It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

Wine in itself is not quite the issue that animal flesh and products are. It is the case that having alcoholic wine often will still have bad effects to health and to well-being, not with as many probable effects, though. It is not with as much demand and not necessarily animal suffering for it and not so much demand for land and resources for it. It is well to give up wine and any alcoholic drinks generally. I did that decades ago before other meaningful changes I came to. It is much better for us to give up meat from animals and other products from them. Those are not better for our health and well-being, our demand for them has animals kept in bad conditions with all their suffering that ends just with slaughter, and has great demand on land and resources and is really damaging to this world.

Animals do not produce food. They must eat food. Plants produce food, when there is sunlight, water and minerals where they are, just taking in carbon dioxide. Animals, including us, need the plants growing for us to have food. Animals indicate pain to them, as we would. Plants do not indicate awareness to pain, pain would not serve any purpose to them, if they had awareness they could do nothing to escape. Animals could, but humans take animals and keep them in captivity and they cannot escape from their slaughter anytime in their whole lives. There is something very wrong with that. Genesis 1:29-30 shows the design from God that is according to God's perfect will. As it is in heaven, I really mean it when I say, Your will on earth as it is in heaven.

As it was shown no animals were killing another and the original humans did not. It was shown that the killing came afterward, with sins that were happening, rebellion of self against God. We can learn that eating all we have from whole food available from plants is really healthiest for us. So it was Daniel and his friends in the Bible did well with that. There is this shown from the first chapter of Daniel, verses 8 to 20.

Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s delicacies, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into the favor and goodwill of the chief of the eunuchs. And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who has appointed your food and drink. For why should he see your faces looking worse than the young men who are your age? Then you would endanger my head before the king.”

So Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, “Please test your servants for ten days, and let them give us vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then let our appearance be examined before you, and the appearance of the young men who eat the portion of the king’s delicacies; and as you see fit, so deal with your servants.” So he consented with them in this matter, and tested them ten days.

And at the end of ten days their features appeared better and fatter in flesh than all the young men who ate the portion of the king’s delicacies. Thus the steward took away their portion of delicacies and the wine that they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

As for these four young men, God gave them knowledge and skill in all literature and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

Now at the end of the days, when the king had said that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. Then the king interviewed them, and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore they served before the king; and in all matters of wisdom and understanding about which the king examined them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers who were in all his realm.

There are such issues to our world, and to ourselves, besides the animal abuse we inconsistently have continuing, with the demand for what is available with animal agriculture. I see selective passages used ignorant of context or the history of those to argue counter to the design from God showing God's will to start with, but these things should not be ignored. God knows that.



30 separate food items from just plants each week.

Here is one of many many reasons that still having demand for anything from animal agriculture is bad. There is much more likely spread and outbreak of viral pathogens from all animals in animal agriculture kept together with the use of the animals.

Early monotheism might be known of, but what was the earliest would not be known to history. The first people made knew of God, and originally spoke with God, and there is only the one real God. So as they knew that, with speaking with God, they would be the earliest monotheists. That didn't last though. Generations came after them not having ever spoken with God, and there was belief then that anything might be god. So such needing to be appeased, as they saw it, they might do anything but needed to make sacrifices to what gods there were, to appease them. This became more universal practice then. But it was not the way to God or to be pleasing God.

God is good, God is righteous, God is fair, God is love, grace, and mercy. As this is all true, should I think that God made creatures which live and feel anything, to be used, and to suffer and be slaughtered, with no chance to escape all their whole lives? No, I can't think that at all. That conflicts with what I understand of God. Death has come to this world with spreading curse with rebellion against God, but it is not that we should still contribute to that. It is better if we stop from that and avoid contributing to that, along with stopping and avoiding contribution to any and all destructive things to this world and any of its natural environments. We could be growing the food we need, it would be most sustainable.

I really get the idea that sacrifices of animals was the idea of humans, that their god, or gods, would be appeased. There is also Hosea 6:6, God is telling those who would hear him, "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

There is Proverbs 12:10. With horrible treatment of animals which there is, which can be found out with looking into it, even online for those never going to where animals are kept together to be used, how can this verse about the righteous one and the wicked be applied with our choices? Our own choices are part of the demand that continues this. We are not really for ending violence or real fairness if we have animals cheated to have things from them.

God is love and God's mercy is great. I don't see from the Bible that God does not care for the animals, which are all created for this world as we are. Our stewardship which is shown to start with is supposed to be with caring for animals in God's place, that is the way we would have the image of God. I know great meals to have without animal products that I could tell anyone and there is no sense of any sacrifice.

