've been over those things many times before. I'll probably end up copy/pasting some of my previous replies on other threads, in reply to the list of things you brought up tonight, instead of writing them all out again.

Jesus went out on fisherman boats, retard.
Since the fall, meat is life for human beings. It is what it is.

 

[buttercup]

Jesus went out on fisherman boats, retard.

Do you think I haven't read the Bible? I went to a bible school, and in addition to that I've studied the Bible on my own for years. Nothing you said changes my point about God's perfect will, which is NOT needless killing. That has been my main point all along, about God's perfect will as opposed to God's permissive will.

And I'm replying right now, but if your posts are going to devolve into nasty angry personal attacks then I'm not going to continue with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Veganism eschews the natural fertilization of crops using animal manures in favor of chemical fertilizers. These chemicals already have a profound environmental impact, which would be manifold times worse if veganism expands beyond its current numbers.

The Hidden Dangers of Chemical Fertilizers -- Environmental Protection

Because the damage caused by chemical fertilizers is often long-term and cumulative, it may be wiser to consider alternative and sustainable methods of fertilizing the soil.

eponline.com

Yeah, I think full on veganism is weird. You can't have honey because a bee fertilized a flower and then took the honey back with it.

I'm a vegetarian and for me not having dairy products makes sense, especially milk based products as the dairy industry is pretty brutal, but I think it goes too far when it's about no product that has had any animal input whatsoever.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are no proven health benefits from veganism.

There certainly is, especially for the animal.

 

[The Duke]

There certainly is, especially for the animal.

God gave man dominion over the animals.
Again, it didn't have to be that way if the woman didn't listen to the snake.
Now we gotta eat meat. It is what it is.
This is simple Bible stuff.

 

[The Duke]

Oh man, now YOU'RE doing the leap-frog thing!

The bottom line: Animal slaughter is NOT God's perfect will, especially needless animal slaughter!

As I said to The Irish Ram, God's perfect will is stated very clearly in Genesis 1:29-30 and in the prophetic scriptures about God's restoration of that peaceful world that was HIS design and intent for all creation in the first place, for example Isaiah 11:6-9.

Everything in between is this fallen world. However Christians are taught to have an eternal perspective and to honor God's perfect will, as opposed to God's permissive will. ("On earth as it is in Heaven")

So if we have choice between being merciful and honoring God's true intent and perfect will.... versus needlessly participating in the horror show that goes on everyday in the animal industries, why choose the latter? Don't get me wrong. For non-Christians, I don't expect them to honor God's perfect will or do anything other than what the world considers normal. But I'm talking specifically to practicing Christians. We are commanded to be merciful, to do all things in love, to be gentle and peaceful, not violent and exploitative. And to treat others the way we want to be treated. None of those things go along with needlessly participating in the horror show of the animal industries today.

Here's that video of mine that I posted earlier.... again, this is for Christians. I don't expect non-Christians to live by the same standard as Christians.




And while I'm at it, here's another video to watch, from my channel:

No, I am quoting the Bible and how it was, and whatever it is that you're doing is ...something else.
Looks kinda pretzely to me.

 

[buttercup]

God gave man dominion over the animals.

And immediately after God gave us dominion (Gen 1:28) what is the very next verse? In the very next verse, Gen 1:29, God says what our diet is and it was a 100% plantbased diet.

So obviously "dominion" didn't mean "exploit, abuse, enslave and then eat all my beloved animals you want" since in the very next verse God gave us and all creation a plantbased diet.

Also, in the verse immediately before the dominion verse, God said we were created in His image. So dominion goes hand in hand with being image-bearers of God. So it was not a license to do whatever the hell we want, we are to manage and take care of the animals AS image bearers of God, and God's nature is LOVE, MERCY, PEACE.... and again, He gave us a plantbased diet immediately after giving us dominion, so THAT was his intent.

I did a little video on dominion a few years ago, and obviously you haven't been clicking on any of these videos but that's ok, I'll put it here for anyone else who isn't as completely closed off as you are.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I have gone over those things, multiple times. I'm kind of curious to know why you never participated in all those threads before... but now, on a thread about HEALTH you suddenly want to talk about all these topics? Did you simply not click on those threads before? That's kind of surprising to me, since you're a regular in the Religion section, and on the site in general.

Because contrary to what you believe, I am not here as often as you think. And miss quite a few threads. I looked at the page that this thread was on and saw some glaring scriptural contradictions and remarked on those.

