Should Christians Hunt?

[Beastt]

Mycardial infarction.

These have SEVERAL causes. They are generally related to high FAT consumption. That is why there are LEAN meats. People who eat less meat, and lean meats are less likely to have these problems. Even vegetarians can have plaque buildup. Ever seen a wild deer heart? They still have quite a bit of fat surrounding them (we had to disect them in nursing courses). Most people are worried about the fat IN their circulatory system, but oftentimes the fat outside can be just as much a problem. It adds too much pressure to the outside of the veins/arteries/etc and can cause them to collapse.

A true myocardial infarction is, (as the term denotes), death of the heart muscle. Of course it is usually only a portion of the muscle or survival of an MI would be impossible. But while there is more than one possible cause for heart muscle to die, that which is commonly referred to as a heart attack is due to occlusion of one or more of the coronary arteries which feed the heart. And that blockage is rarely caused by anything other than the buildup of fatty material on the walls of the artery. And while most foods do have some amount of fat, fat is a vital and necessary nutrient. As will all other nutrients, including protein, too much is a bad thing. And when you begin to talk about saturated fats, and worse yet, hydrogenated fats, and cholesterol, we're talking about compounds which do not break down in a human digestive system before being absorbed into the circulatory system. Since you've been through some nursing courses, I assume you're familiar with how a human blood sample should appear when placed in a test tube. The picture below shows two such human blood samples after being removed from a centrifuge. The sample on the left is normal. The sample on the right shows what can be expected when the donor ingests the amounts of animal fats now common in western diets.

As concerns "lean" meats, it should be noted that there are two accepted standards for measuring fat content. One is for plant based products and the other is for animal-based products. To accurately measure fat content, one should base it on the percentage of actual calories derived from fat. And this is the standard by which plant-based foods are rated.

But animal based foods are allowed to be labeled by bulk. In other words, if one were to take a cube of butter, it would be roughtly 100% fat. But if one mixes that cube of butter with an equal quantity of water, it can now legally be labeled 50% fat. But all of the calories in this butter/water mixture still come from fat. And that's where lean meats get their low fat rating. Lean meats are still better than those not processed and treated to cut the fat content, but these meats still contain a high percentage of saturated fat and still contain cholesterol. This is how producers are able to label low-fat milk "2%" despite the fact that 31% of the calories in the milk come, not just from fat, but mostly from saturated fat. Compare that to whole cow's milk at 49% and you can see that the "2%" claim is completely deceptive... but legal because milk is mostly water and water contains zero calories.

Some fat is ok, even necessary.

Absolutely. And for human needs, plants supply all of the fats necessary. But just as important, plants are very low in saturated fats and are simply unable to produce cholesterol. All dietary cholesterol comes from animal sources. And just like the cow from which so much dietary cholesterol comes, the human body produces all of the cholesterol it needs. Any dietary cholesterol is excess.

When people went on their lowfat craze it caused all sorts of problems. Especially in children who weren't getting enough fats to keep their brain healthy. They also started having motor problems. They didn't have enough fat for myelinization. Women usually have problems before men, as we need it for various hormones too.

That's because instead of reducing their intake of saturated fats, they were attempting to drastically cut all fats. And as you and I, (and every qualified nutritionist) agree, fat is a vital and necessary nutrient. But not all fats are equal and some are simply far more harmful to human health than are others. And the chief source of the most harmful and excess fats in a standard western diet comes from meat and dairy.

 

[Beastt]

Humans produce hydrocholoric acid. This is a strong acid. Humans regularly maintain a highly acidic stomach atmosphere of around 1.5-2 pH.

All mammals produce HCL in the digestive tract. But the amount produced and the amount of dilution vary based on the natural diet of the animal. And while humans produce enough to aid in the digestion process, they do not produce strong enough acid to kill salmonella, E. coli, or many of the other microorganisms toxic enough to our bodies to produce death. This is why a wild cat can kill an animal, eat it's fill, cover the remaining carcass with dirt and leaves, then return days later and continue to feed on the carcass. It does so with no need for concern about becoming ill due to the bacterial growth on the meat. Compare that to a person who accidentally leaves a steak on the counter for a few hours. Even the counter must be carefully washed after refrigerated meat is prepared on it because these microorganisms are so toxic to us that even secondary contamination is sufficient to produce death. We simply don't have the digestive physiology to cope with the microorganisms which rapidly proliferate on meat and other animal products. If you open your refrigerator and remove those things least likely to spoil in a few hours, what you have left is the animal products.

In carnivores they will maintain a higher stomach pH while full, because meat has a high content of protein which breaks down with the aid of pepsin into amino acids. Human stomach pH will differ while full based on what they ate. If they are eating more plant based things they will have considerably more sugars and starches which will make their full stomach pH less acidic than a carnivores.

