Christians and meat eating.

[salamacum]

This is from a discussion paper presented at church. (first page only)
Rather controversial. What do you think?
Do you think being a Christian should in any way determine what and how much we eat ?
Should the suffering of animals in our mechanised meat and dairy industries concern us ?
Should our meat and dairy industries respect the intelligence of animals, their complex social structures and interactions and their concern for their young ?
Many of us would find it distasteful to eat a dog on account of its intelligence and human empathy and cooperation. However, a pig can outperform a dog on cognitive tests. Should this concern us in relation to eating pork?
Is it possible that the level of physical and emotional suffering experienced by an animal is unrelated to its intelligence ?
Should we take responsibility for dietary choices which adversely affect our health ?
Should we take responsibility for our health ?
As customers of our cash strapped NHS, is it appropriate for us to make dietary choices which will limit our need for its services and thereby free up resources to treat others ?
If it is true that cattle reared for the meat and dairy industries contribute 50% to green house gases, should this in any way affect our consumption of meat and dairy products ?
Should we care about green house gases ? Should we care if we leave the earth's environment more unstable to future generations than how we found it ?
If each acre of land can produce grain and wheat more efficiently than it can produce meat, and a wholesale shift to a more plant based diet could therefore makes more food available to the third world, should this concern us ?
Before the fall God said to Adam and Eve:
“I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”
Do you think that the way of life before the fall represents God's ideal for us ?
After the flood we killed and exploited animals for our gain. Is it wrong to perpetuate the practices of a fallen humanity ?

 

[TheDag]

the reason we don't eat dog is because we consider them pets. In some countries they eat dog just like they do pigs so the argument falls down.
yes we should consider what we eat and how that will impact our health. I know I have a weakness for certain junk food. I haven't had it for a little while so hopefully can make it a habit not to eat it. no we shouldn't be thinking if I eat better the NHS will have more funds to treat others but we should still look after our bodies.

over to someone else!
We are called to be wise stewards with what we have. to me that means looking after the planet although as a consequence of the fall we may not be able to leave it how it was when we came into this world as individuals.

 

[Jonathan95]

"Do you think being a Christian should in any way determine what and how much we eat ?"

Yes, we shouldn't be gluttonous, which is sinful.

“I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”
Do you think that the way of life before the fall represents God's ideal for us ?

Could be, but doesn't mean that the animals weren't to be eaten after the fall. God didn't tell Noah to only eat vegetables and fruits etc.

 

[salamacum]

Yes, but the provision was given after the flood. Why did God do that, if meat was being eaten before the flood. Provision was also given for Israelites to divorce their wives and for kings to be polygamous.
Neither of which are creation ordinances.

 

[salamacum]

If we want to pursue this, this is a subsequent section...
The death of another creature, whether it be a chicken or a large mammal, at the hands of a human being, is an horrific event. To watch it shows us the power that we have over animals, the superiority of our technology, the hopeless plight of the animals and the shocking indifference of our fellow human beings. We see acts of violence that we would not contemplate carrying out ourselves and yet we are happy for these acts to be carried out in our names, behind closed doors in our mechanised meat production industry.
To participate in the violent death of another creature dehumanises us. How can we be indifferent to the suffering and death of an animal and then somehow switch on our compassion for our fellow man. This is one of the incomprehensible aspects of human nature.
The concentration camp guards at the end of their working days went home to their families and loved ones and to all intents and purposes lived the lives of respectable citizens.
True humanity, as God intended, is to live in harmony with the other creatures who share our planet, to respect their living space and way of life.
The cruelty of the slaughterhouse is an extreme example of our cruelty, but the dairy industry also has many aspects that should cause us concern:
Cows produce milk to nourish their young. This milk is highly nutritious and will grow a 50lb calf into a half ton cow or bull within the space of a year. (Whether this is suitable for human consumption is, therefore, highly questionable). In order to produce milk the cow has to the be impregnated artificially. The calves are taken from their mothers within a day of being born. (To watch this separation on various YouTube clips available online is absolutely heart rending. See www.milkymyths.co.uk/animal-welfare/cadbury ). The fact that the animals concerned are “just” cows doesn't lessen the sense of pain and anguish.
Male calves are often killed shortly after birth and may be used to produce other meat products. Females are fed to grow into dairy cows. Its a problem for the meat industry to know what to do with male calves. During the 80's and 90's many calves were exported to Europe for veal production (ie housed in darkness, fed on milk, with minimal movement to keep the meat tender and slaughtered after 4 months to produce a sought after pale meat). With the advent of BSE and then Foot and Mouth disease, this export market collapsed. The industry is currently looking at genetic engineering as a possible way of producing fewer male calves. If successful, this is likely to be very expensive. There is also an emerging UK veal market for rose veal, which is a bit darker and presumably subject to higher welfare standards, but is still slaughtered between 6 to 9 months old.
To maintain maximum milk yields, dairy farms only keep cows for a couple of years and replace cows whose yields are declining with younger, more productive animals.
Once a cow's productivity declines, its fate is the slaughterhouse. (A cow can live for up to 25 years, so this is still a very premature death ie 4 to 5 years old).
In modern dairies productivity is everything. All other considerations are secondary.
The UK has a comparatively good record on animal welfare, but the dairy industry is competitive and to survive means mechanisation, automation, drugs and antibiotics to ensure that cows can produce as much milk as possible (ie up to 10 times what they would naturally produce).
Once upon a time man shared the milk of a cow with its calf and there was enough for everyone. Now we take it all. Our humanity begins by allowing a newborn calf to stay with its mother. Our need for the taste of her milk is what separates the mother from her calf.

