It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

FredVB said:

My points about the design from the beginning stand, something Jesus also referred to.

Click to expand...

Your point about design from the beginning was not contested by me. God only gave meat to eat after the flood.

However, simply associating it with other things Jesus said about the original design does not address the issue, for the following reasons:

• In the case of the hardness of heart for divorce, Jesus said it was not so from the beginning. And He specifically said what God joined together let no man put asunder. Jesus clearly opposed divorce. This is in keeping with the statement in the old testament that God hates divorce.
• However, Jesus did not take the same stand with eating meat. In fact, while you contest that Jesus at the fish in Luke 24, he endorsed fish as a good gift a father gives to his children in Luke as well:

You have to account for these differences.

FredVB said:

There are the demonstrable issues, that many of you can ignore, the abuse to animals (of course, that doesn't matter to you, I see that) .

Click to expand...

You can get grass fed meat from regenerative farms that do not put animals in feed lots, or pump them full of antibiotics, etc.

If eating an animal is by definition abuse, then you have to explain why God said:

FredVB said:

which God spoke against,

Click to expand...

I posted the text where He spoke against Jonah because the prophet was angry God was merciful to those who repented, and God had compassion on even the livestock.

God did not speak against eating animals. He commanded the priests to eat portions of animals. He commanded the Israelites to eat Passover. He said they could eat as much meat as they desired.

Now you already said you are not speaking about prohibition. You admit He gave permisson. But He did more than that. He commanded it in some instances, Jesus gave people meat, Jesus said fish is a good gift, and the Lord said that they could eat as much as they want.

FredVB said:

the greater demand for land, water, and resources for the industry meeting the demand for what is had from animals, with more and more damage to natural environments for that

Click to expand...

There is some land that is rocky and hilly that is more fit for grazing than harvesting crops. Why shouldn't it be used that way?

Feedlots may damage land, but certainly so do the various pesiticides, herbicides, etc. used for raising crops.

I would advocate for organic, regeneritive whole foods in either case. And that is what I buy. But eating plants is not wrong. And eating animals is not wrong.

FredVB said:

, and rising extinction rates of species to a critical level, and insects are also diminishing

Click to expand...

Various agricultural chemicals, including pesticides, herbicides, etc. certinly do that as well.

FredVB said:

and the ocean is even being depleted, there is a contribution to climate change, and as those things won't matter to most of you though I can read it where God does hate that, why dismiss that is just so much healthier to have whole foods available from a variety of plants, with which cancers and clogging and high blood pressure, and many other issues, can be avoided? God's design for us would not worsen our health, but many among you will still do so.

It is not about permission! And no one here is making a prohibition.

But so many are stubborn with hard hearts.

Click to expand...

Well given I was a vegetarian for many years, and a vegan for part of the time, no it is not that I am opposed to such. I didn't mind eating that way at all. Many do quite well on such a diet.

I did not. I had trouble regulating blood sugar, inflammation, getting sufficient nutrients etc. Now I eat whole food plants, fruits, AND meat, and I am doing much better, in blood sugar, weight, blood pressure, digestive issues, etc.

But whether I was doing better on one diet or another doesn't change what Scripture says. And Scripture says God permitted, at times commanded, and at times provided and endorsed meat.

If you want to argue that current times require we adapt for the sake of the planet and the growing population, then stick to that.

If you are going to convince based on Scripture, you have a number of things to answer.

FredVB said:

There are the demonstrable issues, that many of you can ignore, the abuse to animals (of course, that doesn't matter to you, I see that) which God spoke against

Click to expand...

The abuse is illegal and crime. There are laws protecting animals, regulating their stress, requiring they must be stunned before the slaughter etc.

There is quite an easy solution - installing cameras to monitor the workers. And regular checks by the State Veterinary Administration. Instead of eating grass and attacking people who eat meat, be more realistic and vote, donate or work for these easy solutions.

FredVB said:

No, it is not clear he did. You are reading something compromising it. You are not persuasive.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to be persuasive but to set the record straight regarding the Scripture and the Patristic reading of Scripture.

Interestingly most Orthodox monks eat fish, but no other meat, on a regular basis.

trophy33 said:

The abuse is illegal and crime. There are laws protecting animals, regulating their stress, requiring they must be stunned before the slaughter etc.