ALL food is pushed through the stomach in a sticky, waxy, pasty mess. This is called chyme.

You're forgetting that carnivores can ingest rotting meat with no ill effects simply because their stronger stomach acid can kill the bacteria. So despite all the information provided concerning stomach content, they still produce much stronger stomach acid than herbivores. And while all chyme is a plastic-waxy "mess", that from plant sources contains fiber which aids the digestive canal in transporting the substance while that from meat contains zero fiber and therefore, moves far more slowly. And since meat rots markedly faster than do plant materials, you still end up with rotting food in your colon.

Carbohydrates can ferment, and oils and fats can become rancid. None of this is good for your digestive tract.

Almost any food substance can rot. But that's really not the point. The point is that those things which decay at the most rapid rate, (animal-based foods), are also the foods which contain the least fiber, (zero, in the case of meat, dairy and poultry), and therefore move more slowly through the digestive system. The combination of rapid decay with slow movement through the digestive tract is where we begin to get into trouble.

 

[Beastt]

I agree with you here. I know, you're suprised. You probably think I'm being disagreeable on purpose.

Actually, I'm less surprised that you might expect. Ten years ago this would have surprised me but the knowledge is slowly gaining acceptance through the majority of the public. And you have shown that you're not only interested in the topic, but interested enough to do a little research, apply what you already know, and present intelligent points of debate.

Proteins in plant sources are incomplete and one needs to make sure they are eating different types of veggies to get all the essential amino acids. You'd have to be eating very poorly not to have enough protein.

And what many people still don't realize is that the human body does just fine even if it doesn't receive all of the essential amino acids in the same foods or even in the same meals. Unfortunately, people got the idea that to obtain complete proteins from plant sources, one had to be very careful to combine certain foods. And this was mostly due to the work of Frances Moore Lappe and her original book, "Diet for a Small Planet". Her intent was to show that plants do present all the protein required for human health. But in using food combining to illustrate her point, she created what she now refers to as the "myth" of combining to obtain protein. Her follow-up book, "Diet for a Small Planet;Anniversary Edition", attempted to straighten out the misconceptions spawned through her first book. Though it seems that the corrected information, being contrary to what most people wish to believe, is gaining acceptance more slowly. But despite the fact that those with only a mild interest in nutrition display a marked reluctance to accept other than what they wish to be true, nutritionists and dieticians have long been aware that plant foods present humans with a superior source of protein and do so while limiting saturated fats and providing zero cholesterol.

 

[chipmunk]

And in each change leading up to homosapien, there has been a continued evolution toward herbivorous traits. If you look in the mouth of a chimpanzee, you'll note decided differences in their tooth structure as compared to ours. In the chart showing various teeth which I posted much earlier in this thread...

...the center set of teeth in the omnivore category are those of a chimpanzee.

Note the extension of the canine teeth and the obvious reinforcement of the jaw structure at the base of those canines. Human canine teeth display neither of those features.

You're really caught up on teeth. I do note the teeth differences. They can be good indicators of diet, but they can have problems when you consider other factors.

What need have we of large tearing canines if we can tear it without this? In each progressive stage in hominids there was increasing tool use. Canines are mainly for tearing, we didn't need them if we could tear the meat before putting it in the mouth. Since we are consuming both meats AND plants (which will lower stomach acidity even in carnivores) at once, we need to chew and grind our meat more to make it easier to digest (which is why we kept our grinding teeth).

We don't synthesize taurine well, unlike herbivores. This is a necessary component of our cells.

We also don't synthesize 20- and 22- chain carbon fatty acids as well as herbivores.

We all need vit A, but to synthesize this we require beta-carotene, humans have a limited ability to absorb beta-carotene.

Herbivores rely on bacteria living in their intestines to recieve their vit B12. In humans this bacteria is producing B12 to far down in the intestine to be utilized.

All of this suggests the need for meat in our diets. I'm not saying it suggests meat at every meal, but it is certainly indicitive of the need for some meat.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I have studied the rest of the human body. I've even pointed out at least a dozen other traits of the human body which show us to be herbivores. I've provided links to still more. But when it serves your purpose, you choose to pretend that all I've presented are the teeth. What do you suppose man was eating while he was working on those first inventions?

Aye, and it'd be so difficult to say it again that you'd tell someone "hey, just look at the 600+ posts and you'll find something I think is worth it." Well, I've given you more than enough SOLID PROOF - now go search the 600+ posts

I tend to post in the interest of complete thoughts and maximal accuracy.

And again you completely ignore the studies I cited which show you to be incorrect. All of the studies I've seen show an increase in strength, endurance and recovery rates among those who abstain from consuming animals.

