Vegan

[Ilovegod888]

This is cherry picking, where you are picking out facts that you think imply eating meat is a sin, but you ignore the fact that God directly gave us meat to eat and gave us commands to eat meat, so it can't be a sin, but you claim that I'm making excuses. Sin is disobedience to God so refusing to obey God's command to eat meat is what would be a sin. Even during the Millennium when animals will be living in peace with each other, we will be continuing to make offerings, some of which will involve obeying God's command to eat meat.

God may have given you companions but he never said that you were disobeying if you were vegan. Like I was trying to say, what's your excuse besides religion (which isn't even strong)? Nothing. Also, you responded to one part, read the rest. He didn't command you to eat meat, or that would be commanding that we get heart disease. Reread my response and get back to me...oh wait, you have no response because it's a bunch of excuses. Never mind.

 

[Brookelowe454]

This is cherry picking, where you are picking out facts that you think imply eating meat is a sin, but you ignore the fact that God directly gave us meat to eat and gave us commands to eat meat, so it can't be a sin, but you claim that I'm making excuses. Sin is disobedience to God so refusing to obey God's command to eat meat is what would be a sin. Even during the Millennium when animals will be living in peace with each other, we will be continuing to make offerings, some of which will involve obeying God's command to eat meat.

That whole paragraph was your belief. Not facts. You wouldn't be saying any of this if you had to murder a cow/pig yourself, cut up it's body, and fry it in your kitchen. In fact, I'd say you would be psychologically traumatized. How do you think your argument would do for an atheist? Everything you say doesn't make sense, once again, not facts. I don't even understand why you continue to reply with non factual evidence?

 

[Soyeong]

I didn't think the Garden of Eden was factual, I was trying to relate to you because YOU believe in the Bible. Scientific evidence IS factual, if you don't believe in science, than I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. You are calling your personal religious beliefs factual, while I am using evidence that has already been proved. The fact is, God created animals to feel pain, and why would he do that if we were meant to eat them? Why did he create us to have compassion and care for animals if we eat them? Also, you don't even need to eat meat, the truth is, you just wouldn't want to be bothered to check ingredients. Go ahead and continue to be part of a mass murder, and go ahead and continue to care more about people than animals, because your God says so..... Also, I don't even believe in half of the things you say. Why? Because they aren't facts. They are beliefs. Thanks for reading this comment, but I don't think there is anything left to say. If you want to continue eating other animals, purely for your own benefit, fine, but just saying, your religion will never justify those actions.

I didn't saying anything about not believing in science. Scientific evidence, like other forms of evidence, is interpreted by us to support beliefs that we think are factual. We hold the beliefs we do because we think they are factual and no one holds beliefs that they think aren't factual. You have not shown any scientific evidence that it is wrong to eat animals, and in fact attempting to do would be a flagrant misuse of science because science cannot tell us whether anything is right or wrong. It can tell us whether or not it is healthy to eat meat, but it can't tell us whether it is right or wrong to be healthy. It can't tell us that it's wrong to cause animals to feel pain or that it is right to have compassion for them. That's just an emotional appeal. Science can't tell us whether it is wrong to eat something we don't need to eat, whether it is wrong to mass murder, or whether it is wrong to care more about people than animals. Those are all beliefs.

 

[Soyeong]

God may have given you companions but he never said that you were disobeying if you were vegan. Like I was trying to say, what's your excuse besides religion (which isn't even strong)? Nothing. Also, you responded to one part, read the rest. He didn't command you to eat meat, or that would be commanding that we get heart disease. Reread my response and get back to me...oh wait, you have no response because it's a bunch of excuses. Never mind.

You linked me to a blog that was making a religious argument, so I made a religious counter argument, then you accuse me of making excuses. Was I supposed to respond to your religious argument with a non-religious argument? Apparently your statement about quail isn't making an excuse, but everything I say can be dismissed as making excuses even before I've made a response...

Exodus 12:46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it.