There is quite an easy solution - installing cameras to monitor the workers. And regular checks by the State Veterinary Administration. Instead of eating grass and attacking people who eat meat, be more realistic and vote, donate or work for these easy solutions.

Click to expand...

In the US and Canada federal inspectors are already present at all meat processing plants to supervise the handling of the meat and ensure correct quality grading; the only plant I’m aware of in recent years that had a serious issue was a company which claimed to be Kosher, but whose practices were decried by many rabbis, called Agriprocessors.

The Liturgist said:

In the US and Canada federal inspectors are already present at all meat processing plants to supervise the handling of the meat and ensure correct quality grading; the only plant I’m aware of in recent years that had a serious issue was a company which claimed to be Kosher, but whose practices were decried by many rabbis, called Agriprocessors.

Click to expand...

Religious slaughters have religious exemptions from the law. Or else they would be closed because of cruelty according the law that requires stunning the animal.

Regarding normal secular slaughters, I think the Swiss or the EU standards are the highest in the world. But there is still something to improve. For example killing the animal while on pasture, so there is no stress related to transport. But this clashes with some veterinary regulations. Many farms try to at least minimize the transport.

However, many slaughterhouses or farms fight intensively against camera systems. I am afraid they have reasons why. When I have a chance, I try to buy from the most transparent producer I can. However, we need systemic changes, better laws, stricter requirements and more control.

trophy33 said:

Religious slaughters have religious exemptions from the law. Or else they would be closed because of cruelty according the law that requires stunning the animal.

Regarding normal secular slaughters, I think the Swiss or the EU standards are the highest in the world. But there is still something to improve. For example killing the animal while on pasture, so there is no stress related to transport. But this clashes with some veterinary regulations. Many farms try to at least minimize the transport.

However, many slaughterhouses or farms fight intensively against camera systems. I am afraid they have reasons why. When I have a chance, I try to buy from the most transparent producer I can. However, we need systemic changes, better laws, stricter requirements and more control.

Click to expand...

That would risk increasing the cost of meat which would hurt the poor. In the EU meat is more expensive than in the US.

Transportation has been reduced considerably through the use of refrigeration; the giant stockyards of cattletowns in the US such as Chicago and Fort Worth, as well as transit stockyards required to meet federal regulations on the resting, feeding and watering of animals such as that of the old Union Pacific RR (the company today operating under the name Union Pacific is the result of the merger of several railroads, and while its trains use the classic “Armour Yellow” color, the actual railroading is more influenced by the Missouri Pacific, whose operating style, by then dominant in the UP so annoyed veterans of the Southern Pacific (which got on very well with the old pre1980s UP) that the joke became “you spell stupid with a UP”). Of course I reckon the merger of the Kansas City Southern and the Canadian Pacific has led to even more creative slogans by disgruntled railroaders in all three countries where the combined entity operates (US, Canada and Mexico).

The Liturgist said:

That would risk increasing the cost of meat which would hurt the poor. In the EU meat is more expensive than in the US.

Click to expand...

You can buy 500g of common (not BIO) chicken or pork for about $3. With all the regulations. I do not believe the people in the USA are so poor.

The Liturgist said:

Transportation has been reduced considerably through the use of refrigeration

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean. I meant the transportation of living animals from farms to slaughterhouses.

The Liturgist said:

the giant stockyards of cattletowns in the US such as Chicago and Fort Worth, as well as transit stockyards required to meet federal regulations on the resting, feeding and watering of animals such as that of the old Union Pacific RR (the company today operating under the name Union Pacific is the result of the merger of several railroads, and while its trains use the classic “Armour Yellow” color, the actual railroading is more influenced by the Missouri Pacific, whose operating style, by then dominant in the UP so annoyed veterans of the Southern Pacific (which got on very well with the old pre1980s UP) that the joke became “you spell stupid with a UP”). Of course I reckon the merger of the Kansas City Southern and the Canadian Pacific has led to even more creative slogans by disgruntled railroaders in all three countries where the combined entity operates (US, Canada and Mexico).

Click to expand...