The only studies you've shown are ones related to endurance with those who are not active. Thinking that proves you right is lame - it only has anything to do with ENDURANCE, and only with regularly INACTIVE people - and it's still just one study.

Or perhaps you're forgetting that most of the diseases which plague those who consume meat do so pimarily in their latter years and most recognized athletes are athletic primarily in their youth. And you might just be a bit surprised to see a small portion of the list of Olympic athletes who were vegetarians and vegans.

Ah, you haven't proven any diseases to plague those who consume meat but those who consume it in excess.

btw, it's hard to get protein and iron in a vegetarian diet

Okay, draw a line. On one end write the word "highest". On the other end, write the word "lowest". Now, under the word "highest" wright the words "most disease" and under word "lowest", write the words "least disease". Keeping in mind that the lowest meat consumption rates are among those who consume no meat, you now you have a rougly representative graph. If those who consume the most arsenic display the greatest level of arsenic poisoning and those who consume the least, (none), display the lowest level of arsenic poisoning, what does that evidence suggest about the nature of arsenic consumption?

Again, you're forgetting how hard it is to get iron and protein in the vegi diet.

Of course not and I have never suggested such a thing while you have. Now answer my question, please. Do you believe that homicide leads to undue suffering and death? Yes or no?

You beleive that man is an animal, but when animals kill it is not homicide? Please, explain yourself.

It has to do with the strain placed upon the environment by consumption of animals rather than extracting nutrients from the plants. When you cycle the plants through an animal, 90% of the nutritive calories are lost. So you have to use 10-times the number of plants to get the same amount of calories. That means you have to grow 10-times the plants, requiring 10-times the water, 10-times the acreage and extracting 10-times the nutrients from the topsoil. In cycling your calories through an animal before you consume them, you're throwing 90% of them away. And because the demand for meat is so high in America, the agricultural system simply can't handle that level of strain anymore. So we offer poor land-owners in South American, American dollars if they will slash and burn their land to produce pastures to produce beef. And 3 to 4 years later, the land is an eroded waste meaning more rain forest must be slashed and burned to again produce viable pastures to raise the animals you wish to eat.

We? I've never done that. Private business owners have, but that's their right to do it. If you think it's so wrong, why don't you go out and help protect the rainforest!!! Perhaps raise some money to buy some - I'm sure you'd find enough support.

btw, (according to you) we're animals. You seem to have a big problem with us eating meat because it's a "strain on the enviorment." Hey, we're just animals, right? What we do we do naturally - you don't see wolves eating lettuce, do you?

If you feed textured vegetable protein to a lion, does that change the natural diet of the lion? Eating as an omnivore doesn't change the nature of what you are. It doesn't cause your anatomy or your physiology to change. You may consume as an omnivore, but you will still suffer as does any herbivore who consumes as an omnivore. If you're over 10-years of age, and you consume a standard western diet, you already have the evidence of this forming in your arteries.

Yes it changes his diet because textured protein isn't meat.

Nature sees to it that each animal's physiology presents the animal with the tools necessary to consume its natural diet. Man does not display the tools of an omnivore or a carnivore. Other primates do have hands yet they don't use flint and stones. And your assumption about the use of flint and stone, (flint being a stone, by the way), completely ignores the fact that man didn't learn to make fire or weapons for a very, very long time after he first appeared.

Well, you speak of how nature equips each animal, and so I think we could look at each animal in it's most primitive nature. Man... Now what were all those pictures of mammals in caves all about? I mean, man is a natural herbivore, isn't he? Doesn't primitive man knows that his body can't handle digesting meat (even though he lived primarily off of it. btw, isn't it funny that you see man as the ONLY animal that doesn't adhere to the diet it's supposed to?)

No, we do not digest meat "fine". That's why we have such a marked increase in disease when we eat meat.

Only certain kinds - you are forgetting that fat related disease isn't the only kind. Lack of protein, or lack of iron are biggies Guess lack of meat isn't good for you - doesn't mean you have to go to the extremes! We're Omnivores!

Now we can go back to the saturated fat and cholesterol which aren't fully broken down by the relatively weak stomach acid in the human stomach. These materials enter the blood stream, still in a greasy, pasty form. And in the circulatory system, they begin to cling to any injured section of the artery walls. More and more of these plaques build up until they completely occlude blood flow through the artery.

Some sort of alcohol is in order. You do beleive in alcohol, don't you? A bit of vinegar does the trick, too. My great uncle had a bit of vinegar every day - lived nearly to be a hundred and never had any heart problems, yet was a steak lover.

You keep speaking out of opinion, but it seems you have no information with which to defend your opinion, nor are you familiar with the mechanisms and disorders which prove your opinion to be clearly wrong.