If I were an outsider reading these posts, might think @Woodznutz is on our side and the three of us plotted this whole thing as he takes on the role of a foil, or a devils advocate.

But I know the truth. Clearly GOD wants this message to get out here so He uses certain individuals to constantly throw out their "arguments" so they can be addressed again and again.

It is not necessary that we win them over, but that they hear the message. Again, the Sower. After that, what they do with the seed is on them, not me or you

^ That post is the height of arrogance.
On your side? Do we have sides now? And if your message is that Christ didn't eat fish, or follow correct procedure at Passover, or that God said Noah could start eating meat because there were no farms or orchards to sustain them, then as the "sower", you may want to study a little before you disperse your comprehension of the Bible.

Luke 24:42 So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in front of them.
^ It means exactly what it says. Jesus ate fish.

But before that, came the Cain and Abel issue.
God was pleased with Abel's sacrifice of the slaughtered firstborn of the flock, and the fat therein.
The Duke is correct. From the fall, before Noah's time, Carl, flocks provided food. So we know that meat wasn't all of a sudden allowed because Noah needed it. It was allowed long before Noah's menu. They were eating meat about 1,600 years before Noah built a boat.

And butter, Abel's sacrifice of an innocent animal was approved by God.
I did read your posts and responded to what parts I observed that were not scripturally sound, and provided the scripture your opinions differ from. The very first animal that was killed was in the Garden of Eden, by God, whether you approve or not.

 

[buttercup]

But before that, came the Cain and Abel issue.
God was pleased with Abel's sacrifice of the slaughtered firstborn of the flock, and the fat therein.

I know that ^ this post was to Carl, but I'm going to reply to this one.

Nowhere in that passage does it mention killing or that Abel offered a dead lamb to God.

Using common sense, do you really think that a God of love and peace would be pleased by the "gift" of a dead lamb?

Contrary to what you just said, this was long before flesh eating was even supposedly permitted.

So to infer that Abel presented a killed animal would suggest Abel did something contrary to what God instructed. Obviously God wouldn't be pleased by that.

When discussing that passage, first century Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “But Abel brought milk.” In the phrase ‘the firstborn of the fat of his flock’ the word translated "fat" in Hebrew is ֵcheleb, which is identical to the Hebrew word for "milk" ָ(chalab), but with different vowels. Since vowels were not added to the Hebrew alphabet until hundreds of years after Josephus, it is very likely that the original word describing Abel’s gift was milk rather than fat.

If so, then Abel presented to God a firstborn baby lamb nursing milk from the baby’s mother. Which makes much more sense for numerous reasons. Especially since that was long before animal sacrifice was even introduced in the bible, and - as I've said many times before - animal sacrifice was not God's idea, it has pagan origins.

The Duke is correct. From the fall, before Noah's time, Carl, flocks provided food. So we know that meat wasn't all of a sudden allowed because Noah needed it. It was allowed long before Noah's menu. They were eating meat about 1,600 years before Noah built a boat.

Back yourself up. Post the verse where God said "eat animals" before the flood. That is NOT the standard Christian view, even among flesh eaters! You are assuming things simply not stated in the text.

As I said earlier, according to the Book of Enoch, flesh eating has a demonic origin. It was the Nephlim, and their ravenous appetites that started eating animals and anything else they could get their hands on. The Book of Enoch also states that sacrifice has a demonic origin. So why do you think God would want us to needlessly kill the animals HE created and loves, when it wasn't His idea in the first place?

And butter, Abel's sacrifice of an innocent animal was approved by God.
I did read your posts and responded to what parts I observed that were not scripturally sound, and provided the scripture your opinions differ from. The very first animal that was killed was in the Garden of Eden, by God, whether you approve or not.

Again, you are adding to the text. You're reading it through your modern day, meat enthusiast anthroponctric lens.

Nowhere in the text does it say that God killed and skinned a lamb or any animal in Genesis 3.

There are a number of different interpretations for that passage.

But since the text simply does not state the origin of the “skin,” all the interpretations are speculative.

One interpretation of that passage is that it marks the transition of when humans went from immortal to mortal. (Death didn’t come into the world until sin did. In the beginning, God didn't originally create us to die.) And the speculation is that before that point we had a different type of body without the type of skin we have now.

Since the Hebrew word in that passage for skin (ôr) can refer to either human or animal skin, that interpretation, or something along those lines, is possible.

