"Does God really want us to become vegan?"

[bèlla]

There's a saying I've heard that is very true. " Don't blame the meat for what the sugar did."

Also what is promoted as healthy changes a lot. Margerine was considered healthy!
Lot of indigenous cultures did good on lots of meat until modern foods high in sugar were brought in.

The Case of Sugar is a great book on the industry.

~Bella

 

[Basil the Great]

Many scholars claim that Jesus was an Essene. It is well known that many/most of the Essenes were vegetarians. While this may be true, it is also true that the Scriptures do not forbid eating meat.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Considering that it appears that those who eat less meat tend to live longer than those who eat a lot of meat, it should give us all something to ponder.

There are a lot of factors that go into longevity of life, diet places one part. Genetics, diet, behavior, environmental factors, and a host of all kinds of factors all are involved.

The healthiest diets do seem to be those which are high in vegetable content, with animal protein taken from sources such as fish. So a balanced diet consisting of vegetables, with small portions of meat, along with complex rather than simple carbohydrates does seem to be the general consensus.

One can be vegetarian or vegan and still eat terribly. One can be vegetarian/vegan and still drink soda all day long and they'd be consuming a grotesque amount of sugar--but still be following the restrictions of their diet.

But the really important thing here is that things like our bodily health--our diet, the frequency of our exercise, etc--these are important from a mundane point of view. I mean, if I eat better, exercise regularly, and make smart lifestyle choices I'll feel better and there's a good chance I'll have my health longer than if I don't. But this isn't a religious issue. The same reason it's not a religious issue whether I choose to wear a coat on cold winter's day. Yeah, it's smart to dress warm on a cold day, it'll certainly keep me from freezing. But it's not a religious issue, it's not a moral issue. It's an issue of practical wisdom.

Can there be a moral dimension here? Sure. There is something to be said about the mistreatment of animals in the modern livestock industry. For the same reason there's something that needs to be said about the consumption of products which are the result of unjust labor practices such as sweat shops and slavery. And I think we'd be smart to consider these larger humanitarian and humane issues as it pertains to how we act as consumers in a modern consumer culture. These are the sorts of things that we need to apply our conscience toward. At the same time, I'm not going pass judgment against someone who happens to buy or own an Apple product, or who doesn't choose the free range option when they buy eggs. Life is messy and complicated, and most people don't have the freedom and luxury to do anything but just get by with what they have. These become things that we can think about, and make choices for ourselves, and even voice concern about in the hopes that those in positions of power might be able to affect positive changes--but at the end of the day, we live in the world we have, not in the world we should have. We won't have that world until Christ returns in glory. Until then, all we can do is trust in Christ and try to love our neighbor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

Please have a look at this

Does God really want us to become vegan?

and tell me what you think

Christ ate fish (at the very least) and did so post resurrection so that sort of messes with that theory.

 

[Kilk1]

The question was already answered - it was Paul (a man).

As I said, I am not saying, "forget Paul". But, you do understand that the enter Word of the Most High is Living, He allowed us a Holy Spirit for instruction, and the Most High promised that His Laws and statutes would be written on our heart so much so that we wouldn't have to ask any man, "who is the Most High?"

In other words, we have an inspired canon, but we have to understand the Word is actually Living and Active in people's lives. Does that mean we throw out what any of the men of the Most High have said? No, and I have never said that.

People are hearing that, because what I am saying sounds controversial.

I have specifically said that I don't think Paul contradicts the Word of the Most High, but I do think dogma drawn from what he has said is wrong. As soon as someone contradicts the Word of the Most High, they are wrong at best: that should be a universal thing for believers - that the Word of the Most High Himself is the Standard and Arbiter of the Law.

I basically agree that dogma drawn from Paul's writing is wrong, assuming the dogma differs from the writing itself, anyway. And since we agree that Paul himself doesn't contradict the Word of the Most High, does the statement that "he who is weak eats only vegetables" (Rom. 14:2, NKJV) contradict the Word of the Most High?

 

[Kaon]

I basically agree that dogma drawn from Paul's writing is wrong, assuming the dogma differs from the writing itself, anyway. And since we agree that Paul himself doesn't contradict the Word of the Most High, does the statement that "he who is weak eats only vegetables" (Rom. 14:2, NKJV) contradict the Word of the Most High?

Because of YOUR context. The Most High never said anything of the like, nor did He insinuate it.

Here are the verses around the one you quoted:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. v1-3.

