why care what we eat?

[2Bhumble]

Here's a few more verses...

2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. -Genesis 9:3

3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. -Leviticus 11:3

9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. -Leviticus 11:9

21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. -Leviticus 11:21

4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. 6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. -Deuteronomy 14:4-6

9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. -Deuteronomy 14:9

 

[Beastt]

Here's a few more verses...

2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. -Genesis 9:3

3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. -Leviticus 11:3

9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. -Leviticus 11:9

21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. -Leviticus 11:21

4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. 6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. -Deuteronomy 14:4-6

9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. -Deuteronomy 14:9

All of which has been shown to lead to poorer health. Why would a divine being make such a concession? Why would we want the other creatures of the planet to dread us?

 

[2Bhumble]

All of which has been shown to lead to poorer health. Why would a divine being make such a concession? Why would we want the other creatures of the planet to dread us?

I guess everything leads to poor health eventually. The path of life leads to death no matter how pure we live it - not if but when. Sin did that to us. There's a lot of other ways to die besides eating meat. On the other hand my 91 year old Grandma still eats meat. I'm not really sure what creatures dreading us means. Perhaps when God made the covenant with Noah, He put animals under us...at our hands. Historically animals have been used as pets, working, transportation, rescue, security and sources of food. They are a gift to mankind.

 

[myquestions]

The point I was trying to make is that the Bible does say that men may consume meat. But it offers no warning of the consequences nor does it make any mention of physiological changes which would be necessary for a body designed to consume only plant matter, (Genesis 1:29), to switch to an omnivorous diet, (Genesis 9:2-3). Certainly you can alter the kinds of things you put in your mouth and chew. But just as a monogastric won't do well if trying to live on the same diet as a multigastric, a herbivore doesn't have the digestive system of an omnivore or carnivore. Each is specific to the kinds of foods eaten.

When you look at mouth gape, jaw hinge location, teeth, saliva, salivary pH, quantity of saliva, level of development of the salivary glands, salivary enzymes, strength of the stomach acid, stomach capacity, length of the digestive tract and the interior contour and routing of the large intestine; humans show a clear physiology indicative of the diet described in Genesis 1:29 rather than the latter diet prescribed in Genesis 9:2-3. And indeed, when we look at medical records and statistics, we find that those still adhereing to the Genesis 1:29 diet, display only 1/15th the rate of heart attack, only 40% of the cancer rate, greater longevity and a reduction in diabetes and many other common diseases.


No, I certainly wouldn't say that it's all wrong. Whether or not anything in the Bible comes from a divine source, I think it's self-evident that there are many good lessons to be taken from the Bible. From my point of view, the problem is that many do take the Bible to be of a divine nature and therefore utilize it to justify things which might otherwise be very difficult to find any justification for. I've seen people on this very forum use it to justify war, even "pre-emptive" war, which simply means attacking someone else first because you feel they "might" attack you later. In legal circles, that pretty well defines "assault", (or "battery", depending upon the particular statutes where you live). People justify capital punishment, acts which I can only define as cruel and consumption of that which makes them sick as well as adversely affecting the environment.

Though it's somewhat beyond the scope of this thread, I'll touch very lightly on some of the other problems with adhering to Genesis 9:2-3 rather than Genesis 1:29. Most of us are aware of the rapid destruction of the rain forests. We know they are being slashed and burned at a rate of 2.4 acres per second. In the time it took me to type this response, we lost another 1564 acres. Why? Because people in South America will gladly trade rain forest for American dollars and we will pay them to strip the rain forest lands so that cattle may graze. Our demand has outgrown our ability to supply ourselves. And in 3 to 4 years time, that new pasture land will become erroded wasteland because rain forest soil is only fertile for about 3 to 4 inches in depth. Beyond that it's mostly sterile. Pastures don't uphold the high cyclical rate of nutrients in the rain forest so the lands become unable to support plants in only a few years. Half of the fresh water used in the U.S. is used to water livestock and to grow crops fed to livestock. In areas near feedlots, the water table becomes so saturated with nitrates that the water isn't safe to drink. Eighty percent of the grain grown in the U.S. is fed, not to people, but to livestock. Meanwhile thousands of children starve to death around the world. Twenty vegetarians can eat full and healthy meals on the one acre required to feed one omnivorous human. Raising animals is simply very costly on an environmental scale. An article in Newsweek Magazine, titled, "The Browning of America", reported that the amount of water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a Naval destroyer. It takes 2,500 gallons of water and 16-pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef. It takes only 25 gallons of water and fertile soil to produce a pound of wheat.