But even if we were to go by the mainstream Christian interpretation that it was an animal skin... what you're forgetting is that God doesn’t do things the same way you and I do. God spoke the world into existence. That is how God creates. God is not some Joe-Schmo down the street, He is God Almighty. So He doesn’t have to butcher an innocent animal to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Again, you're making that assumption because you’re looking at the text through your carnist, flesh-eating lens.

There are other interpretations of that passage too, but for now I'll just say this... the bottom line is that passage simply does not say that God killed anything in the Garden of Eden. And it is very wrong to add to the text. In fact, the Bible specifically says to NOT to do that. (Revelation 22:18)

We can come up with interpretations, of course! But don’t say that that’s what it says, because it simply doesn't. It’s your interpretation.

 

[buttercup]

Because contrary to what you believe, I am not here as often as you think. And miss quite a few threads.

Fair enough, thanks for answering that. I just thought it was a little strange because you're one of the regulars in the Religion section... But I understand that we don't always click on every thread.

 

[Woodznutz]

Do you honestly not remember the last few times we went through this same point? I'll reply again though, for the sake of people reading who may not have read those threads.

When Jesus Himself recalled that incident He makes no mention of fish at all, just loaves. (Matthew 16:8-10) And there are other scriptures too, where Jesus only speaks about the loaves, not fish.

Also, several early Church fathers when writing about that incident made no mention of fish at all, only loaves.

Including:

Arnobius (Against the Heathen 1.46)
Eusibius (Demonstratio Evangelica 3.4)
Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book II)
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata)
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 13)

....and more.

Since Jesus Himself and several early Church sources only mentioned the loaves, not fish, when speaking about that incident, some scholars believe that the earliest manuscripts did not include fish, only loaves, and the mention of fish was a later interpolation. We don't have the very earliest manuscripts of the Bible. But these early Christian writers would have been reading older versions of the manuscripts that are no longer preserved.

Also, another important point that I think many Christians may not be aware of is this... The type of bread used in this miracle was Barley loaves (as you can read about in John 6) and it specifically says in John 6:14 that the people perceived this miracle as a sign about who Jesus was.

But why did they see it as a sign?

Let's read the Miracle of Elisha, from 2 Kings 4:42-44. ( I'm going to bold some parts that I don't want to be missed)

​

Now a man came from Baal-shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley and fresh grain in his sack. And Elisha said, “Give them to the people that they may eat.” 43 But his attendant said, “How am I to serve this to a hundred men?” Nevertheless he said, “Give them to the people that they may eat, for this is what the Lord says: ‘They shall eat and have some left over.’” 44 So he served it to them, and they ate and had some left over, in accordance with the word of the Lord.​

As you can see in the above passage, there are many similarities, so I think this is compelling evidence that Jesus was replicating the miracle of Elisha. And Elisha's miracle was a prophetic foreshadowing of Jesus' multiplication miracle, as a sign of His divinity.

Notice that in the Miracle of Elisha it was only loaves of barley and fresh grain, no fish.

The week of Passover is the Barley Harvest. So since Jesus' miracle of multiplication took place around that time, it makes sense that Jesus miracle was like Elisha's miracle, which was loaves of barley and fresh grain.

Getting back to John 6:14, the people who saw the miracle recognized it as a sign, because they would have known about the miracle of Elisha.

As I said before, if all the fish were eaten and only the fragments of bread remained then only the bread could be addressed. And, even if Jesus didn't eat fish, he fed fish to the multitudes, and helped others catch fish, thus approving it as food.

 

[Woodznutz]

There certainly is, especially for the animal.

Except that if veganism was universal there wouldn't be any domestic food animals except maybe in zoos. Also, no pets if the PETA people had their way. What a sad world that would be.

 

[buttercup]

he fed fish to the multitudes,

thus approving it as food.

I think you misunderstood my post. Either that or you didn't read it. Because I addressed that thoroughly last night, in that lengthy post...the very post you are replying to.

 

[buttercup]

Except that if veganism was universal there wouldn't be any domestic food animals except maybe in zoos. Also, no pets if the PETA people had their way. What a sad world that would be.

Stop lying. You've brought up that claim before and it's been addressed over and over. Domestic farm animals are not going to go away. And pets are not going to go away. Plus, what you said is the exact opposite of the truth since most vegans are against zoos. Would you want to live your life stuck in a cage away from your natural habitat with people staring at you all day and considering you mere entertainment?