It is Paul's interpolation that one who eats herbs may be weak. The context comes from the first verse - where we are to accept all who are weak in faith, but not their DOGMA/IDEOLOGIES. The ideology that one must eat only vegetables in order to be [insert ideal here] is the context of weakness, not being a vegeterian.

For example, if I believe that I must eat only vegetables in order to increase my cosmic awareness, then I am weak in faith, since I am putting my trust in the consumption of food (not the Most High) in order to gain something.

From what I gather, the OP is talking about whether the Most High demands we be vegeterian/vegan - which if He did would be no argument of weakness, because it would be His Law.


So, you see, I disagree with you, not necessarily Paul. You would have to show me a companion verse of where the Most High actually insinuates, or says that people who eat vegetables are weak - because I see neither Paul nor the Most High saying this. I see a draw to apply it to this topic, despite the surrounding context before and after the verse.

This is why I said I will take my chances on the Most High FIRST, as He has promised He would put the Law and Statutes on our hearts so much that we won't need to ask another man who He is - and I believe it. I was most tossed around while listening to men, and while treating the canon with laud I completely squandered the reality of the Living Word of the Most High. Men are dangerous, we lie, cheat and murder - and that includes those even inspired by the Word of the Most High. Peter denied Him three times (which was a lie); I have to put my faith in the Living Word of the Most High FIRST.

 

[Kilk1]

Because of YOUR context. The Most High never said anything of the like, nor did He insinuate it.

Here are the verses around the one you quoted:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. v1-3.

It is Paul's interpolation that one who eats herbs may be weak. The context comes from the first verse - where we are to accept all who are weak in faith, but not their DOGMA/IDEOLOGIES. The ideology that one must eat only vegetables in order to be [insert ideal here] is the context of weakness, not being a vegeterian.

For example, if I believe that I must eat only vegetables in order to increase my cosmic awareness, then I am weak in faith, since I am putting my trust in the consumption of food (not the Most High) in order to gain something.

From what I gather, the OP is talking about whether the Most High demands we be vegeterian/vegan - which if He did would be no argument of weakness, because it would be His Law.


So, you see, I disagree with you, not necessarily Paul. You would have to show me a companion verse of where the Most High actually insinuates, or says that people who eat vegetables are weak - because I see neither Paul nor the Most High saying this. I see a draw to apply it to this topic, despite the surrounding context before and after the verse.

This is why I said I will take my chances on the Most High FIRST, as He has promised He would put the Law and Statutes on our hearts so much that we won't need to ask another man who He is - and I believe it. I was most tossed around while listening to men, and while treating the canon with laud I completely squandered the reality of the Living Word of the Most High. Men are dangerous, we lie, cheat and murder - and that includes those even inspired by the Word of the Most High. Peter denied Him three times (which was a lie); I have to put my faith in the Living Word of the Most High FIRST.

Yes, the context is that we should be understanding of one weak in the faith without accepting their dogmatic scruples as being true. One such dogma is the belief we shouldn't eat (certain) meat. To call this a dogma we don't have to accept is to oppose moral veganism. (Not vegetarian/veganism in general, but rather the view that it's wrong to eat meat is what I'm discussing.) How can we call eating only vegetables dogma and at the same time say God wants us all to be vegan?

 

[Kaon]

Yes, the context is that we should be understanding of one weak in the faith without accepting their dogmatic scruples as being true. One such dogma is the belief we shouldn't eat (certain) meat. To call this a dogma we don't have to accept is to oppose moral veganism. (Not vegetarian/veganism in general, but rather the view that it's wrong to eat meat is what I'm discussing.) How can we call eating only vegetables dogma and at the same time say God wants us all to be vegan?

Because people choose to eat certain things for ego, not for the Most High. If you are eating vegetables because you want to please the Most High, then keep it between you two. There is no reason to make a thing about it, because you get your reward.

If you choose to be a vegetarian because of your own morality, then it can (and often does) become ideology (and dogmatic when applied through institution).

 

[Kilk1]

Because people choose to eat certain things for ego, not for the Most High. If you are eating vegetables because you want to please the Most High, then keep it between you two. There is no reason to make a thing about it, because you get your reward.

If you choose to be a vegetarian because of your own morality, then it can (and often does) become ideology (and dogmatic when applied through institution).

Yeah, people can be vegetarians if they feel it's the right thing to do; just keep it between you and God. And if you want to eat meat, that's fine as well. I think we agree.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yeah, people can be vegetarians if they feel it's the right thing to do; just keep it between you and God. And if you want to eat meat, that's fine as well. I think we agree.