*cough* I'm rubber, you're glue - you know the story... Anyone else agree with the above statement?

Your first assumption is that man needs protein from meat. This is completely untrue. According to renouned nutritionist, Dr. John McDougall, "all of the studies performed in the past 50-years clearly show plant proteins to be superior for human nutrition".

Superior doesn't mean lacking. Spartan soldiers were superior to all others in the world, but there were less than five hundred of them controlling over half a million slaves - not enough, if you get my meaning. (not bold to strengthen a weak statement but bold because I really like this one - I've done extensive research on the Spartans. Study they're diet, btw )

Now, as to how humans can ingest enough protein from plant sources, it's really quite simple. Plant foods contain far more protein than most people believe. In fact, many plants are as high in proteins as are many meats. Dr. John McDougall presented a challenge many years ago for any nutritionist or dietician to develop a diet based on starches and vegetables, which contains sufficient calories, yet is deficient in protein.

It's about what you consider sufficient. Sufficient, I am sure enough, is in this case sufficient enough to live.

You're assuming that there is an ecological balance and that man is in control. But that's simply not true and not anything you can even hope to support.

Actually I thought that that's what you were saying.

That's a fairly bizarre claim coming from someone who has ignored every cited study, every demonstrated physiological sign, every environmental sign, and yet has never presented any support for their opinions. I've shown you everything you should need to know the truth. But I can't make you digest the information nor can I cause you to not simply hand-wave it and deny that it's true. Denial is perhaps the world's greatest work-saving practice. It requires no study, no evidence, no support of any kind, yet allows one to believe precisely what they wish to believe, no matter how much evidence they are provided to demonstrate their beliefs to be untrue. Denial is easy. Opinions are cheap. Why not try coming up with something solid to support your opinions? Short of that, please at least stop pretending that the evidences, studies and mechanisms I've demonstrated don't exist and haven't been presented. Anyone can look back through the thread and easily see that your claim here is completely unfounded.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Me? Avoiding the facts? Avoiding the studies? WOW! I've given you examples, most of them just common sense examples (sorry, I'm really not as big on the studies as you are - not saying you don't have common sense). Teeth (yes, I used the teeth if you recall and so did Bretaii), digestive system, muscles, the fact that we do eat animals (and enjoy it).

Facts you have avoided (as opposed to just saying you avoid them and being unable to give any examples): 1) Humans don't need to shred meat with our teeth - we have hands and tools, 2) protein is lacking in the vegetarian diet, apart from soy, 3) the bad effects of meat are easily deterred by one with the will to. And I thought #1 was enough.

I guess that just goes to show how wrong you can be. You started your post (#581) with an ad hoc attack about the length of my responses. You again attacked the length of my responses only two comments down from that. In total, that post contained three responses which were strictly ad hoc, two which were ad hoc dodges and one which was simply a dodge of my question about homicide causing undue suffering and death. You referred to my statement as "ignorant" or "desperate", though it was clearly accurate. You used the inflammatory slang "Doi" to indicate a lack of intellect on my part, and referred to me as "buddy", which I think both of us can agree was not intented as an affectionate term. Perhaps if you knew the subject and could present support for your claims, you'd find less need to be demeaning in your posts.

Uh... Do you actually know what ad hoc is, or are you just trying to use it because you think it's an intlligent term? It wasn't an attack. If I were to take an axe to your neck, or maybe call you a pig's behind that might be an attack. Telling you that what you said could so simply be said with four paragraphs is not an attack. If that is an "attack", how many attacks do you think you've made on me?

 

[Breetai]

You completely misunderstand. I was talking about real support. The Bible isn't evidence or support of anything. Nothing about the claims of the Bible have ever been verified. Attempting to use the Bible as support of anything, on an evidentiary scale, is no better than using arguments you found spray painted on a wall. You don't know who wrote them or whether or not they present any kind of truth. The fact that you wish to believe them doesn't lend them any credibility. In fact, the only measure we have for the credibility of the Bible are those claims it makes which we already know are false, such as the cure for leprosy...

The mere fact that you brought this up again shows that you are completely biased and unable to read in context. You've been clearly shown how your claim of the Bible giving a cure for leprosy is false, and you ignore it.

You've shown that eating meat can have many undesirable effects on your health, but your real agenda seems to be to discredit Christianity. In doing so, you're ripping passages out on context, and interpreting things how you want to; not in the historical and theological context. The example above is a sad example of that.

Why should we listen to you if you won't listen to us?

 

[Breetai]

Look at these meat-tearing canine teeth on this:

Howler Monkey (herbivore)

Mountain Gorilla (herbivore)

Orangutan (herbivore)

Giant Panda (herbivore)

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Breetai again.