As I said the last 10,000 times we had this same discussion, animal sanctuaries are infinitely better than zoos. Animal sanctuaries are where it's at.

 

[Woodznutz]

Stop lying. You've brought up that claim before and it's been addressed over and over. Domestic farm animals are not going to go away. And pets are not going to go away. Plus, what you said is the exact opposite of the truth since most vegans are against zoos. Would you want to live your life stuck in a cage away from your natural habitat with people staring at you all day and considering you mere entertainment?

As I said the last 10,000 times we had this same discussion, animal sanctuaries are infinitely better than zoos. Animal sanctuaries are where it's at.

What is the natural habitat of cows, pigs, sheep, and the other animals we raise for food and who's going to provide it? Eventually zoos would be the only place to see these animals.

 

[buttercup]

What is the natural habitat of cows, pigs, sheep, etc.

Certainly not in a factory farm, where they're caged, living on a concrete floor, with no sunlight, no ability to run or play or enjoy life the way they were meant to by our Creator.

This is not natural:

They were meant to be outdoors, on the grass and dirt, in the sunshine.

Look at how happy animals are when they're freed from captivity and when they're treated with the love, care and dignity that they should be treated with:

 

[The Irish Ram]

I know that ^ this post was to Carl, but I'm going to reply to this one.

Nowhere in that passage does it mention killing or that Abel offered a dead lamb to God.

Using common sense, do you really think that a God of love and peace would be pleased by the "gift" of a dead lamb?

Contrary to what you just said, this was long before flesh eating was even supposedly permitted.

So to infer that Abel presented a killed animal would suggest Abel did something contrary to what God instructed. Obviously God wouldn't be pleased by that.

When discussing that passage, first century Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “But Abel brought milk.” In the phrase ‘the firstborn of the fat of his flock’ the word translated "fat" in Hebrew is ֵcheleb, which is identical to the Hebrew word for "milk" ָ(chalab), but with different vowels. Since vowels were not added to the Hebrew alphabet until hundreds of years after Josephus, it is very likely that the original word describing Abel’s gift was milk rather than fat.

If so, then Abel presented to God a firstborn baby lamb nursing milk from the baby’s mother. Which makes much more sense for numerous reasons. Especially since that was long before animal sacrifice was even introduced in the bible, and - as I've said many times before - animal sacrifice was not God's idea, it has pagan origins.




Back yourself up. Post the verse where God said "eat animals" before the flood. That is NOT the standard Christian view, even among flesh eaters! You are assuming things simply not stated in the text.

As I said earlier, according to the Book of Enoch, flesh eating has a demonic origin. It was the Nephlim, and their ravenous appetites that started eating animals and anything else they could get their hands on. The Book of Enoch also states that sacrifice has a demonic origin. So why do you think God would want us to needlessly kill the animals HE created and loves, when it wasn't His idea in the first place?




Again, you are adding to the text. You're reading it through your modern day, meat enthusiast anthroponctric lens.

Nowhere in the text does it say that God killed and skinned a lamb or any animal in Genesis 3.

There are a number of different interpretations for that passage.

But since the text simply does not state the origin of the “skin,” all the interpretations are speculative.

One interpretation of that passage is that it marks the transition of when humans went from immortal to mortal. (Death didn’t come into the world until sin did. In the beginning, God didn't originally create us to die.) And the speculation is that before that point we had a different type of body without the type of skin we have now.

Since the Hebrew word in that passage for skin (ôr) can refer to either human or animal skin, that interpretation, or something along those lines, is possible.

But even if we were to go by the mainstream Christian interpretation that it was an animal skin... what you're forgetting is that God doesn’t do things the same way you and I do. God spoke the world into existence. That is how God creates. God is not some Joe-Schmo down the street, He is God Almighty. So He doesn’t have to butcher an innocent animal to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Again, you're making that assumption because you’re looking at the text through your carnist, flesh-eating lens.

There are other interpretations of that passage too, but for now I'll just say this... the bottom line is that passage simply does not say that God killed anything in the Garden of Eden. And it is very wrong to add to the text. In fact, the Bible specifically says to NOT to do that. (Revelation 22:18)

We can come up with interpretations, of course! But don’t say that that’s what it says, because it simply doesn't. It’s your interpretation.

There is no reason to interpret and speculate. Christ didn't speak with an interpreter. He just said, "Listen and understand".

