"Does God really want us to become vegan?"

[Strong in Him]

Arguments from silence are often quite interesting, to say the least. Such as, "When did you stop beating your wife?" I suppose one could make such an argument from any sort of silence in scripture. A standard example would be the number of heads possessed by John the Baptist. In light of the "fact" that multiple skulls have been authenticated over the centuries as having been those of John the Baptist and the fact that scripture never states how many head John the Baptist actually had, one can cogently argue that he possessed multiple heads. The question arises then as to whether he had them concurrently or successively.

I was only speculating that it was likely that Jesus ate lamb at Passover.
Scripture doesn't say that he didn't, or opted out.

 

[Strong in Him]

To each their own! Bring on the bacon-wrapped chicken!

BTW, I don't eat any fruit, don't like it because of texture reasons, and eat limited vegetables. Mostly broccoli, canned peas, cauliflower, and corn. I will eat spinach if the taste is masked. Oh and potatoes and cucumbers.

Gosh, I've found someone who eats fewer veggies than I do.
Salmon and spinach is lovely - occasionally with new potatoes and peas, too.

 

[pescador]

I was only speculating that it was likely that Jesus ate lamb at Passover.
Scripture doesn't say that he didn't, or opted out.

If He ate the Passover meal He ate lamb. Period.

 

[Isilwen]

Gosh, I've found someone who eats fewer veggies than I do.
Salmon and spinach is lovely - occasionally with new potatoes and peas, too.

Like fruits, it's a texture thing. The broccoli stems have to be very soft as do the cauliflower stems. If spinach is in something like Italian Wedding Soup or spinach and artichoke dip (I guess artichoke when the flavor is masked too), I'll eat it.

Love seafood including salmon. Especially like lightly smoked salmon.

 

[FredVB]

It is true that it cannot be proven from scriptures that Jesus did not eat meat, I don't claim otherwise. I respond to that claim that scripture shows Jesus did eat meat, which it does not. It is evasion of the real issues, which I speak of, to start talking about what Jesus did, which is not shown for this anyway. That is a weak argument against giving up animal products because of the issues. What Jesus did is not stated in scripture. That there is statement otherwise I do say, but as it is not scripture you can ask why you should regard it. You might not, but you have no scriptures to override those things. So it is best to leave argument about what Jesus did out of it.

I am not grasping at anything. But I see claims made that cannot really be supported.

Jesus did not ask if they had any fish. He asked, do you have anything to eat.

Honeycomb has clearly been edited out of the Bible text in Bible versions, I have seen cases of other such editing. I trust the original writing of scriptures were the truth being shown but modern versions we have do have to be checked against others, if not the published text of the early manuscripts if we can have access to that. It isn't clear to me that things weren't added into scriptures early on, even such things as the word fish.

Jesus is the model for us and never limited compassion. No one is more compassionate than Jesus, not even vegans, so Jesus is more compassionate than they are. Besides, the Bible does not show that animals are simply here for us to eat, as is claimed be many I hear.

There is all this argument for one passage, to ignore other passages mentioned. There is the support of the position with the facts for saying people being plant-based is better, for their health, besides being better for the world with people starving, demand for water and other resources, environments, climate change and global warming, while continued demand for the animal agriculture with its products is not better for anything. God does want what is better, while many of us are still contributing to destructiveness.

Luke 24:41 - But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?”

Luke 24:42 - So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.

Textus Receptus

24:42 οἱ δὲ ἐπέδωκαν αὐτῷ ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ μέρος καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου

of

g575

ἀπὸ ἀπό apo

an honeycomb

g3193

μελισσίου μελίσσιος melissios

This is an informative site that shows sources to look further into this.

Evidence That Jesus and The Original Aramaic Christians Were Vegetarians

Except for the piece of fish after the resurrection, yes, that is true.
But it is still a fact that the Hebrew slaves were told to kill, and eat, lamb before they left Egypt; lamb was the main element of the Passover meal. It is also a fact that Jesus was a Jewish boy, who became a Jewish man, and celebrated a final Passover with his disciples. It is not unreasonable to suppose, from all that, that Jesus celebrated Passover and ate at least some of the lamb - i.e he kept the feasts set by God. The fact that it's not recorded that he abstained from lamb at Passover suggests that either it didn't happen - or that the Gospel writers felt it to be completely unimportant.