I simply cannot conceive of a divine entity who would make such recommendations. Certainly many others don't see it as I do.

wow thatnks for that explaination, you sound very passionate about the topic. so rae you a vegan?

i don't understand why would god allow those bad things to be written in thebible then?

 

[myquestions]

All of which has been shown to lead to poorer health. Why would a divine being make such a concession? Why would we want the other creatures of the planet to dread us?

i question that too?

 

[myquestions]

I guess everything leads to poor health eventually. The path of life leads to death no matter how pure we live it - not if but when. Sin did that to us. There's a lot of other ways to die besides eating meat. On the other hand my 91 year old Grandma still eats meat. I'm not really sure what creatures dreading us means. Perhaps when God made the covenant with Noah, He put animals under us...at our hands. Historically animals have been used as pets, working, transportation, rescue, security and sources of food. They are a gift to mankind.

a gift, that we have to cause pain to these gifts from god? doesn't make sense?

why did god change his mind to allow ppl to eat meat?

and why would certain animals be 'unclean', why did he make up these rules?

 

[Windmill]

why do we care about what we eat and our health.

i am confused . didn't god say something like: it's not the food that you eat but the heart is clean? i can't remember where it is from?

God also outlined health laws in exodus

Not only this, but... I eat well because I want to live long

a gift, that we have to cause pain to these gifts from god? doesn't make sense?

why did god change his mind to allow ppl to eat meat?

and why would certain animals be 'unclean', why did he make up these rules?

I'm guessing God changed his mind about the meat so that people to suppliment their diets, as its somewhat likely that maybe the vegetation was somewhat crippled and made worse by the results of the flood?

Also, the animals that are unclean are the animals that carry the most disease God made certain ones unclean, for health reasons. So that the isralites could be healthy I think.

 

[Beastt]

I guess everything leads to poor health eventually.

This is something I hear from time to time but it always puzzles me. If you heard that something in your refrigerator doubled your chances of cancer, would it be worth continuing to purchase that product? This isn't one of those things that raises the risk by some infinitesimal degree. The chances of heart disease aren't just doubled, we're talking about an increase in risk of 15 times. The situation is so bad in western cultures that the average male has a 1 in 2 risk of dying prematurely from a heart attack. Walk into a room with 40 men in it and 20 of them are probably going to have shortened lives due to heart attack, linked to the dismissive attitude people have about their diets. Take a look at the leading causes of death in the U.S., (a typical western culture). Each year, heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer account for 60% to 77% of the total number of deaths. Deaths from car wrecks usually accounts for around 1%. Do you wear a seat belt? Does your car have air bags? Why take those precautions against a 1% risk but act so dismissively about a 50%+ risk? Part of the reason is because there seems to be so little communication between medical doctors and nutritionists. But it is your life and your choice. I just think people underestimate the risk to rather severe proportions simply because most don't know. But heart attack is the number one killer in the U.S. and countries with similar diets. Cancer is number two. The heart attack risk can be almost completely eliminated and the risk of cancer cut in half by learning about the connection to diet and applying that information. Heart attack isn't a natural byproduct of aging. It's caused, far more than any other factor, by the cummulative effect of diet.

The path of life leads to death no matter how pure we live it - not if but when.

This is of course true. And for me, it's not the length of life which is so important but the quality of that life. I see people in their late 40s and early 50s who are practically crippled from diet related diseases and I can't imagine that anything on any table could possibly be worth needing an electric cart to go shopping or being stuck in one chair in my living room for most of the rest of my life. But it is a personal choice that each of us must make.

Sin did that to us.

I only hope you recognize that there is no credible evidence to support that. It's all assumption.

There's a lot of other ways to die besides eating meat.

Of course there are many, many ways. About 100 people die each year by choking on ball point pens. But it's not the number of ways in which people die that I feel is important here. It's knowing that almost 3/4ths of all the deaths each year were premature, and to that degree, preventable. And the majority of those people suffered with a tragically reduced quality of life for years before finally dying. And it was all needless.

On the other hand my 91 year old Grandma still eats meat.

And we've all heard the anecdotal stories about the uncle who has smoked since he was 15, drinks half a bottle of whiskey every day and still gets up at 4:00 every morning to milk his cattle and work his farm at the age of 94. But that is the extreme minority. Genetics play a role as with manyl health issues. Why increase your risk to such monsterous proportions if you don't have to? Ask yourself; if there is an all-powerful, loving and caring God, would he really tell you that it's okay to become complicit in the pain, suffering and cruelty of such a diet? Why would he do such a thing? From my perspective, it's a pretty good question.