FredVB said:

God is love and God's mercy is great. I don't see from the Bible that God does not care for the animals, which are all created for this world as we are. Our stewardship which is shown to start with is supposed to be with caring for animals in God's place, that is the way we would have the image of God. I know great meals to have without animal products that I could tell anyone and there is no sense of any sacrifice.

Click to expand...

The Old Testament literally required animal sacrifices.

God sacrificed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall.

trophy33 said:

The Old Testament literally required animal sacrifices.

Click to expand...

Note that the Old Testament sacrifices were of "clean" animals, which God cared the most about, not the "unclean" animals which were to be rejected.

FredVB said:

God is love and God's mercy is great. I don't see from the Bible that God does not care for the animals, which are all created for this world as we are. Our stewardship which is shown to start with is supposed to be with caring for animals in God's place, that is the way we would have the image of God. I know great meals to have without animal products that I could tell anyone and there is no sense of any sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Given your position I expect you apply the same to your clothes and everything made with animal products as well? Or is it only relegated to food which brings your proselytizing into question.

~bella

bèlla said:

Given your position I expect you apply the same to your clothes and everything made with animal products as well? Or is it only relegated to food which brings your proselytizing into question.

~bella

Click to expand...

That is an interesting avenue to explore. We know that all petrochemicals as well as coal, were once living beings, both plants and animals. However, uranium was not. Therefore, are we morally bound to promote the use of radioactive materials rather than coal and petrochemicals?

When we kill something to eat it, we should recognize that a sacrifice has been made and be grateful.

bbbbbbb said:

Note that the Old Testament sacrifices were of "clean" animals, which God cared the most about, not the "unclean" animals which were to be rejected.

Click to expand...

That statement is really applicable only to Israel and only with respect to food production. There is nothing to suggest that cats or dogs or other animals forbidden to the Jews as food sources are not the recipients of divine love; indeed in Orthodox monasteries, one will usually find as many cats as can be reasonably or legally accommodated as they keep out the mice and are much loved by the monks and nuns; several monasteries also bread dogs, such as the German shepherds bread by New Skete Monastery. If I recall they also had kennels at St. Anthony’s in Florence, Arizona. Mount Athos is a veritable earthly paradise for cats.

It should also be noted that before animals were grouped into clean and unclean categories with regards to the Hebrew population, under Moses, in the Exodus from Egypt, great pains are recorded to have been made to ensure that two of each kind of animal was preserved.

Finally, and most importantly, Christ our True God rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, and the Holy Apostle Peter had a dream which indicated that all foods are now clean and available for consumption, a position that was confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem, which determined that only food offered to idols, things strangled, and blood (presumably the drinking thereof, which is linked to paraphilias) were to be regarded as unclean.

bbbbbbb said:

That is an interesting avenue to explore. We know that all petrochemicals as well as coal, were once living beings, both plants and animals. However, uranium was not. Therefore, are we morally bound to promote the use of radioactive materials rather than coal and petrochemicals?

Click to expand...

See what happens when you take a position without proper deduction? You run into landmines like yours that reveal the folly of extremes. If a diet works for you and you want to share your experiences that’s fine. But when you apply the same en masse and bring the bible into the argument it rarely goes well. As you’ve shown.

~bella

trophy33 said:

The Old Testament literally required animal sacrifices.

Click to expand...

That did not have anything to do with points I bring into discussion. What about my points?

prodromos said:

God sacrificed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall.

Click to expand...

I call for claims to have clear scriptures available for basis.

bèlla said:

Given your position I expect you apply the same to your clothes and everything made with animal products as well? Or is it only relegated to food which brings your proselytizing into question.

~bella

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that. Other sources can be used other than depending on having animals used. With qualification that it is done as far as reasonably possible. At times maybe it isn't.
.................................................................

Sacrifices were not because God doesn't care at all for animals. Quite the opposite. It became a real problem and stumbling block, because those doing the sacrifices didn't care for the animals. And God literally despised that.

FredVB said:

That did not have anything to do with points I bring into discussion. What about my points?

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you think that my reply had nothing to do with your points. God in the Old Testament gave Israel instructions to kill a lot of animals for religious purposes and also for food. Your point is for example "God is love" or "God cares for animals", which is fine, but it is not the whole story. It does not lead to veganism.

FredVB said:

I call for claims to have clear scriptures available for basis.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, I assumed you would be familiar with the Genesis account.

Genesis 3:20-21
The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

trophy33 said:

I am not sure why you think that my reply had nothing to do with your points. God in the Old Testament gave Israel instructions to kill a lot of animals for religious purposes and also for food. Your point is for example "God is love" or "God cares for animals", which is fine, but it, is not the whole story. It does not lead to veganism.