Why should we listen to you if you won't listen to us?

Bravo!!!

 

[wildthing]

You completely misunderstand. I was talking about real support. The Bible isn't evidence or support of anything. Nothing about the claims of the Bible have ever been verified. Attempting to use the Bible as support of anything, on an evidentiary scale, is no better than using arguments you found spray painted on a wall. You don't know who wrote them or whether or not they present any kind of truth. The fact that you wish to believe them doesn't lend them any credibility.

I do not misunderstand you. I really think you should talk to some archaeologist they will tell you that whatever has been found in the Bible is true. And that by studing this book has yeild more details that are true about life.

In fact, the only measure we have for the credibility of the Bible are those claims it makes which we already know are false, such as the cure for leprosy and the claims in Genesis which show a decided lack of understanding about how planets form, how the water cycle works and about plant photosynthesis.

The Bible makes no claims for being a science text. You keep bring up the ceremonial cleasing found in Leviticus. This was not the cure for leprosey but a demostration of the healing power of God.

What I offered are real, demonstrable evidences and no one here has offered any credible, supportable argument. Instead it is as most debates tend to be. Those of the majority side gather together, offer each other peer support, and continue to present nothing but unsupported opinions. I suppose that's an indication of how the thread can be expected to go from here forth and likely a good reason to leave things how they are. You can show people the facts, but you can't make them accept anything they don't wish to accept, especially when their religious beliefs become entangled in the mix. That's why Galileo died under house arrest. That's why it took so long to abolish slavery. That's why it took so long for women to be allowed to vote. That's why the same debate we now see about meat raged on for so long about smoking. Those who wished to smoke didn't want to believe it was harmful, so they simply denied that it was. And that denial alone stretched out the debate for another 10-years.

For the most part our opinions have been supported. It was support by the fact That we all have the liberty to eat what we choose. if we choose to eat meat that's fine... It is after all freedom of choice. Tghat's the point God gave us all a choice in this matter. One way of eating to HIm is no better then anoter.

The evidence has been presented. The fact that no one has been able to counter it and few have even tried is quite telling of the mentality being applied. Of course I never expect that anyone will see the evidence and instantly accept that they've been wrong. But I will say that I've seen a few who are at least willing to recognize that they have insufficient arguments with which to attempt a refutation.

Perhaps it is the way you presnted your "evidence" that has caused the problems...I don't think it was the studies that we had a problem with but it was the way you presented the case. Perhaps hinting at the fact that animals have a soul(wrong humans have that) perhaps suggesting that animals need special laws to protect them. We have for the most part read your evidence and we have check out PETA, Earth first, Green Peace and etc. Having read what they have written and have found that they seem to be the new Nazis. Are you one too?

In fact, if you look at the history of man you'll find a disproportnate number of men, know primarily for their superior intellect, who were vegaterians

you then list a group of names Einstein, DaVinci, Newton, Plato etc...were vegetarian this in no way implies that this dietarty regimen is superior to suggest this only is appeal to authority.

Not hateful? Were any humans suggested to have commanded these things I would have little you would find them most hateful. But for what you believe to be your god you make excuses and refuse to see the acts for what they are...But these accounts present the contraditions to a loving and just god

With this quote you listed about 20 verse that you picked because they fit you ideas. but i believe we all pointed out the major problem that you failed to look at what cause these events. You did not look at what these people did. History is important! Thus why should we listen to you when you won't listen and learn from us....

 

[Beastt]

The mere fact that you brought this up again shows that you are completely biased and unable to read in context. You've been clearly shown how your claim of the Bible giving a cure for leprosy is false, and you ignore it.

I didn't ignore it. I gave a full response, complete with the entire text from the Bible with specific text emphasized which clearly shows why your claims about what the text is saying are wrong. (Post #603) You claim that this is for a person in whom leprosy has already been cured, yet the biblical text constantly refers to the person "to be cured". The phrase "to be cured" obviously shows a future tense and not a past tense. You simply choose to read other than what it says because this eliminates the need to face the fact that the Bible is wrong, the claim of Moses is wrong and such claims for Moses are a vital part of the Bible itself. People need to understand that the context they have been taught is often not what the book actually says. If you continually believe it says what a believer has already taught you that it says, and never take the time to actually try to read it in an objective context, then you'll never know what it actually says. You'll only know someone else's biased interpretation. When you read the actual words and determine what those words are saying, then you have the proper context. When you adopt the ideas of someone who has already decided that no matter what, it must be true, then you'll hold a biased and often inaccurate context.

You've shown that eating meat can have many undesirable effects on your health, but your real agenda seems to be to discredit Christianity.