I'm not really sure what creatures dreading us means.

My guess is that it means they're frightened of us. They all see us as a threat to their survival. They look upon us as we might look upon a homicidal psychopath. And for those that don't; which look to us as the provider of their feed and water -- the joke, (if one can call it that), is upon them. For one day the tide will turn and the ones they've seen as the provider will show a side so merciless as to mimick machinery.

Perhaps when God made the covenant with Noah, He put animals under us...at our hands. Historically animals have been used as pets, working, transportation, rescue, security and sources of food. They are a gift to mankind.

One could say the same of slavery. And I would hope that everyone here is familiar with God's support of slavery in this same Bible.

But... so says the Bible. But if that's the case, why would animals require sentience? Plants aren't sentient. There is no credible research to show that plants fear pain or death or have the ability to comprehend those concepts or anything else for that matter. We've never identifed an organ or tissue mass in a plant which seems to serve as even a rudimentary nervous system. Why must animals feel pain? Some will tell themselves that animals don't feel pain as we do. I find the claim to be patently absurd. There just isn't enough difference in the nerve tissue of other mammals to suggest that it doesn't serve a purpose remarkably similar to our own. Biologically we are both apes and animals.

I have little doubt that men of 2,000 years ago thought we must be fundamentally different from other mammals because we certainly seem to be better at controlling our environment than do the other animals. But it's important to recognize that such is an extremely biased perspective. A cheetah could just as well place the major importance of life on one's ability to run at speed. A hawk or other bird of prey might see flying ability and keen eye-sight to be the mark of superiority. To an elephant or whale, size might seem the ultimate indicator of superiority within the animal kingdom. Even the seemingly happy-go-lucky dog, one of man's most loyal friends from the animal kingdom, can run a man into the ground, smell scents that a human wouldn't have a chance of detecting, hear sounds our ears aren't capable of sensing and take down a man half his size with relative ease. And as for loyalty, who has ever known the friend more capably of proving loyalty than a simple, domestic dog? We're perhaps so special because we have established what it means to be special and we have done so with our own strong points in mind.

Each person must make their own decisions about all of these things. Is a longer life important? Is quality of life important? Is what you've grown accustom to having on your plate more important that a long, enjoyable life? Are we really so special? Are we such patterns of divinity that it shouldn't matter that for each of us, about 29 animals suffer an agonizing life and a terrifying, premature death for every year that we live? And if we are such patterns of divinity, what does that say about our divine creator?

If I may be permitted to quote Plutarch; "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and light and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."

Maybe that's enough reason to care what we eat. Perhaps it isn't. but for all of us it should be, at the very least, a bit of food for thought.

 

[Beastt]

a gift, that we have to cause pain to these gifts from god? doesn't make sense?

why did god change his mind to allow ppl to eat meat?

and why would certain animals be 'unclean', why did he make up these rules?

I see the wheels turning. It seems you're not beyond being able to question what you've been told. That makes me smile.

No matter what you decide in the end, the fact you thought your way there is important.

 

[Beastt]

God also outlined health laws in exodus

Not only this, but... I eat well because I want to live long

I'm guessing God changed his mind about the meat so that people to suppliment their diets, as its somewhat likely that maybe the vegetation was somewhat crippled and made worse by the results of the flood?

I've heard this postulation before and I thank you for bringing it to the discussion. I'm sure it won't be a surprise to many who have followed the thread to hear that I have a few thoughts on this.

Keeping in mind that it takes 16-pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef, if the vegetation were scarce, would it make more sense to feed 16-pounds of vegetation to the animals in order to obtain 1-pound of meat, or would it make more sense to make use of the 16-pounds of vegetation to feed yourself?

Now certainly there are foods that animals can eat and digest which men cannot. Dry grass is one example. A ruminant, (multi-gastric), can break down the cellulose fibers and extract the nutrients far better than a human. But if the proposition you present were the case, would it not make far more sense to simply stop feeding the animals a few days before the Ark came to rest? With the number of animals to be fed, that could surely save enough food for Noah and his family to last several months, during which time the vegetation might have a chance to begin thriving again.