I think the USA has one of the worst and most cruel transportation of living animals. Terribly long distances and even the existing poor laws are frequently not being enforced.

trophy33 said:

I am not sure what you mean. I meant the transportation of living animals from farms to slaughterhouses.

Click to expand...

I refer to the same thing. Until the mid 20th century, cattle and other livestock were transported to regional centers such as Chicago or Fort Worth and were slaughtered there, however, widespread refrigeration made that irrelevant.

trophy33 said:

I think the USA has one of the worst and most cruel transportation of living animals. Terribly long distances and even the existing poor laws are frequently not being enforced.

Click to expand...

Considering that “terribly long” used to literally mean days of travel, due to the regions ideal for cattle grazing being located far from urban areas, and now it doesn’t, you clearly misread my post or else have a definition of terribly long distances which fails to take into account the sheer vastness of the US, where outside of conurbations in the Northeast, Florida, the Texas Triangle, the San Francisco - San Diego coastline in California, and other places of that nature (Chicagoland comes to mind), the population is terribly thin. There are counties in agricultural areas of Eastern Colorado where deputy sheriffs might be an hour away from the nearest backup. The most remote town in the lower 48 states of the US is a 4 hour drive from the next town of comparable size. In Alaska and Canada, remote takes on new levels of meaning elsewhere encountered only in Australia.

Daniel Marsh said:

Romans 14
Easy-to-Read Version

14 Be willing to accept those who still have doubts about what believers can do. And don’t argue with them about their different ideas. 2 Some people believe they can eat any kind of food, but those who have doubts eat only vegetables. 3 Those who know they can eat any kind of food must not feel that they are better than those who eat only vegetables. And those who eat only vegetables must not decide that those who eat all foods are wrong. God has accepted them. 4 You cannot judge the servants of someone else. Their own master decides if they are doing right or wrong. And the Lord’s servants will be right, because the Lord is able to make them right.

PETA propaganda is not acceptable in this discussion.

Before the flood it is possible some people only ate vegetables. Beef Jerky has been found in Archeological sites that could predate Noah --- I do not know for sure.

https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i47/Mummified-Beef-Jerky-Found-Pyramids.html#:~:text=USA-,Preserved beef found in the tomb of Egyptian Queen Tiye,University of Bristol's Richard P.

Pyramids and Protein « Ancient Egypt Research Associates

"Constructed between 2589 and 2504 B.C., the Egyptian pyramids of Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure, built in that order, are a testament to ancient planning and engineering."
Pyramids of Giza & the Sphinx | Live Science

I do not know if those pyramids were built before or after the flood.

Click to expand...

I think Christ’s actions are far more compelling on this topic since the scriptures do record Him actually eating meat on several occasions. He observed the Passover which specifically required Jews to eat an entire goat or lamb. He also ate fish with His apostles after His resurrection.

BNR32FAN said:

I think Christ’s actions are far more compelling on this topic since the scriptures do record Him actually eating meat on several occasions. He observed the Passover which specifically required Jews to eat an entire goat or lamb. He also ate fish with His apostles after His resurrection.

Click to expand...

I agree, and what I do not get is why people who want to be kind to animals can't form their argument as something like, "Animals are living beings and we need to treat them better, be kind to them, so I want to be a vegetarian (or a vegan) and hope you might want to do the same". The scriptures are not vegetarian or vegan advocacy documents, they never were. But it is also true that Adam and Eve were vegetarian before the fall, or so it seems, and after the fall animal skins and sacrifices were done to please God. The story doesn't play well as a vegan morality tale.

---

Here is a kinder gentler version of my statement.

I agree with your post and I want to add that I’ve always found it puzzling that some folks who care deeply about animals feel the need to frame their argument through scripture. Personally, I reckon it’s more compelling to say something like, “Animals are living beings — they deserve kindness and respect. That’s why I’ve chosen to go vegetarian (or vegan), and I’d love it if you considered it too.”

The Bible, as I read it, doesn’t really come across as a pro-vegan manifesto. Sure, Adam and Eve seemed to live off plants before the fall, but after that, animal sacrifice and the use of skins were seen as part of worship. So while there’s room for compassion in faith, I don’t think the Genesis story quite fits as a vegan morality tale.

---

And as a footnote.