That is true as well; I apologise.
But he still ate it; he didn't say "sorry, do you have anything else?" Or "you were with me for 3 years and you don't know that I don't eat meat?"

Even if we said, "oh ok, there is no verse to say that Jesus ate meat, so maybe he didn't", the fact is that Jews were not forbidden from eating meat; only unclean meat. Not only did they eat meat, in fact; they often had to kill the animals and prepare it themselves - as in Exodus 12.

If the fish was there and not added into text, the text shows that Jesus ate it, not them, and I really can't believe fish honeycomb combo was a breakfast item ever. So regardless, it is not conclusive that Jesus ate fish when he ate one thing. Why think it might be added? I am suspicious that no fish bones or parts were picked up after the occasions that the multitudes were miraculously fed, just bread fragments.

Arguments from silence are often quite interesting, to say the least.

Hi bbbbbbb. You are right. I think that is an important point. Why bring up a claim when Bible passages are silent about it and have nothing definitely showing it? I wouldn't have brought any such up, myself.

I was only speculating that it was likely that Jesus ate lamb at Passover.
Scripture doesn't say that he didn't, or opted out.

But the speculation that it was likely is not considering what Passover was for, and it was not for any there to have meat. It is a memorial. And Jesus shows the new meaning it should have, remembering him as the Lamb of God, and no other sacrificed lives will do. Jesus took it all for us, no other has to. Our change in him is to have virtues grow, including mercy, love, compassion, patience, and caring, without limiting those, in which the Creator is not limited.

If He ate the Passover meal He ate lamb. Period.

"Pescador"? You are a fish eater?

Not so fast. You are missing the point of the Passover. That is not it.

The issue of it really being healthier for us to not have animal products is neglected. Did God really want us to keep having what is not as healthy for us? And lives of starving people could be saves if more food was available, which there would be if so many, billions and billions, of animals were instead not continually bred and fed with all that is grown for them, instead, for them to be slaughtered for the demand of products from them. There are issues to this world from animal agriculture as well. But everything has to be ignored or dismissed for continuing on without any change and trying to argue against eating in a vegan way. It is a rather defensive response, I could also say.

 

[Strong in Him]

If the fish was there and not added into text, the text shows that Jesus ate it, not them, and I really can't believe fish honeycomb combo was a breakfast item ever.

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NEB and my interlinear Greek NT mention nothing about honeycomb, so I don't know where that came from.
They all say that Jesus asked for food, they gave him some cooked fish and he ate it.

So regardless, it is not conclusive that Jesus ate fish when he ate one thing. Why think it might be added?

Why do you think it was the fish that was added?
Which is more likely for fisherman to have; fish, or honeycomb?

I am suspicious that no fish bones or parts were picked up after the occasions that the multitudes were miraculously fed,

Mark 6:43 says that they picked up pieces of fish; Matthew and Luke say they picked up the leftovers.
Why do you suppose that those leftovers did not include fish bones?

But the speculation that it was likely is not considering what Passover was for, and it was not for any there to have meat.

The Passover was the last meal that the Hebrew slaves had before they left Egypt - when the angel of death passed over them because of the lamb's blood on their doorposts.
Exodus 12:3-8

Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.

This is God's instruction as to how they were to celebrate future Passovers.
Not only were they to eat lamb, they were to have chosen, and cared for, the lamb for two weeks before the feast. The Jewish Passover does, and always did, include eating lamb. The last supper was on the day on which the Passover lambs were killed.
If you want to argue that Jesus celebrated a final Passover meal with his disciples and yet did not eat the lamb; go ahead. But you can't back that argument from Scripture.

Again, in the OT the Hebrews at Mt Sinai were given a list of meats that were unclean. They were also told not to eat any meat which still had blood in it; they were not commanded to abstain from meat completely.

 

[FredVB]

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NEB and my interlinear Greek NT mention nothing about honeycomb, so I don't know where that came from.
They all say that Jesus asked for food, they gave him some cooked fish and he ate it.

Why do you think it was the fish that was added?
Which is more likely for fisherman to have; fish, or honeycomb?