But I find the whole Noah's Ark story completely unacceptable as truth. I'll not go into any detail here because it is beyond the scope of this thread, but there are dozens of factors that make the story completely unbelievable. We can start with the fact that few land plants can thrive in salty soil. When you realize that there is enough salt in the oceans to coat the entire planet to a depth of 150 feet, (approximately 50 million billion tons), we must assume that were a global flood to occur, very little soil capable of supporting vegetation would be available.

Also, the animals that are unclean are the animals that carry the most disease God made certain ones unclean, for health reasons. So that the isralites could be healthy I think.

Of course we've already establised that the consumption of animal products by humans is far from healthy. (At least, I hope we/I have.) So if God was so concerned about health, why would he recommend a diet which now accounts for approximately 3 out of every 4 deaths annually?

 

[myquestions]

I've heard this postulation before and I thank you for bringing it to the discussion. I'm sure it won't be a surprise to many who have followed the thread to hear that I have a few thoughts on this.

Keeping in mind that it takes 16-pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef, if the vegetation were scarce, would it make more sense to feed 16-pounds of vegetation to the animals in order to obtain 1-pound of meat, or would it make more sense to make use of the 16-pounds of vegetation to feed yourself?

Now certainly there are foods that animals can eat and digest which men cannot. Dry grass is one example. A ruminant, (multi-gastric), can break down the cellulose fibers and extract the nutrients far better than a human. But if the proposition you present were the case, would it not make far more sense to simply stop feeding the animals a few days before the Ark came to rest? With the number of animals to be fed, that could surely save enough food for Noah and his family to last several months, during which time the vegetation might have a chance to begin thriving again.

But I find the whole Noah's Ark story completely unacceptable as truth. I'll not go into any detail here because it is beyond the scope of this thread, but there are dozens of factors that make the story completely unbelievable. We can start with the fact that few land plants can thrive in salty soil. When you realize that there is enough salt in the oceans to coat the entire planet to a depth of 150 feet, (approximately 50 million billion tons), we must assume that were a global flood to occur, very little soil capable of supporting vegetation would be available.


Of course we've already establised that the consumption of animal products by humans is far from healthy. (At least, I hope we/I have.) So if God was so concerned about health, why would he recommend a diet which now accounts for approximately 3 out of every 4 deaths annually?

so if the noahs ark sin't true... then is god not true??? i am confused.

i like what you are asaying though alot animals

btw do you knoe why we hhumasn eat meat? like animals eat what they naturail wnat to eat, like cows = grass, but if we wern't meant to eat meat, why do we?

i heard that maybe bread and meat in the bible means somethings else?

 

[Beastt]

so if the noahs ark sin't true... then is god not true??? i am confused.

Well, I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that it depends upon whom you ask. Answering only for myself, I think it lends a degree of suspicion to the veracity of the Bible. Others consider the Noah's Ark story to be a parable to be taken interpretively. Still others insist that the story must be true despite the many problems associated with it.
http://www.christianforums.com/t238...ood-did-didnt-happen.html&page=3#post20547815

i like what you are asaying though alot animals

That's likely a demonstration of the innate compassion humans seem to be born with. But we're not the only species to exhibit such compassion. Not unexpectedly, predators rarely display compassion for their prey yet people are fully capable of feeling sorry for cows, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens and pretty much all of the other animals they feed upon.

I've seen this little scenario played out a few times. Take a young child, (a toddler is best), and put them in a playpen with an apple and a baby bunny. How much do you want to bet that the toddler won't play with the apple and try to eat the rabbit? Try the same thing with a kitten, a carrot and a mouse.

btw do you knoe why we hhumasn eat meat? like animals eat what they naturail wnat to eat, like cows = grass, but if we wern't meant to eat meat, why do we?

The short answer is; we weren't designed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or snort cocaine either, but many do.

The long answer, (had to know there would be a long answer) is a bit more complex.