That said, from a Catholic point of view, there’s a strong case to be made for the dignity of animals. The Catechism teaches that animals are God’s creatures and that humans owe them kindness (CCC 2416–2418). While we’re given stewardship over creation, that doesn’t mean domination — it means care, reverence, and restraint. Saint Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals, saw all creatures as brothers and sisters under God. So even if scripture doesn’t demand vegetarianism, our faith still calls us to treat animals with mercy and respect. Choosing a plant-based life can be a genuine expression of that call — not out of guilt, but out of love.

---

---

PS: I included all the parts separately to show how I write my posts when I have some time to relax and think about what to write.

tall73 said:

Your point about design from the beginning was not contested by me. God only gave meat to eat after the flood.

However, simply associating it with other things Jesus said about the original design does not address the issue, for the following reasons:

• In the case of the hardness of heart for divorce, Jesus said it was not so from the beginning. And He specifically said what God joined together let no man put asunder. Jesus clearly opposed divorce. This is in keeping with the statement in the old testament that God hates divorce.
• However, Jesus did not take the same stand with eating meat. In fact, while you contest that Jesus at the fish in Luke 24, he endorsed fish as a good gift a father gives to his children in Luke as well:

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?​

​

• Jesus taught people not to divorce, but gave fish to thousands:

Matthew 15:35 So He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. 36 And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke them and gave them to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. 37 So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left.​

• Jesus gave fish to His own disciples to eat:

Joh 21:12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.​

You have to account for these differences.

Click to expand...

Only one thing was called very good. God never called anything else in the Bible "Very good." I do think some things were added. But I can't prove it so I don't have to persuade you of that.

tall73 said:

You can get grass fed meat from regenerative farms that do not put animals in feed lots, or pump them full of antibiotics, etc.

If eating an animal is by definition abuse, then you have to explain why God said:

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.​

​

I posted the text where He spoke against Jonah because the prophet was angry God was merciful to those who repented, and God had compassion on even the livestock.

God did not speak against eating animals. He commanded the priests to eat portions of animals. He commanded the Israelites to eat Passover. He said they could eat as much meat as they desired.

Click to expand...

There are more verses in the Bible for this, but it takes time I don't have now to collect them. God's will is shown in the beginning and I see that is enough. You can still choose to do otherwise, anyway.

trophy33 said:

The abuse is illegal and crime. There are laws protecting animals, regulating their stress, requiring they must be stunned before the slaughter etc.

There is quite an easy solution - installing cameras to monitor the workers. And regular checks by the State Veterinary Administration. Instead of eating grass and attacking people who eat meat, be more realistic and vote, donate or work for these easy solutions.

Click to expand...

You would think things are illegal that are yet happening. There is not protection from abuse that you think there is. While nominally there are protective laws for cattle, pigs and sheep, there are none, this is correct, none, for other animals such as birds, which are not mammals. You think there should be no protection from abuse for them. I challenge you to look at documentaries for what happens at places for slaughter. The animals are all slaughtered when young relative to the length of life they could have if free from that, some are really intelligent, pigs are yet more intelligent than dogs. All are companionable and would be playful as any pet. Speciesism divides them from that. I can't link to anything about the abuse, like Dominion, my post gets deleted if I do.

There are those who say God meant there to be animals for being food for us. They show a lack of capacity to see the inherent contradiction to logic in that. There are millions of species. How many species are they eating from? So, automatically they don't mean all animals, many animals can't be their food. Millions of the species can't be, while less than ten, or is it even twelve, species would be used. And for what did God make animals to be sensitive, emotional, feeling beings which would flee if they were free, to be held captive in any conditions without it mattering and be brutally slaughtered on a date assigned to them from the start, with a capacity for a much longer life? God who does this is loving, who they trust?? This all directly contradicts logic. All caring from God is not limited, it can't be, and God would not provide animals that feel and are sensitive just for all that, when they would be free if they could be. There are the very few that escape when they can manage, and those will avoid being caught as far as possible. Humans need to take accountability for themselves with their own choices, I am trusting they will be held accountable. And the healthiness of eating much more variety of whole foods from plants, without need for animal products for that, is very well established, why would God mean for humans to be more subject to cancers, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, or other issues, all of these associated with standard diets which include animal products? All the facts have to be ignored by those who say animals are meant by God for us.