Mark 6:43 says that they picked up pieces of fish; Matthew and Luke say they picked up the leftovers.
Why do you suppose that those leftovers did not include fish bones?

The Passover was the last meal that the Hebrew slaves had before they left Egypt - when the angel of death passed over them because of the lamb's blood on their doorposts.
Exodus 12:3-8

This is God's instruction as to how they were to celebrate future Passovers.
Not only were they to eat lamb, they were to have chosen, and cared for, the lamb for two weeks before the feast. The Jewish Passover does, and always did, include eating lamb. The last supper was on the day on which the Passover lambs were killed.
If you want to argue that Jesus celebrated a final Passover meal with his disciples and yet did not eat the lamb; go ahead. But you can't back that argument from Scripture.

Again, in the OT the Hebrews at Mt Sinai were given a list of meats that were unclean. They were also told not to eat any meat which still had blood in it; they were not commanded to abstain from meat completely.

It is the fault of those versions that do not show that, it is showing me evidence that the Bible really is being changed, and newer forms of the Bible are not to be trusted so much. I will not repeat the same things I have shown, for it to be questioned where honeycomb is mentioned. Just look at what you previously disregarded in my posts showing it was originally mentioned. With the changes clearly shown now of changes being made in the Bible, I have reason to be suspicious of whether fish was even originally mentioned in some certain places. It is known many of the early Christians did not eat meat, some of the apostles are known to have given up meat, James the brother of the Lord, leader over the early church for a good while, did not eat meat, and there was the tradition that Jesus did not eat meat. So with the Bible clearly subject to changes to it there is basis for my suspicion now.

One verse mentions pieces of fish. Why do all the other verses neglect that, if fish there was used and especially if fish meat was multiplied? That suggests there is inconsistency from possible addition afterward.

I certainly cannot know that what Jesus had was not from the honeycomb.

The men Jesus picked to become apostles were not all fishermen, four of the eleven then left had been that which Jesus called them away from.

You try making the statements for the Passover say way more than they do. The point of the Passover is stated, it was that death which was coming would pass over those that had the covering of blood over their entry, that others who would be subject to death among them from did not, so that those passed over with the covering would be delivered from the bondage there among them. The animals sacrificed had the blood made available for that. The Passover commemorates that, and not that it is about eating the meat. Like among many other things, I discern distinction between people which is like the distinction between those seeing a glass half empty and those seeing a glass half full. The passage says, if you see it all the way, "You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat." That is not a requirement that each must eat meat, but it recognizes that people then did eat meat. So bad is the addiction, that the same people were a little later rebelling against God because God's abundant provision for them was not including meat.

All these arguments are diversions, trying to use scripture passages for that, and ignoring other passages, for ignoring the points already made, it was not claimed there is commandment to not eat meat, I don't say there is. But it shows that there is no care for the use and abuse of so many animals, actually contrary to scriptures, for your demands for the meat and the products from them, and there is no care for the starving people who are deprived of food when so much must be grown to feed the many billions of animals that are confined all their lives to be slaughtered for the meat and products, and there is no care for the use of much more of resources, land and water, and there is no care for the world and the climate which are all affected from animal agriculture, when verses can be used in your way while they do not show permission for meat in all cases no matter what, and they do not show how long there is permission for it, and what is permitted is disobeyed if meat is still being eaten if blood was not all removed first before preparing it. How will dismissing the issues be justified, and how can it be said God means you to have what is not even as healthy for you?

 

[Strong in Him]

You try making the statements for the Passover say way more than they do. The point of the Passover is stated, it was that death which was coming would pass over those that had the covering of blood over their entry, that others who would be subject to death among them from did not, so that those passed over with the covering would be delivered from the bondage there among them. The animals sacrificed had the blood made available for that. The Passover commemorates that, and not that it is about eating the meat.

Yet you completely ignore, or fail to answer, the fact that Gold TOLD them to eat meat.
It doesn't matter that it wasn't a meat festival or a carnivores party and was all about them leaving Egypt. They were told to kill a lamb, daub it's blood on the posts of the house and then eat it; not throw it away or give it to the dogs, eat it.

He also told Noah that every living thing was his for food and gave the Israelites a list of meats they could legally eat.

Explain away Jesus eating fish if you like, but the Jewish feast of Passover has always had lamb on the menu - given and commanded by God.
In Leviticus there are other instructions for cooking meat.