Not at all. The only reason I even mention the Bible is because others suggest that passages from the Bible make it okay for them to inflict pain and suffering so that they can consume meat. It should be pretty obvious that if it were okay for humans to eat meat, this would be evident in human digestive physiology and human health. But because that's obviously not the case, there should be some acknowledgement of that rather than simply running to an unverified text and claiming that whatever it says, (or is interpreted to say), is the whole of ultimate truth. When someone makes such a claim, the only credible refutation has to be against what they present as their argument. As I've told The_Horses_Boy several times; when you place the Bible on the table, you place it there for both sides of the debate.

In doing so, you're ripping passages out on context, and interpreting things how you want to; not in the historical and theological context. The example above is a sad example of that.

Whenever any portion of the Bible is shown to be false, the two most common phrases are "out of context" and "misinterpretation". It's practically a reflex action for some Christians. And if it makes you happy to use the same tired and false claims about context then no one can or should stop you. But when one reads "to be cured" and believes the correct context changes that to "has already been cured", then it's pretty obvious where the improper context is being applied and it isn't on the part of what I've shown, but upon what you claim. Read what it says rather than what you wish it said because it exposes itself as obviously false. Either that or one can approach the answer to the OP strictly based on evidence born of demonstrable and testable reality and leave biblical claims aside.

Why should we listen to you if you won't listen to us?

How do you suggest it is that I keep responding to you if I'm not listening. Listening doesn't mean automatically agreeing with whatever is said. If I thought what was being said was correct, then I'd agree with it. Obviously, I don't believe it to be correct so I offer not only that it is incorrect but in what ways and why. Then I get accussed of bashing Christianity.

 

[Beastt]

Look at these meat-tearing canine teeth on this:

Howler Monkey (herbivore)

Mountain Gorilla (herbivore)

Orangutan (herbivore)

Giant Panda (herbivore)

I appreciate the fact that you're doing research, looking for actual evidence to support your stance. And you present an interesting argument. The only problem with that argument is that it doesn't show those with human-like teeth consuming animal flesh. It shows herbivores with teeth specifically for the types of things they eat. And while this doesn't include meat, it does, at least in some of the examples you've provided, include stalks with thick, hard casings such as with bamboo. And if you've ever seen the way these animals use those canine teeth to bite through the thick hard casing of the plant stalk, it becomes obvious that these teeth are another example of the animal being given what it needs in order to consume its natural diet.

But the point remains that humans do not have the adaptations common to animals who consume meat. We dont' have teeth like the ones shown in the skull images you've provided or the ones in the chart I provided. Our teeth don't show adaptation for piercing hide, for holding a struggling animal, or for biting through the tough casing of certain plant stalks.

 

[intricatic]

This is the same argument used by;

Smokers

Heroin addicts

Alcoholics

Crystal Meth users

Cocaine users​

Are you saying that meat has a highly addictive chemical constitution that causes the neurophysiology to alter in order to 'adapt' to said chemical thus resulting in a physical withdrawal because a circuit of neurochemistry has been removed?

You should hurry and publish this research paper before someone beats you to it!

 

[intricatic]

Thank you for so eloquently illustrating the complete lack of understanding you hold for the situation. Carnivorous animals are part of the balance. Every animal which acts within its nature is a part of the overall balance. Only when an animal acts outside of its nature, such as when a natural herbivore consumes as an omnivore, is there an imbalance presented. And when that animal is as prolific as are humans, the impact on the environment is staggering. If you were able to train carnivores to eat herbivorously, you'd be destroying the natural balance every bit as much as when a natural herbivore begins to eat as an omnivore.

Give me an example, aside from what you think you see in humanity, of an animal existing 'outside the natural order'. Preferentially in regards to an herbivore consuming as an omnivore.

Also, who dictates this natural ballance? Doesn't adaptation and evolution have room for herbivores adapting to a carnivorous diet?

 

[Beastt]

We? I've never done that. Private business owners have, but that's their right to do it. If you think it's so wrong, why don't you go out and help protect the rainforest!!! Perhaps raise some money to buy some - I'm sure you'd find enough support.

What exactly would you suggest I do? When people are paying big business, (by buying their products), to pay those in South America, to slash and burn property they legally own, is it more likely to be effective to try to stand at the front of the fire, defying it to consume you along with the forest, or to let the consumer know that their dollars are being sent to property owners in South America, paying them to destroy the rain forest?

When you buy beef, you might be paying a rancher to feed his cattle grain grown on withering topsoil or you may be paying someone in South American to slash and burn the rain forest. I can't do anything more effective that what I'm already doing. I don't buy their products, and I attempt to let others know that by buying their products, they're paying to have the rain forests destroyed.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

What exactly would you suggest I do? When people are paying big business, (by buying their products), to pay those in South America, to slash and burn property they legally own, is it more likely to be effective to try to stand at the front of the fire, defying it to consume you along with the forest, or to let the consumer know that their dollars are being sent to property owners in South America, paying them to destroy the rain forest?