See, this is God commanding the whole community of Israel to get heart disease... /facepalm

 

[Soyeong]

That whole paragraph was your belief. Not facts. You wouldn't be saying any of this if you had to murder a cow/pig yourself, cut up it's body, and fry it in your kitchen. In fact, I'd say you would be psychologically traumatized. How do you think your argument would do for an atheist? Everything you say doesn't make sense, once again, not facts. I don't even understand why you continue to reply with non factual evidence?

If everything I say gets dismissed as non-factual evidence, then it a bit hard to not replay with non factual evidence, in spite of the fact that there is no such thing as factual or non-factual evidence.

 

[Ilovegod888]

You linked me to a blog that was making a religious argument, so I made a religious counter argument, then you accuse me of making excuses. Was I supposed to respond to your religious argument with a non-religious argument? Apparently your statement about quail isn't making an excuse, but everything I say can be dismissed as making excuses even before I've made a response...

Exodus 12:46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it.

See, this is God commanding the whole community of Israel to get heart disease... /facepalm

Okay, that's what you interpreted as. Okay, let me hear your non-religion argument. Plus, he wasn't directly commanding them to eat meat. Only that they already killed it so it mustn't be wasted. You are avoiding my question yet again, What is your non-religious argument?

 

[Brookelowe454]

I didn't saying anything about not believing in science. Scientific evidence, like other forms of evidence, is interpreted by us to support beliefs that we think are factual. We hold the beliefs we do because we think they are factual and no one holds beliefs that they think aren't factual. You have not shown any scientific evidence that it is wrong to eat animals, and in fact attempting to do would be a flagrant misuse of science because science cannot tell us whether anything is right or wrong. It can tell us whether or not it is healthy to eat meat, but it can't tell us whether it is right or wrong to be healthy. It can't tell us that it's wrong to cause animals to feel pain or that it is right to have compassion for them. That's just an emotional appeal. Science can't tell us whether it is wrong to eat something we don't need to eat, whether it is wrong to mass murder, or whether it is wrong to care more about people than animals. Those are all beliefs.

Facts are facts. Scientific facts are facts. Does this mean that you think gravity is a belief? Does this mean that you think space is a belief? The sky is a belief? You sound absurd. "You have not shown any scientific evidence that it is wrong to eat animals" Yes, I have... What is your definition of "wrong?" By wrong, I meant that it is unhealthy and can even lead to death. That is wrong, unless of course you believe that dying is right. You might as well eat meat, because all of your points are about religion. *sigh* Yes, it is an emotional appeal, and so you're basically saying it's okay not to feel bad for murdering something that WANTED to life. Turning a blind eye much? Science isn't really a belief if the theory/evidence has been proven...... Where do you come from lol

 

[Soyeong]

Facts are facts. Scientific facts are facts. Does this mean that you think gravity is a belief? Does this mean that you think space is a belief? The sky is a belief? You sound absurd. "You have not shown any scientific evidence that it is wrong to eat animals" Yes, I have... What is your definition of "wrong?" By wrong, I meant that it is unhealthy and can even lead to death. That is wrong, unless of course you believe that dying is right. You might as well eat meat, because all of your points are about religion. *sigh* Yes, it is an emotional appeal, and so you're basically saying it's okay not to feel bad for murdering something that WANTED to life. Turning a blind eye much? Science isn't really a belief if the theory/evidence has been proven...... Where do you come from lol

Things are interpreted to be factual, but just because you think something is factual doesn't make it so. The goal of scientist it to disprove their hypotheses and ones that resist being disproved eventually become accepted, but just as Newtonian physics was eventually replaced by General Relativity, things that we once believed to be factual can turn out to be false. So a belief that you are extremely confident is factual is still a belief.

Please quote where you provided any scientific evidence that it is wrong to eat meat. By "wrong" I mean morally wrong, where it is something someone ought not to do. You have not provided any scientific evidence that people ought not be unhealthy or do things that lead to death. Regardless of whether or not I think dying is wrong, if you make a scientific claim that it is, then you need to back it up. Murder is unlawful killing and it is not unlawful to kill animals certain animals for food. In any case, regardless of whether I think it is wrong, science isn't in the business of ethics.

 

[Soyeong]

Okay, that's what you interpreted as. Okay, let me hear your non-religion argument. Plus, he wasn't directly commanding them to eat meat. Only that they already killed it so it mustn't be wasted. You are avoiding my question yet again, What is your non-religious argument?