 

[Strong in Him]

And by the way, if the word "honeycomb" was not in the Greek documents, where did it come from and why was it added?

 

[FredVB]

Yet you completely ignore, or fail to answer, the fact that Gold TOLD them to eat meat.
It doesn't matter that it wasn't a meat festival or a carnivores party and was all about them leaving Egypt. They were told to kill a lamb, daub it's blood on the posts of the house and then eat it; not throw it away or give it to the dogs, eat it.

He also told Noah that every living thing was his for food and gave the Israelites a list of meats they could legally eat.

Explain away Jesus eating fish if you like, but the Jewish feast of Passover has always had lamb on the menu - given and commanded by God.
In Leviticus there are other instructions for cooking meat.

No, I don't ignore scripture but do not need to regard your interpretation that you read into it. There were no dogs kept, by any accounts, that any of them would feed. They were told to eat what they would, what remained would be burned, as was required, just like with sacrifices. That did not require every individual to eat meat. God never did require any individuals to eat meat, though animal meat was made available, under conditions and never to be permitted with blood not removed. Daniel and his friends certainly went without meat, and were not required to have meat at any time.

As there were conditions for having meat, and I clearly show issues, all this pulling of scripture passages to show that responders do, which come with their interpretations to make an argument, is diversion, you are not dealing with issues, and it would show such people will argue anything so that they won't care not only about any animal abuse but they don't care at all about other people or the world. See the issues raised again. Those are what you ignore with arguing with these passages which are inconsequential for this.

And by the way, if the word "honeycomb" was not in the Greek documents, where did it come from and why was it added?

How are you possibly missing what I have already shown? We will go around in circles if I keep going back to what I have already shown. If you are deceived by what modern translations show it is proof to me that the Bible really is being changed with deceiving some. Only original text can be right.

I showed this, further above.

Luke 24:41 - But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?”

Luke 24:42 - So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.

Textus Receptus

24:42 οἱ δὲ ἐπέδωκαν αὐτῷ ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ μέρος καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου

of

g575

ἀπὸ ἀπό apo

an honeycomb

g3193

μελισσίου μελίσσιος melissios

This is an informative site that shows sources to look further into this.

Evidence That Jesus and The Original Aramaic Christians Were Vegetarians

 

[Strong in Him]

No, I don't ignore scripture but do not need to regard your interpretation that you read into it.

Yet you have never addressed Exodus 12:6-9.

Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and internal organs.

They were instructed by God to put lambs' blood on the doorposts of the houses in which they ATE the lamb; they were to EAT the lamb roasted over a fire - how can that passage be interpreted any other way?
At Sinai, they had a list of animal they could eat. There were unclean animals and clean animals. The Jews ate meat - - except pork, ham etc - end of.
If there is teaching in the Bible which says "for 'meat' read vegetables; don't eat meat ever and make a lamb out of tofu at Passover", you need to show it.

If you want to insist that Jesus had fish AND honeycomb after the resurrection and that when the text says "he ate it", it MUST mean he ate the honeycomb - go ahead.
But the fact is that they were instructed to include lamb in their Passover meal, always did and do to this day.
There is no verse in the Bible which tells us that God has forbidden us to eat meat. It's a choice if you do, a choice if you don't and not a sin either way.

 

[FredVB]

Yet you have never addressed Exodus 12:6-9.

They were instructed by God to put lambs' blood on the doorposts of the houses in which they ATE the lamb; they were to EAT the lamb roasted over a fire - how can that passage be interpreted any other way?
At Sinai, they had a list of animal they could eat. There were unclean animals and clean animals. The Jews ate meat - - except pork, ham etc - end of.
If there is teaching in the Bible which says "for 'meat' read vegetables; don't eat meat ever and make a lamb out of tofu at Passover", you need to show it.

If you want to insist that Jesus had fish AND honeycomb after the resurrection and that when the text says "he ate it", it MUST mean he ate the honeycomb - go ahead.
But the fact is that they were instructed to include lamb in their Passover meal, always did and do to this day.
There is no verse in the Bible which tells us that God has forbidden us to eat meat. It's a choice if you do, a choice if you don't and not a sin either way.