When you buy beef, you might be paying a rancher to feed his cattle grain grown on withering topsoil or you may be paying someone in South American to slash and burn the rain forest. I can't do anything more effective that what I'm already doing. I don't buy their products, and I attempt to let others know that by buying their products, they're paying to have the rain forests destroyed.

I can understand that you think it is wrong - what I can't understand is how you can think it is so wrong yet lack the initiative or care to do anything about it. (I had four paragraphs, but cut three and 2/3 of the first to keep it short and precise).

Now this (what you say you do) is what we call de facto (ring a bell?). Someone has cut down the rainforest and so you say that we shouldn't buy their products - that does nothing to protect the rainforest, only to make sure the man who is trying to find a way out of poverty stays impoverished - that, and to serve the enviormentalist agenda.

 

[intricatic]

Actually, I only buy domestic produce. And with no steroids or growth hormones, pls, kthnx.

 

[wildthing]

I can understand that you think it is wrong - what I can't understand is how you can think it is so wrong yet lack the initiative or care to do anything about it. (I had four paragraphs, but cut three and 2/3 of the first to keep it short and precise).

Now this (what you say you do) is what we call de facto (ring a bell?). Someone has cut down the rainforest and so you say that we shouldn't buy their products - that does nothing to protect the rainforest, only to make sure the man who is trying to find a way out of poverty stays impoverished - that, and to serve the enviormentalist agenda.

After living for a while in Central America. These people need to find away to provide for a living therefore I think what should happen is the envirnomentist should move down there live under the same conditions as those people do. And see if they can come up with away for them to make a living.

 

[Breetai]

I didn't ignore it. I gave a full response, complete with the entire text from the Bible with specific text emphasized which clearly shows why your claims about what the text is saying are wrong. (Post #603) You claim that this is for a person in whom leprosy has already been cured, yet the biblical text constantly refers to the person "to be cured". The phrase "to be cured" obviously shows a future tense and not a past tense. You simply choose to read other than what it says because this eliminates the need to face the fact that the Bible is wrong, the claim of Moses is wrong and such claims for Moses are a vital part of the Bible itself. People need to understand that the context they have been taught is often not what the book actually says. If you continually believe it says what a believer has already taught you that it says, and never take the time to actually try to read it in an objective context, then you'll never know what it actually says. You'll only know someone else's biased interpretation. When you read the actual words and determine what those words are saying, then you have the proper context. When you adopt the ideas of someone who has already decided that no matter what, it must be true, then you'll hold a biased and often inaccurate context.

Wow man. Read it again. This person WAS ALREADY CURED. The priest was checking this guy out, in preperation for A RITUAL CLEANSING. This cleaning was NOT to cure the disease, it was to make him ritually pure to rejoin the community. In verse 2, when it says in the King James Version (which you quoted), 'if the plague of leprosy be healed...', "be healed" is in the PERFECT TENSE, not the future tense. You'll notice that the verb form 'to be' is not there, only 'be' is.

Again, there are two different 'healings' taking place. The first was of disease, which was cured without priestly help. The second was a ritual healing, which was akin to a doctor saying that, "you're all clean!".

As well, if you look at the Hebrew (which it was originally written in), the word used (rapha=heal/cure) is in the perfect tense, not the future. I will note that this word does not allow for ritual purification. This word denotes actual healing. So at this point, this person has already been healed of disease. Again, this is BEFORE the ritual cleansing. Even further, the word used in the priestly ritual cleansing is not 'rapha.' The word is 'taher', and it can be defined as a ritual cleaning, whereas, I repeat, the previous word cannot.

Let me repeat a line that you gave me:

If you continually believe it says what a believer has already taught you that it says, and never take the time to actually try to read it in an objective context, then you'll never know what it actually says.

Looks like I did that, and then some. You continuously ignore what I've been saying here. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I'm saying is true. If you refuse to believe me, then you are blind in your own ignorance. If you see what I'm saying, then I take back that last comment.

Not at all. The only reason I even mention the Bible is because others suggest that passages from the Bible make it okay for them to inflict pain and suffering so that they can consume meat.

You may not realize it, but your religious beliefs are indeed coming though here. Not that it isn't a bad thing, it's just an observation.

It should be pretty obvious that if it were okay for humans to eat meat, this would be evident in human digestive physiology and human health.

Well, there's been some evidence in this thread that humans are okay to injest certain amounts of meat.