It is abundantly clear that they were commanded to eat meat:

Exodus 12:1-11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 “This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb[a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and internal organs. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover.

Morality is based on God, so to put it more accurately, any argument for or against the morality of eating animals for food is inherently religious. Otherwise, you end up with statement like if you prefer a healthy diet, then you should eat certain things, but without being able to establish whether it is right or wrong to prefer a healthy diet.

 

[Ilovegod888]

It is abundantly clear that they were commanded to eat meat:

Exodus 12:1-11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 “This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb[a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and internal organs. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover.

Morality is based on God, so to put it more accurately, any argument for or against the morality of eating animals for food is inherently religious. Otherwise, you end up with statement like if you prefer a healthy diet, then you should eat certain things, but without being able to establish whether it is right or wrong to prefer a healthy diet.

Again, you have NO argument besides your religion. I am vegan for a number of reasons besides religion. This further proves that you have nothing against me. Take your head out of the Bible, and face harsh reality. My grandad died from eating meat, I am not about to bend over so some religious person can say that he had a right to slit animal's throats. Thanks for your unconvincing comment. Byeeee!!!

 

[Brookelowe454]

Things are interpreted to be factual, but just because you think something is factual doesn't make it so. The goal of scientist it to disprove their hypotheses and ones that resist being disproved eventually become accepted, but just as Newtonian physics was eventually replaced by General Relativity, things that we once believed to be factual can turn out to be false. So a belief that you are extremely confident is factual is still a belief.

Please quote where you provided any scientific evidence that it is wrong to eat meat. By "wrong" I mean morally wrong, where it is something someone ought not to do. You have not provided any scientific evidence that people ought not be unhealthy or do things that lead to death. Regardless of whether or not I think dying is wrong, if you make a scientific claim that it is, then you need to back it up. Murder is unlawful killing and it is not unlawful to kill animals certain animals for food. In any case, regardless of whether I think it is wrong, science isn't in the business of ethics.

Are you seriously comparing scientific evidence to religion? If so, your religion is more like a fairy tale than a fact. There is NOTHING to back up your claim, at least scientists have evidence and proof. Evidence and proof is not something to "believe." Once again, in The China Study, there is scientific proof that meat can cause cancer, heart disease, and high cholesterol. This is a scientific fact. What is not a fact is "God gave us animals to eat." That has no evidence, (bible doesn't count, as the bible doesn't have evidence either) and there is no proof. People believe it because the bible was written to explain some of the unknown. (How we came upon this earth)

 

[Soyeong]

Again, you have NO argument besides your religion. I am vegan for a number of reasons besides religion. This further proves that you have nothing against me. Take your head out of the Bible, and face harsh reality. My grandad died from eating meat, I am not about to bend over so some religious person can say that he had a right to slit animal's throats. Thanks for your unconvincing comment. Byeeee!!!

Though you have given reasons for why you are a vegan, you have not given a single non-religious argument for why eating animals is wrong. In the area of religious argument I have demonstrated that God commanded his people to eat meat and it would have been a sin to ignore that command, so you have no religious grounds to say that it is wrong either. So as a matter of personal preference of you are free to choose not to eat animals, but that's not because it's wrong.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you seriously comparing scientific evidence to religion? If so, your religion is more like a fairy tale than a fact. There is NOTHING to back up your claim, at least scientists have evidence and proof. Evidence and proof is not something to "believe." Once again, in The China Study, there is scientific proof that meat can cause cancer, heart disease, and high cholesterol. This is a scientific fact. What is not a fact is "God gave us animals to eat." That has no evidence, (bible doesn't count, as the bible doesn't have evidence either) and there is no proof. People believe it because the bible was written to explain some of the unknown. (How we came upon this earth)

In other words, there no evidence except all the evidence that you conveniently ignore. If there was no evidence for Christianity, then there wouldn't be anyone who believed that it was true. Beliefs at minimum require evidence to be formed, otherwise they wouldn't be. Just because historical evidence is not scientific evidence doesn't mean that it is not evidence. All evidence needs to be interpreted, so what people think it indicates is inherently something that is believed to be true. Scientific proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is another way of saying that there large amount of evidence that is interpreted to support it, which again is a belief. There is indeed scientific evidence that meat can cause cancer, heart disease, and high cholesterol, but there is no scientific evidence that any of those things are wrong.