I agree... It would be a much better world if people would stop telling others what they should and shouldn't do..

The way I see it.. you can do what you want.. long as it is not damaging the property of others, injuring others.. or damaging public places that costs the tax payer money....Including the environment.

 

[Kaon]

Yeah, people can be vegetarians if they feel it's the right thing to do; just keep it between you and God. And if you want to eat meat, that's fine as well. I think we agree.

I agree... It would be a much better world if people would stop telling others what they should and shouldn't do..

The way I see it.. you can do what you want.. long as it is not damaging the property of others, injuring others.. or damaging public places that costs the tax payer money....Including the environment.

I just make arguments. But, I do believe everyone is responsible for the trajectory of their soul, and it isn't my job to force them to do something I think is right.

 

[miggles]

Please have a look at this

Does God really want us to become vegan?

and tell me what you think

i think He intended adam and eve to be vegans.

 

[FredVB]

There are a lot of factors that go into longevity of life, diet places one part. Genetics, diet, behavior, environmental factors, and a host of all kinds of factors all are involved.

The healthiest diets do seem to be those which are high in vegetable content, with animal protein taken from sources such as fish. So a balanced diet consisting of vegetables, with small portions of meat, along with complex rather than simple carbohydrates does seem to be the general consensus.

One can be vegetarian or vegan and still eat terribly. One can be vegetarian/vegan and still drink soda all day long and they'd be consuming a grotesque amount of sugar--but still be following the restrictions of their diet.

But the really important thing here is that things like our bodily health--our diet, the frequency of our exercise, etc--these are important from a mundane point of view. I mean, if I eat better, exercise regularly, and make smart lifestyle choices I'll feel better and there's a good chance I'll have my health longer than if I don't. But this isn't a religious issue. The same reason it's not a religious issue whether I choose to wear a coat on cold winter's day. Yeah, it's smart to dress warm on a cold day, it'll certainly keep me from freezing. But it's not a religious issue, it's not a moral issue. It's an issue of practical wisdom.

Can there be a moral dimension here? Sure. There is something to be said about the mistreatment of animals in the modern livestock industry.

But it is not balanced at all. Having any amount of meat is not better for you, you can have a much healthier way of eating with just having what is plant-based that consists of whole foods. Sure there are vegetarian and vegan ways of eating that are not so healthy. Those ways are not advisable. But having just good variety of whole food that is plant-based is by far much healthier, and there is no amount of meat that makes it more balanced. See www.forksoverknives.com.

All the modern livestock industry has mistreatment of the animals there. With our choosing products from that we contribute to that continuing. There is morality involved in choices for that, any conscience left with us should tell us that, and there is scripture for showing that if there is not that conscience left for us that we wouldn't need it.

Christ ate fish (at the very least) and did so post resurrection so that sort of messes with that theory.

Not at all at the very least. There is nothing to show Jesus eating any meat before the resurrection, and the one passage about what Jesus showed he could eat, showing he was alive, the focus of the passage and not an endorsement for what to eat, is questionable, as honeycomb is mentioned, but eliminated in some versions, and the Christ ate it, which is not definitive at all whether it was from the honeycomb, or the fish mentioned there, or fish and honeycomb combo for breakfast, which I just wouldn't believe anyone would have at all.

I basically agree that dogma drawn from Paul's writing is wrong, assuming the dogma differs from the writing itself, anyway. And since we agree that Paul himself doesn't contradict the Word of the Most High, does the statement that "he who is weak eats only vegetables" (Rom. 14:2, NKJV) contradict the Word of the Most High?

That is understanding from it completely out of context just like most scripture passages people use to argue the point. It is about the issue of idolatry, in which Paul was considering overly conscientious believers avoiding anything for possibly having been offered to idols as being weak. It was in no way about vegans, or vegetarians, who choose to not have meat for other very meaningful reasons, that are not contrary to anything in the Bible.

Because people choose to eat certain things for ego, not for the Most High. If you are eating vegetables because you want to please the Most High, then keep it between you two. There is no reason to make a thing about it, because you get your reward.

This is really baloney. There are plenty of those serving God in the ways they know how to, as it may be hoped of those posting here, and they avoid contribution to many problematic things with their choices, which is not contrary to God, still with the service to God for God's glory.

Yeah, people can be vegetarians if they feel it's the right thing to do; just keep it between you and God. And if you want to eat meat, that's fine as well.

