Albion said:
Jesus certainly approved of eating the flesh of animals, so that's the end of the argument about what's permitted to Christians to eat.
Raising them in humane conditions, etc. is another and separate issue that most people do agree with, however.
Approved is quite a strong word to use, which should have passages to justify that. And as I was not discussing what is permitted, this was not ending anything. What information I show just gets overlooked without response, while other things are said that have nothing to do with those. Except for saying raising animals in humane conditions is an issue, which is then left off, while I already had a lot to say for that. Any look into animal industry will show why there would be objection to using meat and products from that. All other objections were just overlooked and ignored. for this questionable claim that 'Jesus certainly approved of eating the flesh of animals'. What about the the original design according to God's perfect will? What about the healthiness of eating whole foods from plants, which is better for us than including animal products, and certainly processed foods? Cancers, and heart attacks and strokes from clogged arteries, and high blood pressure, and rheumatoid arthritis, and obesity, and overall mortality, can be fought off effectively with that healthy way. Is it God's will that we have a way of eating less healthy for us? And what is done to animals for that doesn't matter? (Proverbs 12:10) And what is happening with the world, with more land, water, and resources used up, for animal agriculture, doesn't matter?
RDKirk said:
If a vegan diet were what the human body is currently fitted for (post Fall), then somewhere on earth there would be vegan human social groups. There are none. There have been none. There have been, however, social groups that are almost purely carnivore.
The term vegan is contemporary, and was not used for any people before 1949. There were vegetarians before then, and many among them also avoided eating animal products. And there is just no attention given to any groups that might have not used animals for food. There really were some such people in central Asia. And in the Bible Daniel and his group of friends were not still eating animal products through their captivity in the Babylonian empire. And there could be others, that you don't know about. You don't know that many early Christian believers, and known apostles, and James, avoided animal products.
bbbbbbb said:
Actually, there is an identifiable biological determinant regarding dietary intakes of mammals. Many animals such as cows have extremely long dietary tracts (cows have four stomachs which permit them to regurgitate the fodder and chew every last nutrient out of it) which are fitted for a plant diet only. At the other extreme are mammals with extremely short digestive tracts which mean they need to have a diet with nutrient-packed food. These animals are carnivores such as lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!). They will perish just as quickly eating only vegetable matter even as herbivores will perish if fed only meat.
In between are omnivores with moderately long digestive tracts which can process both vegetable matter and meat relatively effectively. Humans are omnivores, like it or not. Humans do fairly well on a meat diet and fairly well on a plant-based diet, but a balanced diet of the two sources works best for humans.
Curiously, there are a few animals which have the digestive tract of a carnivore, but which eat only plants. Two that come to mind are pandas (which are really in their own category) and koalas. The pandas only eat one particular species of bamboo and spend virtually all of their waking moments to eating bamboo in order to sustain themselves. Koalas, likewise, eat eucalyptus leaves only. They have the advantage that eucalyptus leaves ferment in their digestive tracts, producing alcohol, which leaves them in a perpetual state of inebriation.
Hi bbbbbbb. Balanced diet is a contemporary myth. Having animal products is not better for us, if we have a variety of whole food from plants, including the various sorts of vegetables, and fruits, seeds, nuts, grains, and maybe some dried seaweed that is good to have. There are health issues from animal products. Studies show this and there are doctors who know this. The most realistic of what we can say for human design for eating meat is that we are adapted for that. It never was better for us, unless we are not getting much of the good variety of the food from plants that we should have.
pescador said:
Innocent animals are not tortured. They are killed as humanely as possible.
"To kill someone innocent because of something so self-absorbed as taste for meat is very dark in my world." Agreed. We should not be cannibals! BTW, an animal is not "someone".
How do you feel about murdering innocent vegetables? They are ripped from the ground and often eaten RAW!
I am sorry to see this ignorance, perhaps willful, while there really is abusive treatment of animals in the animal industry. There is nothing humane done while they are being killed. And there are no laws or regulation for treatment of birds and other nonmammals.
You just use your own definition of 'someone' there. It is just arbitrary.
And vegetables, without any brain or any nervous system for any awareness at all, are murdered?! Ripped from the ground as they are screaming? Hahaha! That's really funny that you believe that! But it gives you no basis to use animals, which takes a lot more vegetation being grown and used to maintain that.
pescador said:
There are no foods that God condemns under the New Covenant.
So you too continue with believing that God's mind changes. Then, what God's will was to start with doesn't matter.