 

[Ilovegod888]

You can go ahead and eat your dead beings. I choose to opt out of the dead creatures. My moral beliefs say that splitting an animal's throat and hear their screams is wrong. If you had a heart, you would understand. You have no religious grounds either. Did you not read Page 1 of the Bible? For the last time, where is your non-religious argument? You couldn't even respond because you have none. This forum, from now on, is to be only LOGICAL and FACTUAL. Thank you for your weak justification of murder. Like I said, Bye!

 

[Brookelowe454]

In other words, there no evidence except all the evidence that you conveniently ignore. If there was no evidence for Christianity, then there wouldn't be anyone who believed that it was true. Beliefs at minimum require evidence to be formed, otherwise they wouldn't be. Just because historical evidence is not scientific evidence doesn't mean that it is not evidence. All evidence needs to be interpreted, so what people think it indicates is inherently something that is believed to be true. Scientific proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is another way of saying that there large amount of evidence that is interpreted to support it, which again is a belief. There is indeed scientific evidence that meat can cause cancer, heart disease, and high cholesterol, but there is no scientific evidence that any of those things are wrong.

You are incorrect. The reason that Christianity exists is because of Jesus and the bible. The bible has not been proven to be God's word, yet people follow it because they need something that will tell them how to live. No disrespect here, as I respect people who read the bible, but if they are people like you who use God's word as an excuse to kill animals... no point. Historical evidence? It's not even evidence. The bible is a book, written by someone, but it is not fact.

 

[Soyeong]

You can go ahead and eat your dead beings. I choose to opt out of the dead creatures. My moral beliefs say that splitting an animal's throat and hear their screams is wrong. If you had a heart, you would understand. You have no religious grounds either. Did you not read Page 1 of the Bible? For the last time, where is your non-religious argument? You couldn't even respond because you have none. This forum, from now on, is to be only LOGICAL and FACTUAL. Thank you for your weak justification of murder. Like I said, Bye!

As I pointed out, the Jews took special care to make sure that the animals didn't suffer, there was no cutting the animal's throat and hearing their screams. I have quoted where God commanded them to eat the Passover lamb, so like it or not, there is religious grounds for eating meat. For some reason I can't fathom you would prefer your own inference of Genesis 1 over what God directly commanded, which is reading your view into the text rather than letting the text inform your view.

If we talking about non-religious arguments, then we're not speaking about right and wrong, but about preferences. You prefer to to end up like your grandad, so you choose not to eat meat. I prefer to eat meat because it is tasty and I prefer not to bother checking ingredients at potlucks, so I choose to eat meat one meal a week. It's like you're asking me to make a logical and factual argument that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, so I don't really see the point.

 

[Soyeong]

You are incorrect. The reason that Christianity exists is because of Jesus and the bible. The bible has not been proven to be God's word, yet people follow it because they need something that will tell them how to live. No disrespect here, as I respect people who read the bible, but if they are people like you who use God's word as an excuse to kill animals... no point. Historical evidence? It's not even evidence. The bible is a book, written by someone, but it is not fact.

Evidence is information that indicates to someone that something is true. The Bible indicates to people that it is true that certain events happened in history, so it is evidence for that by definition. The testimonial evidence of the Gospels indicates to me that Jesus rose the dead, so they are evidence of that. It has been sufficiently proved to my satisfaction that the Bible is God's word. The Bible should be followed because it is true, not because it contains a code of conduct. It should be news to historians that historical evidence is not evidence, you should tell them, I'm sure they would be excited to find out that their career isn't based on evidence and that they are free to now make stuff up. The Bible is many books written by many authors, but that says nothing about whether its contents are factual.

 

[Ilovegod888]

As I pointed out, the Jews took special care to make sure that the animals didn't suffer, there was no cutting the animal's throat and hearing their screams. I have quoted where God commanded them to eat the Passover lamb, so like it or not, there is religious grounds for eating meat. For some reason I can't fathom you would prefer your own inference of Genesis 1 over what God directly commanded, which is reading your view into the text rather than letting the text inform your view.