If there are reasons for not using any of the animal products, those reasons should be communicated, and there are the reasons, and there is scriptural basis for that.

 

[JacksBratt]

i think He intended adam and eve to be vegans.

I'm much healthier and less grumpy, sleep better when I eat a diet that is consistent with what I was raised with.... which is "Start with the type of meat and build the rest of the meal around that"..

It's not for everyone. It's night the "right" way. I'm not claiming that it is "God's" way. It's the way I was raised and I have found that I am a meat eater..... and healthiest when I stick to a diet with 50% meat.

If I go off of it... eat more pasta, salads, beans, vegetables, fruits and such... I get bloated, gassy and I'm always hungry.

 

[Brightmoon]

I agree I actually feel better and have less anxiety if I eat a diet with a lot of fruits and vegetables but I need to eat a small amount of meat with them . Because I’ll feel hungry if I don’t eat the meat.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not at all at the very least. There is nothing to show Jesus eating any meat before the resurrection,

He celebrated at least one Passover with his disciples - and probably many more than that. He was a Jew from a Jewish family.
Lamb was eaten at the Passover.

In John 21 Jesus said to the disciples, "bring some of the fish you have caught." He had already built a fire with some fish on it.
True, there is no verse that says, 'then Jesus ate the fish'; but it would have been pretty strange if he hadn't.

 

[JacksBratt]

But it is not balanced at all. Having any amount of meat is not better for you, you can have a much healthier way of eating with just having what is plant-based that consists of whole foods. Sure there are vegetarian and vegan ways of eating that are not so healthy. Those ways are not advisable. But having just good variety of whole food that is plant-based is by far much healthier, and there is no amount of meat that makes it more balanced. See www.forksoverknives.com.

Sorry Fred, but my doctor said that in today's age with the speed at which they grow veges.... it is very hard to get a proper diet without meat. Not impossible.. but difficult.

All the modern livestock industry has mistreatment of the animals there.

Do you know any farmers? Seriously, the animals are their income. They have vets looking after them and they treat them well. If they don't, then they don't grow well and don't sell for good prices..

They take very good care of their product.

Not at all at the very least. There is nothing to show Jesus eating any meat before the resurrection, and the one passage about what Jesus showed he could eat, showing he was alive, the focus of the passage and not an endorsement for what to eat, is questionable, as honeycomb is mentioned, but eliminated in some versions, and the Christ ate it, which is not definitive at all whether it was from the honeycomb, or the fish mentioned there, or fish and honeycomb combo for breakfast, which I just wouldn't believe anyone would have at all.

So, Jesus is a vegetarian? Seriously? He was not from a rich family. He was never rich. He ate what they could acquire and afford... So, I see no reason logically or biblical to start that gossip.

I understand. You want everyone to be a vegetarian. Why is that? Why do vegetarians want everyone to be like them. Why do they always have to voice it.. like it puts them above others.. that others are "not vegetarian"....

Look, eat what you want. Be a vegetarian if you think it's best for you. But, you won't convert people by saying Jesus was a vegetarian.

I have vegetarians in the family.. We put on a vegy burger for them or accommodate them the best we can.. We don't look down on them and they don't preach to us... I get it...

Even if the bible said the Jesus ate no meat.... Which it doesn't..... He never said it was a sin to eat it. Not only that but in many cases they talk about eating meat and it's never condemned.

 

[The Liturgist]

Only on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Also in Advent, Lent, the Apostle’s Fast and the Dormition Fast (for those who are sufficiently healthy.

But, according to the canons of the Council of Nicea, not from Pascha until Pentecost (I don’t understand the canonical basis for the Eastern Orthodox practice of resuming Wednesday and Friday fasts after Bright Week, nor for that matter the canonical basis for the Western practice of Rogation Days in Ascensiontide).

 

[The Liturgist]

My son says, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."

Sounds about right to me.

Indeed, it is very true.

It's an example of someone drawing a conclusion and then fixing the evidence to support it, all the while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Most especially St. Peter’s dream in Acts.

 

[The Liturgist]

Even if the bible said the Jesus ate no meat.... Which it doesn't..... He never said it was a sin to eat it. Not only that but in many cases they talk about eating meat and it's never condemned.

Indeed, in the Gospel of Luke, our risen Lord eats fish with the disciples in a post-Resurrection appearance, which suggests that we may well continue to eat meat in the world to come. This is a thrilling prospect for me given my great enthusiasm for sushi.