FredVB said:

While nominally there are protective laws for cattle, pigs and sheep, there are none, this is correct, none, for other animals such as birds, which are not mammals.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you are saying nonsense. There are both in the USA and in the EU. Find the US one, if you wish, I will provide you with the EU's:

EU Regulations for Poultry on Farms:

Comprehensive Legal Framework:
Council Directive 1999/74/EC (Laying Hens)
Banned traditional battery cages
Mandates enriched cages or free-range systems
Minimum space requirements
Perch and nest access
Council Directive 2007/43/EC (Broiler Chickens)
Maximum stocking density limits
Environmental control standards
Ventilation requirements
Lighting protocols
Health monitoring
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (Slaughter)
Humane slaughter methods
Minimizing animal suffering
Proper handling during processing

Key Welfare Standards:
Minimum space per bird
Temperature control
Humidity management
Natural light exposure
Access to water and feed
Disease prevention
Stress reduction
Regular veterinary inspections

Monitoring Mechanisms:
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
National veterinary authorities
Regular farm inspections
Compliance documentation

Specific Poultry Categories Covered:
Laying hens
Broiler chickens
Breeding fowl
Ducks
Geese
Turkeys

These regulations ensure animal welfare, food safety, and ethical farming practices across EU member states. The EU also plans to end cages in 2027.

FredVB said:

I challenge you to look at documentaries for what happens at places for slaughter. The animals are all slaughtered when young relative to the length of life they could have if free from that, some are really intelligent, pigs are yet more intelligent than dogs. All are companionable and would be playful as any pet. Speciesism divides them from that. I can't link to anything about the abuse, like Dominion, my post gets deleted if I do.

Click to expand...

No, thanks. I do not know why vegans think this is some kind of "gotcha!" argument. Nobody wants to watch death. Neither people nor wild animals die nicely. Farmed animals' death is at least regulated. People commonly die a worse death. And wild game in nature dies violently torn apart or even eaten alive. I guess you saw some wild nature documentary.

If you are talking about farms not keeping the law, then lobby for cameras and more controls. No point in posting or watching videos. We agree that abusing or cruelty is wrong.

FredVB said:

There are those who say God meant there to be animals for being food for us. They show a lack of capacity to see the inherent contradiction to logic in that. There are millions of species. How many species are they eating from? So, automatically they don't mean all animals, many animals can't be their food. Millions of the species can't be,

Click to expand...

Except for few animals having for example poisonous skin like some frogs, almost every animal people can commonly find in nature is edible. Funny enough for your argument, almost no wild plants are edible. If you went to nature and ate random plants, you would die. Even herbivores in nature are specialized to eat specific plants only, evolutionary.

The plants we people eat today are bred for thousands of years for agricultural purpose. It is not something given to us, it is something we created.

trophy33 said:

I am not sure why you are saying nonsense. There are both in the USA and in the EU. Find the US one, if you wish, I will provide you with the EU's:

EU Regulations for Poultry on Farms:

Comprehensive Legal Framework:
Council Directive 1999/74/EC (Laying Hens)
Banned traditional battery cages
Mandates enriched cages or free-range systems
Minimum space requirements
Perch and nest access
Council Directive 2007/43/EC (Broiler Chickens)
Maximum stocking density limits
Environmental control standards
Ventilation requirements
Lighting protocols
Health monitoring
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (Slaughter)
Humane slaughter methods
Minimizing animal suffering
Proper handling during processing

Key Welfare Standards:
Minimum space per bird
Temperature control
Humidity management
Natural light exposure
Access to water and feed
Disease prevention
Stress reduction
Regular veterinary inspections

Monitoring Mechanisms:
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
National veterinary authorities
Regular farm inspections
Compliance documentation

Specific Poultry Categories Covered:
Laying hens
Broiler chickens
Breeding fowl
Ducks
Geese
Turkeys

These regulations ensure animal welfare, food safety, and ethical farming practices across EU member states. The EU also plans to end cages in 2027.


No, thanks. I do not know why vegans think this is some kind of "gotcha!" argument. Nobody wants to watch death. Neither people nor wild animals die nicely. Farmed animals' death is at least regulated. People commonly die a worse death. And wild game in nature dies violently torn apart or even eaten alive. I guess you saw some wild nature documentary.