God instructed Abram to bring several animals: a heifer, a female goat, a ram (all three years old), a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
^
Then, according to God's instruction, Abraham split the animals in two parts and tore the birds apart by the wings, and the two of them walked among the parts.

God killed the first animal on earth to cover Adam's and Eve's nakedness with skin. Whose skin did God cover Adam and Eve with if not an animal?

Flocks~ a group of animals (such as birds or sheep) assembled or herded together.
Why did man have flocks? To eat and sell, so others could eat. Abel had flocks and used a firstborn to kill and sacrifice to God.
Man was tending his flocks by night when Christ was born.

Exodus 29: 18 And burn the whole ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord. It is a pleasing aroma, a food offering to the Lord.

Lev.3:16 And the priest shall burn them (dead animals) on the altar as a food offering with a pleasing aroma. All fat is the Lord's.
^
Not because God enjoyed the smell of a good barbecue, but because He was pleased with the act of man surrendering a possession of his as an offering to their Lord. Just as He was pleased by the aroma of Christ on the cross:

Ephesians 5:2
and walk in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant sacrificial offering to God.

2 Cor.2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.

^ All sanctioned by God, and none of it relates to a personal choice to be a vegan. God gave us everything that moves to eat. What we do with that is our choice.

 

[buttercup]

There is no reason to interpret and speculate. Christ didn't speak with an interpreter. He just said, "Listen and understand".

God instructed Abram to bring several animals: a heifer, a female goat, a ram (all three years old), a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
^
Then, according to God's instruction, Abraham split the animals in two parts and tore the birds apart by the wings, and the two of them walked among the parts.

God killed the first animal on earth to cover Adam's and Eve's nakedness with skin. Whose skin did God cover Adam and Eve with if not an animal?

Flocks~ a group of animals (such as birds or sheep) assembled or herded together.
Why did man have flocks? To eat and sell, so others could eat. Abel had flocks and used a firstborn to kill and sacrifice to God.
Man was tending his flocks by night when Christ was born.

Exodus 29: 18 And burn the whole ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord. It is a pleasing aroma, a food offering to the Lord.

Lev.3:16 And the priest shall burn them (dead animals) on the altar as a food offering with a pleasing aroma. All fat is the Lord's.
^
Not because God enjoyed the smell of a good barbecue, but because He was pleased with the act of man surrendering a possession of his as an offering to their Lord. Just as He was pleased by the aroma of Christ on the cross:

Ephesians 5:2
and walk in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant sacrificial offering to God.

2 Cor.2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.

^ All sanctioned by God, and none of it relates to a personal choice to be a vegan. God gave us everything that moves to eat. What we do with that is our choice.

You're doing the same thing again. You're completely ignoring everything I post, not answering straightforward questions, and you keep leap-frogging to other points.

If I take the time to write out detailed replies to you and you completely ignore them... why should you expect me to continually write more posts in response to new objections you're jumping to?

One step at a time. Back and forth. That is how civil debate works. It's not ignore everything that is said and never address anything, while continually leap-frogging to other issues and expecting me to chase all the balls you're throwing out. Debate is a 2-way street. Address the things I brought up, finish one topic and THEN we move to other things.

 

[Woodznutz]

You're doing the same thing again. You're completely ignoring everything I post, not answering straightforward questions, and you keep leap-frogging to other points.

If I take the time to write out detailed replies to you and you completely ignore them... why should you expect me to continually write more posts in response to new objections you're jumping to?

One step at a time. Back and forth. That is how civil debate works. It's not ignore everything that is said and never address anything, while continually leap-frogging to other issues and expecting me to chase all the balls you're throwing out. Debate is a 2-way street. Address the things I brought up, finish one topic and THEN we move to other things.

She was offering some of the overwhelming evidence that opposes your point of view.

 

[buttercup]

She was offering some of the overwhelming evidence that opposes your point of view.

No she wasn't. She was rapid-fire shooting out OTHER topics while ignoring nearly everything I said in my previous posts that I took the time to write out.

You guys rarely address anything.

For example, here's a question for you:

When you have the choice between mercy or violence.... in light of the fact that God repeatedly commands us throughout the Bible to choose MERCY, and when we know what God's ideal is (as stated in Genesis 1:29 and the prophetic scriptures about the Peaceable Kingdom) why choose needless violence? Please answer that question. I know what the answer will be from non-Christians. But I'm not asking them, I'm asking you and TIR. Why choose needless killing and violence over mercy, when God wants us to choose mercy and honor His true intent for all creation?