I actually have addressed the Exodus 12 passages, sorry that you are not understanding. Those people did eat meat, that is not disputed. They show they are addicted to eating meat, like some here. There are addictive qualities to food, specifically animal products, which is known now. But I understand the preparation in light of the instruction, You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. That is not a requirement to eat meat, no matter how you think. They would eat meat. The requirement was to put blood from the animal onto the entry, the symbolism is very important, eating meat wasn't. They had meat then available, and they were to figure out how much for a household according to what any there would eat. They would eat, but that was not requirement for each one to eat. No person ever had to eat meat. Daniel and his friends didn't, do you imagine they were disobedient in that? The meat that was left over, however much it was, was all burned, like a sacrifice to God.

It is not I insisting on honeycomb being present when Christ appeared again to followers. It is in the earliest manuscripts, including in the Textus Receptus manuscripts. If anything was added, I have no reason to think it was honeycomb. There was never issue with honeycomb. But there was issue with meat, as so many early believers no longer ate meat, but as Christianity spread among gentiles many who wanted to come to Christ did not want to give up meat. How useful it would be if meat items were shown in the Bible in ways that show having meat is fine.

You misrepresent what I say to explain that there is no passage showing God does forbid having meat. I don't say that. We are to choose. And there is way that is better to choose. God is not against that. I show issues that are reasons for why a way is better to choose, and you still avoid considering any of those. Why should those important things be dismissed?

 

[FredVB]

We are to choose. And there is a way that is better to choose. God is not against that. I show issues that are reasons for why a way is better to choose, and you still avoid considering any of those. Why should those important things be dismissed?

There are the real reasons to give up animal products, and no better reasons to keep having animal products, that are ever shown. But reasons to give them up are ignored, it shows that there is no care for the use and abuse of so many animals, actually contrary to scriptures, for the demand for the meat and the products from them, and there is no care for the starving people who are deprived of food when so much must be grown to feed the many billions of animals that are confined all their lives to be slaughtered for the meat and products, and there is no care for the use of much more of resources, land and water, and there is no care for the world and the climate which are all affected from animal agriculture, when verses are shown that can be used in your way while they do not show permission for meat in all cases no matter what, and they do not show how long there is permission for it, and what is permitted is disobeyed if meat is still being eaten if blood was not all removed first before preparing it. What shows permission for meat from animals God created is to still continue on, even through anything? It is tiring to see the blockage of religiosity to humanity and godliness among others. How will dismissing the issues be justified, and how can it be said God means for you to have what is not even as healthy for you?

 

[pescador]

There are the real reasons to give up animal products, and no better reasons to keep having animal products, that are ever shown. But reasons to give them up are ignored, it shows that there is no care for the use and abuse of so many animals, actually contrary to scriptures, for the demand for the meat and the products from them, and there is no care for the starving people who are deprived of food when so much must be grown to feed the many billions of animals that are confined all their lives to be slaughtered for the meat and products, and there is no care for the use of much more of resources, land and water, and there is no care for the world and the climate which are all affected from animal agriculture, when verses are shown that can be used in your way while they do not show permission for meat in all cases no matter what, and they do not show how long there is permission for it, and what is permitted is disobeyed if meat is still being eaten if blood was not all removed first before preparing it. What shows permission for meat from animals God created is to still continue on, even through anything? It is tiring to see the blockage of religiosity to humanity and godliness among others. How will dismissing the issues be justified, and how can it be said God means for you to have what is not even as healthy for you?

The longest sentence I have ever read! Aside from it having no Biblical basis -- Paul wrote not to judge others by what they eat -- there is NOTHING wrong with eating meat. What about ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw??

 

[FredVB]

The longest sentence I have ever read! Aside from it having no Biblical basis -- Paul wrote not to judge others by what they eat -- there is NOTHING wrong with eating meat. What about ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw??