If you are talking about farms not keeping the law, then lobby for cameras and more controls. No point in posting or watching videos. We agree that abusing or cruelty is wrong.

Click to expand...

It is not nonsense, I speak about the situation right here in America, and while the European Union has made improvements ahead of the US, we are told still that God cares for the animals, and you are responsible for those ones who get slaughtered for anything you have from them, for how they were being treated, as the demand for those things continues all that, Proverbs 12:10. Long before I gave up anything from animals, as a believer I could see that Genesis 9, which is used by any believers arguing with me that God permits their use of animals or any meat, was not at all the same as what is shown in Genesis 1, which alone had God calling it Very Good, indicating the perfect design. Fear and terror, and discussion of murder, are linked to it, they are given into your hand is reminiscent of Job being given into Satan's hand, and the permission is saying not to have meat from animals with the blood. I am guessing that you are not actually observing permission that you claim. We who are believers are not to have anything with blood. The apostles reiterated that in the epistle from Jerusalem, indicating this is shown from the Spirit of God.

My point in saying I can't post a video, my post would be deleted, is that it is too violent, you are not absolved by not watching and having someone else payed for who or what you would have killed, and if it is too violent that is on you.

But as I said, from the start, I am talking about the will of God, which is really to be sought, not about permissions that are for anything different from them.

FredVB said:

I do think some things were added. But I can't prove it so I don't have to persuade you of that.

Click to expand...

So you claim all the various verses people point out were added, but you can't prove it?

FredVB said:

There are more verses in the Bible for this, but it takes time I don't have now to collect them.

Click to expand...

Are you going to add them later?

FredVB said:

God's will is shown in the beginning and I see that is enough.

Click to expand...

You have just said many verses across various books were added. But you know that the portion in the beginning was not. How do you know that?

If you are are going to pick and choose what verses are actually in Scripture, and which are not, but without any evidence, how does that further the theological discussion?

If you want a secular discussion on compassion to animals, then you can have that in the politics section. If you want to discuss the theology you may have to present evidence for large claims such as many verses across the Old and New Testaments being added.

FredVB said:

It is not nonsense, I speak about the situation right here in America

Click to expand...

But the world is not America. If you are behind the world, lobby for better laws. And do not make general claims.

FredVB said:

we are told still that God cares for the animals

Click to expand...

I do too.

FredVB said:

, and you are responsible for those ones who get slaughtered for anything you have from them for how they were being treated,

Click to expand...

And the responsibility lies in good laws and in keeping these laws. My country has professional veterinary inspectors who are paid from my taxes to control it. And when I buy the meat, the responsibility to keep the laws is on the producer's side.

I, individually, cannot be everywhere.

FredVB said:

Proverbs 12:10. Long before I gave up anything from animals, as a believer I could see that Genesis 9, which is used by any believers arguing with me that God permits their use of animals or any meat, was not at all the same as what is shown in Genesis 1, which alone had God calling it Very Good, indicating the perfect design. Fear and terror, and discussion of murder, are linked to it, they are given into your hand is reminiscent of Job being given into Satan's hand, and the permission is saying not to have meat from animals with the blood. I am guessing that you are not actually observing permission that you claim. We who are believers are not to have anything with blood. The apostles reiterated that in the epistle from Jerusalem, indicating this is shown from the Spirit of God.

Click to expand...

I do not read Genesis literally. The Earth is not flat, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, it was not created in 6 literal days and humans have never been vegans.

FredVB said:

My point in saying I can't post a video, my post would be deleted, is that it is too violent, you are not absolved by not watching and having someone else payed for who or what you would have killed, and if it is too violent that is on you.

Click to expand...

I do not need to watch anything and I am still absolutely absolved from possible cruelty done by others. Everybody is responsible for their own sin. Just killing an animal for food is not a sin. Doing it cruelly is.

And the point of laws is to make the killing of animals more humane than in nature, to limit their stress etc.

FredVB said:

But as I said, from the start, I am talking about the will of God, which is really to be sought, not about permissions that are for anything different from them.

Click to expand...

God ate meat.