If we talking about non-religious arguments, then we're not speaking about right and wrong, but about preferences. You prefer to to end up like your grandad, so you choose not to eat meat. I prefer to eat meat because it is tasty and I prefer not to bother checking ingredients at potlucks, so I choose to eat meat one meal a week. It's like you're asking me to make a logical and factual argument that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, so I don't really see the point.

I ignored the beginning because it isn't factual. Tasty is matter of opinion, you know that it's bad for your health. Do you eat raw meat? Probably not. Your body can't handle it and you crave the sauces and spice. Here is a fact, try meat without sauce, seasoning, and salt, tell me how good it tastes. It probably doesn't taste good because you like how it's cooked. You are lazy to check packages if I am correct, but I don't see how it's fact or logical. I am asking, why you eat something that you don't need and in fact it damages your health. Read the china study, watch 101 reasons to go vegan, or look up something about it. Instead of repeating the same religious babble over and over. Here is my proof, https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/why-go-vegan. Instead of being defensive, you should take a look at the benefits. Maybe you can share awareness at the potluck or bring your own food. Potlucks are an event where you bring food, so maybe you can eat your own or trick them with one of the awesome meatless substitutes that taste real.

 

[Brookelowe454]

Evidence is information that indicates to someone that something is true. The Bible indicates to people that it is true that certain events happened in history, so it is evidence for that by definition. The testimonial evidence of the Gospels indicates to me that Jesus rose the dead, so they are evidence of that. It has been sufficiently proved to my satisfaction that the Bible is God's word. The Bible should be followed because it is true, not because it contains a code of conduct. It should be news to historians that historical evidence is not evidence, you should tell them, I'm sure they would be excited to find out that their career isn't based on evidence and that they are free to now make stuff up. The Bible is many books written by many authors, but that says nothing about whether its contents are factual.

The reason the bible is not evidence is because there is no proof of the stories in the bible. That's like saying "I believe in Jack and the Beanstalk because there is evidence of his existence in this book." According to what you're saying, the Quran is real, the Book of Mormonism is real, etc. That's been proven to YOU, not evidence, or facts. Once AGAIN, you fail to prove why you eat meat. I am still astonished as to why you still feebly try to reply, even though you know I don't agree with your religious beliefs. The bible is not true, it is only according to religious people. Now you're basically saying "everything is evidence, everything is a fact, as long as you just believe." I'm sorry, but that's something children say in fairy tales.

 

[Soyeong]

I ignored the beginning because it isn't factual. Tasty is matter of opinion, you know that it's bad for your health. Do you eat raw meat? Probably not. Your body can't handle it and you crave the sauces and spice. Here is a fact, try meat without sauce, seasoning, and salt, tell me how good it tastes. It probably doesn't taste good because you like how it's cooked. You are lazy to check packages if I am correct, but I don't see how it's fact or logical. I am asking, why you eat something that you don't need and in fact it damages your health. Read the china study, watch 101 reasons to go vegan, or look up something about it. Instead of repeating the same religious babble over and over. Here is my proof, https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/why-go-vegan. Instead of being defensive, you should take a look at the benefits. Maybe you can share awareness at the potluck or bring your own food. Potlucks are an event where you bring food, so maybe you can eat your own or trick them with one of the awesome meatless substitutes that taste real.

I can cite Jewish literature that talks about the care that was taken with offerings, but I suppose that would just be making more excuses. As I stated, when we're talking about non-religious arguments, it's just a matter of preferences or opinions, not about right or wrong. There aren't packages to check at potlucks, people don't list the ingredients, and I wouldn't know who brought the dish to ask. It can be your preference not to eat something that damages your health, but again, that doesn't mean doing so is wrong. Again, I've already read the China study and looked at reasons to go vegan, I was one for a number of years. I would think that because you identify as a Baptist that you would have more respect for the Bible. Again, I know there are benefits to eating a vegan diet, but whether someone should is a matter of preference or opinion. I usually cut up a pineapple and bring that.