Of course, you are answering nothing of what I said. If that was the longest sentence you read, saying all those points that really go together for not contributing to the demand of animal products for your food and use, besides that meaning you do not see my communication elsewhere, it means you read all of which you ignore to answer. The reasons are legitimate, and not at all contrary to anything of the Bible. You think abusive use of animals is not addressed in the Bible? You should really read more of the Bible which it seems you did not attentively get to for seeing God cares for the creatures of the creation from God. We were to be stewards over them, in the way we can expect God's dominion over us. See Proverbs 12:10. And you do not see me judging you, yet. So do you bring up not judging one another so that you won't judge me? Contrary to replies to argue with me indicating that, I do not say there is commandment shown to not eat meat. But I do show it is better to not do so. And the reasons I show are ignored so far, and there is not biblical basis shown to ignore all such further information. Address then how it is justified to contribute still to people starving to death with not enough food while animals that will be slaughtered are fed instead, for food for your demand, and how it is justified that there is continued contribution to use of more water, land, and resources, and worsening of this world, with that continued demand, and how the healthier way for you is ignored for that.

Really, you are one of those people who will only say to vegans what you wouldn't say to any other ever? And ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw? That is how you ask that? Who does that? I never heard of that being done. But as the issue meant has to be about it being alive, the reason animal abuse is an issue to consider is that they are feeling beings, which respond to us, and any conscience we have, besides Bible passages showing it, should have us responsible for better treatment to them. They have the neural system in place as we do, that is not simply there with everything which is "alive". We would not consider caring for bacteria or viruses, plants likewise do not have a central nervous system and they grow making food, and food we should have, as we need food, which is provided, grows from certain plants. This is shown in Genesis 1:29, and God said it was very good, and there will be the world restored to that, which creation groans for, at the full revealing of the redemption, which the unrepentant of humanity will not come to.

 

[Isilwen]

Of course, you are answering nothing of what I said. If that was the longest sentence you read, saying all those points that really go together for not contributing to the demand of animal products for your food and use, besides that meaning you do not see my communication elsewhere, it means you read all of which you ignore to answer. The reasons are legitimate, and not at all contrary to anything of the Bible. You think abusive use of animals is not addressed in the Bible? You should really read more of the Bible which it seems you did not attentively get to for seeing God cares for the creatures of the creation from God. We were to be stewards over them, in the way we can expect God's dominion over us. See Proverbs 12:10. And you do not see me judging you, yet. So do you bring up not judging one another so that you won't judge me? Contrary to replies to argue with me indicating that, I do not say there is commandment shown to not eat meat. But I do show it is better to not do so. And the reasons I show are ignored so far, and there is not biblical basis shown to ignore all such further information. Address then how it is justified to contribute still to people starving to death with not enough food while animals that will be slaughtered are fed instead, for food for your demand, and how it is justified that there is continued contribution to use of more water, land, and resources, and worsening of this world, with that continued demand, and how the healthier way for you is ignored for that.

Really, you are one of those people who will only say to vegans what you wouldn't say to any other ever? And ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw? That is how you ask that? Who does that? I never heard of that being done. But as the issue meant has to be about it being alive, the reason animal abuse is an issue to consider is that they are feeling beings, which respond to us, and any conscience we have, besides Bible passages showing it, should have us responsible for better treatment to them. They have the neural system in place as we do, that is not simply there with everything which is "alive". We would not consider caring for bacteria or viruses, plants likewise do not have a central nervous system and they grow making food, and food we should have, as we need food, which is provided, grows from certain plants. This is shown in Genesis 1:29, and God said it was very good, and there will be the world restored to that, which creation groans for, at the full revealing of the redemption, which the unrepentant of humanity will not come to.

Not all of ud are meant to be vegan or vegetarian.

I have texture issues, don't like fruit because of it, same with vegetables, although I do some of those.

 

[pescador]

Of course, you are answering nothing of what I said. If that was the longest sentence you read, saying all those points that really go together for not contributing to the demand of animal products for your food and use, besides that meaning you do not see my communication elsewhere, it means you read all of which you ignore to answer. The reasons are legitimate, and not at all contrary to anything of the Bible. You think abusive use of animals is not addressed in the Bible? You should really read more of the Bible which it seems you did not attentively get to for seeing God cares for the creatures of the creation from God. We were to be stewards over them, in the way we can expect God's dominion over us. See Proverbs 12:10. And you do not see me judging you, yet. So do you bring up not judging one another so that you won't judge me? Contrary to replies to argue with me indicating that, I do not say there is commandment shown to not eat meat. But I do show it is better to not do so. And the reasons I show are ignored so far, and there is not biblical basis shown to ignore all such further information. Address then how it is justified to contribute still to people starving to death with not enough food while animals that will be slaughtered are fed instead, for food for your demand, and how it is justified that there is continued contribution to use of more water, land, and resources, and worsening of this world, with that continued demand, and how the healthier way for you is ignored for that.