 

[TheDag]

We see acts of violence that we would not contemplate carrying out ourselves and yet we are happy for these acts to be carried out in our names, behind closed doors in our mechanised meat production industry.

Speak for yourself. I have killed animals for eating. It was quick as I had been taught correctly. No different to animal sacrifices in the bible.

 

[salamacum]

The animals sacrifices in the bible were meant to be shocking and to remind the Israelites of the seriousness of sin.

 

[TheDag]

The animals sacrifices in the bible were meant to be shocking and to remind the Israelites of the seriousness of sin.

and they were meant for eating.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you think being a Christian should in any way determine what and how much we eat ?

I think we are to take care of our bodies, so yes, we are responsible to eat an appropriate amount and kinds of foods to maintain our health.

Should the suffering of animals in our mechanised meat and dairy industries concern us ?

I can't think of a Scriptural support per se, but there are indications in Scripture that God himself cares for animals, so I don't think concern is out of place. This is one reason I maintained my own farm as much as possible, and try to buy products from sources that raise animals in the same way I would do. I think it's also a human health concern.


Should our meat and dairy industries respect the intelligence of animals, their complex social structures and interactions and their concern for their young ?

Should they? Ideally, yes. But there are a lot of physical, mental, exploitative, emotional anguish among humans and their children on this planet. It's a fallen world. Not perfect. I wish everyone was safe, happy, healthy, and provided for - animals and even more so humans. But that is not the case in this world. Anything we can do to help is good, but while I do have sympathies and do what I can for animals, the human condition grieves me even more.

Many of us would find it distasteful to eat a dog on account of its intelligence and human empathy and cooperation. However, a pig can outperform a dog on cognitive tests. Should this concern us in relation to eating pork?

Have to agree with it's the idea of a dog being a pet, and what we're used to. Some of my livestock became pets, and I wouldn't eat them.

Is it possible that the level of physical and emotional suffering experienced by an animal is unrelated to its intelligence ?

There are different ways to measure intelligence. Rats outperform college students on blind maze tests. I find the question irrelevant for that reason, but if a yes/no answer were needed the answer is of course that it's possible.

Should we take responsibility for dietary choices which adversely affect our health ?

Yes.

Should we take responsibility for our health ?

Yes.

As customers of our cash strapped NHS, is it appropriate for us to make dietary choices which will limit our need for its services and thereby free up resources to treat others ?

Again, I'd see this question as irrelevant, since I already believe the body should be taken care of to the best of our ability.

Is it responsible for people not to smoke cigarettes for the same reason? Or engage in dangerous behavior? Etc.

If it is true that cattle reared for the meat and dairy industries contribute 50% to green house gases, should this in any way affect our consumption of meat and dairy products ?

Another discussion. Your question states "if it's true" ... Personally I have a whole other set of beliefs about how mechanized farming practices are damaging to our health and ecology.

Should we care about green house gases ? Should we care if we leave the earth's environment more unstable to future generations than how we found it ?

I believe we are to be good stewards of our environment. Again, I personally have other environmental concerns that I believe more damaging than these.

If each acre of land can produce grain and wheat more efficiently than it can produce meat, and a wholesale shift to a more plant based diet could therefore makes more food available to the third world, should this concern us ?

If all the arable land were in use and unable to feed the population, then yes. A farmer producing his own food is foolish to put all his land to producing a small amount of meat if it would mean starvation for his family that could have been avoided by putting more of the land to crops. There are MANY more efficient and sustainable ways to produce food than we are currently doing (and I'm speaking more from the perspective in the US btw).

Before the fall God said to Adam and Eve:
“I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”
Do you think that the way of life before the fall represents God's ideal for us ?