Click to expand...

My point is that God cares for the animals. Can you say because Jesus Christ was sacrificed, for us, the whole story does not lead us to care for Jesus Christ ourselves? That logic has a problem, don't you see? There are the passages showing God hated the sacrifices. It was not what God was desiring. Human perspective was concluding they were desirable to God. But those with this perspective offended God when they did not care about killing the animals. It was supposed to bother us the way Jesus Christ being crucified would bother us. Sure our redemption is made possible that way. But he really suffered for us, don't forget that.

You also responded to me elsewhere:

FredVB said:

I always wonder at those who claim they cannot go vegan. There are even early people who gave up animal products.

Click to expand...

And got weak and died. Even vegans like Ghandi had to incorporate at least dairy into their diet.

Without modern ultra-processed supplements and non-ecological transport of exotic plants from all over the world, it has been impossible for any historical culture living on local resources to be vegan. Veganism is possible only in specific modern developed areas and with so precise planning that it is impractical for the most of people. It gets even more complicated in special situations like childhood, pregnancy, allergies or health problems.

Fitness nutrition experts, healthcare experts etc will recommend an omnivorous diet for the majority of people, mostly a Mediterranean variant. With some good planning, a vegetarian diet is possible, too. But vegan diets - no, not really. Carnivore diets - well, it seems people like it, but experts not so much.

You ignore a lot of things with this response and get things wrong. There is a tribe in Asia that was not using things from animals for thousands of years. You might conclude Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego would have been getting very unhealthy from their choice for vegetables and water but that God miraculously saved them there, and nobody else could do that which they chose. How processed do you think what I generally have is? You would be surprised. I have been avoiding so much processed stuff for close to a decade, according to your argument I should be dead. You disregard the site with information, that I share, is from a team of doctors.

prodromos said:

Forgive me, I assumed you would be familiar with the Genesis account.

Genesis 3:20-21
The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

Click to expand...

I know this verses already (of course). It just isn't saying what you said, which was definitely adding to it what is not in the Bible.

FredVB said:

My point is that God cares for the animals.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that Jesus is God and that He ate a lot of fish and at least once a year a lamb?

Caring for animals can have many forms. Agriculture is destroying the life of wild animals. One cow can feed you for a year. If you eat vegan, thousands of small animals and birds (and plenty of insects, earthworms etc.) die for it on the fields, in a year.

The problem is our overpopulation and factory-like treatment of animals. Not eating them. We are too many and our consumption (no matter what we consume) is disruptive to the environment.

trophy33 said:

Do you believe that Jesus is God and that He ate a lot of fish and at least once a year a lamb?

Caring for animals can have many forms. Agriculture is destroying the life of wild animals. One cow can feed you for a year. If you eat vegan, thousands of small animals and birds (and plenty of insects, earthworms etc.) die for it on the fields, in a year.

The problem is our overpopulation and factory-like treatment of animals. Not eating them.

Click to expand...

I am always amazed at the gross indifference shown to the looming disaster resulting from overpopulation. There is an enormous amount of information regarding climate change, but virtually nothing about the root cause of climate change - too many people consuming too much non-renewable energy.

Many professing Christians are exceptionally guilty in this aspect. Because they are pro-life many believe in procreating as much as humanly possible with resulting very large families. The Catholic Church goes so far as to forbid any form of contraception as being a mortal sin which will send one to hell. However, that apparently has not stopped Catholics from having much smaller families than in the past such that the average Catholic family size in the United States and Europe is the same as the general population.

Just because it is theoretically possible to feed a worldwide population of 7 or 8 billion people hardly means that humans need to do their utmost to put that theory to the test.

bbbbbbb said:

I am always amazed at the gross indifference shown to the looming disaster resulting from overpopulation. There is an enormous amount of information regarding climate change, but virtually nothing about the root cause of climate change - too many people consuming too much non-renewable energy.

Many professing Christians are exceptionally guilty in this aspect. Because they are pro-life many believe in procreating as much as humanly possible with resulting very large families. The Catholic Church goes so far as to forbid any form of contraception as being a mortal sin which will send one to hell. However, that apparently has not stopped Catholics from having much smaller families than in the past such that the average Catholic family size in the United States and Europe is the same as the general population.

Just because it is theoretically possible to feed a worldwide population of 7 or 8 billion people hardly means that humans need to do their utmost to put that theory to the test.

Click to expand...

The UN projection says that the human population will peak at 10.5 billion people in the end of this century and then it will go down.

So, we will see. Higher development should cause less children even in the societies that are now growing exponentially. But how much of our ecosystem will be already destroyed by then...