Really, you are one of those people who will only say to vegans what you wouldn't say to any other ever? And ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw? That is how you ask that? Who does that? I never heard of that being done. But as the issue meant has to be about it being alive, the reason animal abuse is an issue to consider is that they are feeling beings, which respond to us, and any conscience we have, besides Bible passages showing it, should have us responsible for better treatment to them. They have the neural system in place as we do, that is not simply there with everything which is "alive". We would not consider caring for bacteria or viruses, plants likewise do not have a central nervous system and they grow making food, and food we should have, as we need food, which is provided, grows from certain plants. This is shown in Genesis 1:29, and God said it was very good, and there will be the world restored to that, which creation groans for, at the full revealing of the redemption, which the unrepentant of humanity will not come to.

You never heard of ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw? What planet are you on?

 

[FredVB]

Of course, you are answering nothing of what I said. If that was the longest sentence you read, saying all those points that really go together for not contributing to the demand of animal products for your food and use, besides that meaning you do not see my communication elsewhere, it means you read all of which you ignore to answer. The reasons are legitimate, and not at all contrary to anything of the Bible. You think abusive use of animals is not addressed in the Bible? You should really read more of the Bible which it seems you did not attentively get to for seeing God cares for the creatures of the creation from God. We were to be stewards over them, in the way we can expect God's dominion over us. See Proverbs 12:10. And you do not see me judging you, yet. So do you bring up not judging one another so that you won't judge me? Contrary to replies to argue with me indicating that, I do not say there is commandment shown to not eat meat. But I do show it is better to not do so. And the reasons I show are ignored so far, and there is not biblical basis shown to ignore all such further information. Address then how it is justified to contribute still to people starving to death with not enough food while animals that will be slaughtered are fed instead, for food for your demand, and how it is justified that there is continued contribution to use of more water, land, and resources, and worsening of this world, with that continued demand, and how the healthier way for you is ignored for that.

Really, you are one of those people who will only say to vegans what you wouldn't say to any other ever? And ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw? That is how you ask that? Who does that? I never heard of that being done. But as the issue meant has to be about it being alive, the reason animal abuse is an issue to consider is that they are feeling beings, which respond to us, and any conscience we have, besides Bible passages showing it, should have us responsible for better treatment to them. They have the neural system in place as we do, that is not simply there with everything which is "alive". We would not consider caring for bacteria or viruses, plants likewise do not have a central nervous system and they grow making food, and food we should have, as we need food, which is provided, grows from certain plants. This is shown in Genesis 1:29, and God said it was very good, and there will be the world restored to that, which creation groans for, at the full revealing of the redemption, which the unrepentant of humanity will not come to.

Not all of ud are meant to be vegan or vegetarian.

I have texture issues, don't like fruit because of it, same with vegetables, although I do some of those.

Of all the objections to coming to any change, texture is the basis to dismiss the issues? I can't argue, not having information for it, that perhaps eskimos cannot be well with just foods from plants. The resources for it are not available in their environment. But studies are conclusive for people generally, and you do not show how you are not included because of your heritage. Instead you do not want fruits and vegetables because of texture, as if people's taste never changes. Can you not just cook differently for different texture? I hear all sorts of objections, but never before one so trivial.

You never heard of ripping a live carrot from the ground and eating it raw? What planet are you on?

I have not, and I even went to search for it online after seeing your comment about that, finding nothing. Do you have a link for information of anyone doing that? It does not sound healthy. There are soil bacteria we should not just ingest. But they can be rinsed off. Some skin them and eat the carrot, my texture issue is wanting to eat what is not so hard, so I cook carrot that I will eat, with other things. The issue you bring suggests that they have a mind, so you should just kill and eat animals. I think that is ridiculous reasoning. Animals used in slaughter do have minds. Pigs are much smarter than dogs, too. I cannot compare a carrot to them.

I cannot believe this communication is ever directed to anyone else, but it strangely is brought up for vegan people.