Yes, but that was the Garden, unfallen Creation, and so on. Ideal, but not where we live, so in some ways can't be argued to be a blueprint for living.

After the flood we killed and exploited animals for our gain. Is it wrong to perpetuate the practices of a fallen humanity ?

God distinctly gave permission, so I do not see it as wrong to eat meat. This implies a comparison between the garden of Eden, and a world just wiped by a flood. Hard to compare the two, and neither really having a direct bearing on us today.

My personal beliefs are that animals should be treated humanely. I left the babies with their dairy mothers until they weaned on their own. (which also released me from a strict milking schedule, saved money on milk replacers, and grew healthier babies). I never even allowed slaughter to happen in an area where other animals could see it, and did my best to prevent all stress in slaughter. My animals nearly all behaved like pets, were glad to see me, led good lives, got to free range, and didn't suffer. I believe the milk and meat was healthier for my family. It isn't cheap, and it's a lot of work, but I love also that the Bible is full of farming analogies and metaphors and it also led me to a deeper understanding of Scripture.

 

[salamacum]

Thanks for very much for the thoughtful and not dismissive answer.
I'm actually not completely vegetarian but almost without me noticing I ma not choosing the meat option from menus and I am finding chicken rather tasteless and I just feel better inside when I've eaten just salad and raw vegetables for a meal.
I'll post another interesting set of arguments soon.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for very much for the thoughtful and not dismissive answer.
I'm actually not completely vegetarian but almost without me noticing I ma not choosing the meat option from menus and I am finding chicken rather tasteless and I just feel better inside when I've eaten just salad and raw vegetables for a meal.
I'll post another interesting set of arguments soon.

You're welcome.

And FWIW, I'm currently evaluating my diet with an eye to more plant-based foods as well, because it's healthier for me. I've sold the farm recently and moved to another area of the country so the whole economy of what to buy and the cost has shifted. My biggest protein producers were actually free range chickens (eggs), though from a practical standpoint, since I raised my own replacement flock, there were more roosters than the farm could support. Put too many in the flocks and they fight. Still, for several years, I actually had an extremely high rate of female chicks, so we really didn't have to put many roosters to meat. Also, though my husband enjoys milk, I cannot drink it. Very few animals were needed to produce plenty of milk for their babies, the family, with enough extra for butter, cheeses, cooking, soaps, and so on. Most of the year I had excess to freeze and sometimes even added it it animal feeds.

In the right climate and with good management, small farms can produce a lot while treating the animals humanely. It does require a lot of work though.

 

[salamacum]

Some more arguments:

We were taught at school about the anatomy of carnivores, who eat meat, and herbivores, who eat plants and told that human beings are omnivores, who eat both meat and plants.
The truth is that our anatomy doesn't provide any large degree of specialisation either way but on the whole we have greater similarities with herbivores than carnivores. In physical terms we are no match for true omnivores such as chimpanzees or bears.
It is our intelligence and our ability to cook our food, which have enabled us to track, kill and eat animals. Our strength, our speed, the size of our canine teeth are wholly inadequate to kill all but the smallest and weakest prey. Faced in the wild with a chimpanzee or bear our most successful strategy is to play dead.
We can eat meat by choice, providing it is cooked and tenderised. However, the physical aspects of our design (or evolution), the dexterity of out fingers, mean that we are better suited to foraging, picking, pealing and digging than chasing and killing.

Factory farming of meat by housing animals in cramped conditions means that bacterial infections are rife and almost impossible to control.

Raw meat routinely has traces of E-Coli and Salmonella.
Mad Cow Disease or New Variant CJD the human version) unlike EColi and Salmonella is almost impossible to kill. The infectious agent can survive temperatures of up to 680 degrees C.
Rather than improving conditions for the animals the industry's response to bacterial infections has been the increased use of antibiotics and other drugs.
Increased use of antibiotics in the meat and dairy industries has been linked to the increase of antibiotic resistant hospital super bugs.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not prepared off the cuff to comment on our physiology. We are certainly disadvantaged for catching prey and tearing off meat (in an animalistic way) compared to animal predators. But in some ways we are also physiologically at a disadvantage compared to herbivores. We cannot derive nourishment from many grasses and browse in the way that cud-chewing animals can, for example. That discussion can veer off into an entirely other direction.

I share your concerns, deeply, regarding the spread of infection and use of antibiotics in the mechanized farming industry. It was concerns such as these that led me to research what we're feeding ourselves, and how we treat food animals, and so on. This is why I try to make the food choices I do, and the basis (along with common decency) for the way I treat my own animals. You'll get no arguments from me on those counts.

 

[salamacum]

Good stuff.
The kind of discussion I'd expect to see on Christian Forums but rarely get.