But because that's obviously not the case, there should be some acknowledgement of that rather than simply running to an unverified text and claiming that whatever it says, (or is interpreted to say), is the whole of ultimate truth. When someone makes such a claim, the only credible refutation has to be against what they present as their argument. As I've told The_Horses_Boy several times; when you place the Bible on the table, you place it there for both sides of the debate.

Well, it's been shown that you've debated the Bible side of things rather poorly. Might I suggest that the information which you've been using in your studies is biased and maybe misses some information in order to sway one's paradigm a certain way? I haven't looked over your sources, I what I'm saying is only speculation based on observation of other disiplines.

Whenever any portion of the Bible is shown to be false, the two most common phrases are "out of context" and "misinterpretation".

There's a reason for that. A prime example has already been shown in this post. What you've shown as false wasn't false, because of... guess what? A misinterpretation of the context on your part.

It's practically a reflex action for some Christians. And if it makes you happy to use the same tired and false claims about context then no one can or should stop you. But when one reads "to be cured" and believes the correct context changes that to "has already been cured", then it's pretty obvious where the improper context is being applied and it isn't on the part of what I've shown, but upon what you claim. Read what it says rather than what you wish it said because it exposes itself as obviously false.

This has already been covered now, with sufficiant evidence to prove what I said is true.

It seems to be a reflex action of many non-Christians to claim the Bible is false by...

here it comes...

misinterpreting it and taking verses out of context!

Either that or one can approach the answer to the OP strictly based on evidence born of demonstrable and testable reality and leave biblical claims aside.

It's a Christian message board. What did you expect would happen? As Christians, we have the freedom to choose whether we eat meat or not. You gave us some evidence showing that maybe it was best that meat is not eaten. That can be used or ignored. I thank you for putting it out there, in concern for our health.

Wasn't it you who took offense to people using the Bible to justify eating meat, so should we choose to, in your very first post here?

By the way, the Hebrew word 'ratsach (or tirtzack, if you prefer)' is defined by the majority of scholars as 'murder', not simply 'kill' in the broad sense. The guy you quoted in that post was a Nazerite. Maybe that should tell you something about his personal bias to interpret the scriputures as he did.

How do you suggest it is that I keep responding to you if I'm not listening. Listening doesn't mean automatically agreeing with whatever is said. If I thought what was being said was correct, then I'd agree with it. Obviously, I don't believe it to be correct so I offer not only that it is incorrect but in what ways and why. Then I get accussed of bashing Christianity.

I told you how you were, here it is again, misinterpreting a Biblical passage, and you repeatedly ignored my points. I suppose I should've accused you of not actively listening to that, instead of just not listening. My apologies. Nevertheless, I've supplied ample evidence here of how you were confusing the scripture in question.

 

[Breetai]

I appreciate the fact that you're doing research, looking for actual evidence to support your stance. And you present an interesting argument. The only problem with that argument is that it doesn't show those with human-like teeth consuming animal flesh. It shows herbivores with teeth specifically for the types of things they eat. And while this doesn't include meat, it does, at least in some of the examples you've provided, include stalks with thick, hard casings such as with bamboo. And if you've ever seen the way these animals use those canine teeth to bite through the thick hard casing of the plant stalk, it becomes obvious that these teeth are another example of the animal being given what it needs in order to consume its natural diet.

But the point remains that humans do not have the adaptations common to animals who consume meat. We dont' have teeth like the ones shown in the skull images you've provided or the ones in the chart I provided. Our teeth don't show adaptation for piercing hide, for holding a struggling animal, or for biting through the tough casing of certain plant stalks.

At any rate, you've seen that posting pictures of animals and then classifying their eating habits by their teeth isn't a good measuring rod.

As someone already pointed out, us men have been provided with a brain. That brain gives is the ability to invent tools, which are a pretty good (and much cleaner) suppliment to tearing up our meat with teeth. These tools that we make also give us the ability to hunt without having to sink our teeth through the hide of an animal. Humans are in a whole different class than beasts. I give God credit for that, for creating man in His image.

 

[Breetai]

What exactly would you suggest I do? When people are paying big business, (by buying their products), to pay those in South America, to slash and burn property they legally own, is it more likely to be effective to try to stand at the front of the fire, defying it to consume you along with the forest, or to let the consumer know that their dollars are being sent to property owners in South America, paying them to destroy the rain forest?

When you buy beef, you might be paying a rancher to feed his cattle grain grown on withering topsoil or you may be paying someone in South American to slash and burn the rain forest. I can't do anything more effective that what I'm already doing. I don't buy their products, and I attempt to let others know that by buying their products, they're paying to have the rain forests destroyed.

This is something that I can agree with completely. Yet, I am also guilty of feeding the pockets of these men, although the effort is there to try not to.