 

[Peripatetic]

Romans 14 has a lot to say about this topic. In short: each person should follow his or her conviction, and love others by respecting their beliefs and acting accordingly.

2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.
...
14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.
...
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Do you think being a Christian should in any way determine what and how much we eat ?"

We're to be good "Stewards" of our bodies, gluttony, and drunkenness are in the list of sins.

"Should the suffering of animals in our mechanised meat and dairy industries concern us ?"

Animals should be dispatched in a humane fashion. Humans being BASICALLY sinful, and profit driven may or may not do it properly.

Should our meat and dairy industries respect the intelligence of animals, their complex social structures and interactions and their concern for their young ?

Nope - not an issue.

"Many of us would find it distasteful to eat a dog on account of its intelligence and human empathy and cooperation. However, a pig can outperform a dog on cognitive tests. Should this concern us in relation to eating pork?"

Nope - meat is meat. I personally like horse - sweeter than beef, and lower fat content.

"Is it possible that the level of physical and emotional suffering experienced by an animal is unrelated to its intelligence ?"

Wouldn't know - don't care.

"Should we take responsibility for dietary choices which adversely affect our health ?"

Yes - now that we're finding out some guidelines du jour (that are still controversial in the "Diet industry", and the "medical profession")

"Should we take responsibility for our health ?"

Yes - to the degree that we can.

"As customers of our cash strapped NHS, is it appropriate for us to make dietary choices which will limit our need for its services and thereby free up resources to treat others ?"

What's "NHS", and what are it's "Services"?

"If it is true that cattle reared for the meat and dairy industries contribute 50% to green house gases, should this in any way affect our consumption of meat and dairy products ?"

I don't pay attention to "Pseudoscience"

"Should we care about green house gases ? Should we care if we leave the earth's environment more unstable to future generations than how we found it ?"

We don't know SPIT about "greenhouse gases", their origins, Or their ultimate effects. The "Special interest groups" haven't proved ANYTHING one way or another.

"If each acre of land can produce grain and wheat more efficiently than it can produce meat, and a wholesale shift to a more plant based diet could therefore makes more food available to the third world, should this concern us ?"

Wouldn't concern me - too many "Ifs".

"Before the fall God said to Adam and Eve: “I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” Do you think that the way of life before the fall represents God's ideal for us ?"

Probably did in the environment BEFORE the fall. But this is NOW, and God no longer instructs that way - neither do I.

"After the flood we killed and exploited animals for our gain. Is it wrong to perpetuate the practices of a fallen humanity ?"

God said - Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Go argue with God. Case closed.

Simple as that.

 

[TheDag]

Romans 14 has a lot to say about this topic. In short: each person should follow his or her conviction, and love others by respecting their beliefs and acting accordingly.

actually Romans 14 has little or nothing to do with the questions asked in the OP. That is dealing with a different matter altogether.

 

[salamacum]

Romans 14 has a lot to say about this topic. In short: each person should follow his or her conviction, and love others by respecting their beliefs and acting accordingly.

2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.
...
14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.
...
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I am afraid this is an example of inappropriate fundamentalism.
Quote some marginally-relevent verses from the scriptures and that shuts the discussion down. I've seen this so many times. We have brains, intelligence, experience, compassion - all of which we should use in the service of the Kingdom to bring the earth into subjection to His original good intention.

 

[salamacum]

"Is it possible that the level of physical and emotional suffering experienced by an animal is unrelated to its intelligence ?"

Wouldn't know - don't care.

Simple as that.[/quote]

Do people ever wonder why these discussion boards don't work?
Maybe this dismissive attitude infects the rest of what your post was, so really it could deserve therefore to be dismissed.

 

[Peripatetic]

I am afraid this is an example of inappropriate fundamentalism.
Quote some marginally-relevent verses from the scriptures and that shuts the discussion down. I've seen this so many times. We have brains, intelligence, experience, compassion - all of which we should use in the service of the Kingdom to bring the earth into subjection to His original good intention.

Well, this is a change. I try to be moderate, but I'm usually called out for not being conservative enough on CF (especially when quoting Romans 14, for which I'm sometimes accused of being a relativist).

In all seriousness, I didn't read the OP carefully enough. You are right... my response was only marginally relevant, and I sincerely apologize.

For what it's worth, I think we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the planet which should not be abused (including the animals). But I don't think that animals have the same type of consciousness or soul, so "intelligence" is not necessarily proportional when it comes to physical and emotional suffering experienced by an animal. We should work to reduce such suffering, but sometimes we have a tendency to over-personify animals. It's a balance. Again, sorry for the lazy initial reply.