Firstly, there is little question that humans do a far better job of controlling their environment than do other animal species. Part of that control is to be able to pick and choose when and what we eat with no reason to be concerned about starvation, (in most parts of the world). We tend to eat what we like and, like most animals, we seem to be hard-wired to avoid starvation. Meat contains a much higher percentage of fat than do most plant foods and fat is a good source of calories. A gram of fat provides 9 calories while a gram of protein or carbohydrates provides only 4 calories. So in a starvation situation, eating a pound of plant matter will provide you with less than half the calories you would receive from eating a pound of lard or butter. But since we don't have an inborn knowledge of the caloric content of different nutrients, nature has seen to it that we have a way to pick what will provide us with the most calories -- taste. Fat is what gives butter that smooth, rich texture that we seem to like so much. It's why oil feels oily in our mouths and we like that. We also like sweets but if you sit and eat candy all day, you'll soon tire of it. Eat that amount of candy everyday and eventually you get used to it. The same thing happens with fat. If you continually consume more and more, you become used to eating lots of fat. Since I gave up my vegetarian diet for a vegan one, I look back at the kind of meals I used to eat; filled with eggs, butter, milk, ice cream and cheese and often fried in vegetable oil and I can no longer imagine trying to wolf down that much fat in a single day. The thought is somewhat sickening. But at the time it seemed perfectly normal and even when I was loading up on cheese, it never seemed to be enough cheese. I've since learned that both chocolate and cheese have some rather interesting effects on the brain which may well account for the attraction most people have to them. Without going into any great detail, when "chocoholics" are given opiate blockers, they suddenly don't seem interested in chocolate anymore.

Anyway, my point is that we seek fats naturally as a way to assure we consume enough calories. But fats are present in many foods, not just animal foods. But they are present in higher percentages, (for the most part), in animal foods, (meat, cheese, etc.). So once we started controlling our environment and picking and choosing our foods, we went with the option our bodies are wired to select -- fats. Of course most of us don't face the threat of too few calories. Most of us consume way too many. If you think back to a time before man had such control over his environment, his chance of taking an animal to sate his appetite was far more remote. We have no claws, are unable to run at the speeds a predator can achieve and lack the canine or carnasial teeth used to pierce tough hide and hold onto a struggling animal. The very thought of biting into an animal's fur-covered skin and trying to hold on with our teeth as it struggles is somewhat repulsive to most people. Then you have to weigh the number of calories obtained against the number of calories lost. If you burn 1,000 calories in a day of hunting and all you bring back is a squirrel worth maybe 500 calories, you've lost 500 calories. Humans are far more suited to harvesting plant material where the caloric output will be less and the caloric intake will outweigh the output. Hunting larger game increases the potential caloric income as well as the risk for injury. Being injured before the days when man was familiar with medicine of the concept of cleaning a wound, was very serious business. The Hollywood depiction of cavemen bringing home large game on a daily basis is becoming ever more challenged by archaeologists and nutritionists.

The good news is that as you lessen your ingestion of fats, your tastes will change. In only a few months, the idea of consuming the fat laden meals common to western cultures will seem sickening. In fact, in a great number of cases, when people suddenly revert back to such a meal, they do literally become sick.

heard that maybe bread and meat in the bible means somethings else?

From what I've been able to tell by filtering out all the verses from the Bible which contain the word "meat", it was usually used to mean "food". As for "bread" I suspect it had a similar use but that is a completely unsubstantiated suspicion.

Thank you for your questions. I do hope my somewhat long-winded answers aren't boring or bothering anyone.

 

[myquestions]

Hey 'beastt' .oh how come your nickname is this? just pondering.

I've seen this little scenario played out a few times. Take a young child, (a toddler is best), and put them in a playpen with an apple and a baby bunny. How much do you want to bet that the toddler won't play with the apple and try to eat the rabbit? Try the same thing with a kitten, a carrot and a mouse.
<--i've heard this before, where is it from? is it from the bible?

i rmember a bible quote about saying about the lion, the boy and the sheep to get along, and some ppl say god want this in the future. i think something like that.

do you think animals have a soul?

do all animals even crabs, prawns , oysters have feelings? how do we knoe oyster have feelings/ they have no face?

can i ask? what is your religon?


in the 'garden' in genisis..... did the lions eat grass too? because isnt' there disgestive system for eating meat?

some ppl say that we should eat meat because it makes sense because we are on top of the food chain and we are a part of the cycle of life???

if we aren't meant to eat meat, then won't we die of lack of b12? or get very sick?

so what kind of diet are you now?

no your answers are interesting to read, no way boring because they are well thought out and alot of very good points there i must say. i like reading them. and thanks for the time you take to write them =), very appreciated.

ihope my questions aren't annoying .....

 

[Beastt]

Hey 'beastt' .oh how come your nickname is this? just pondering.

It was a nickname given to me by a romantic interest years and years ago. If you're attempting to associate it with "the Beast" of the Bible, you won't have any luck. It was a name of affection given to me by someone who is sadly, no longer in my life.

I've seen this little scenario played out a few times. Take a young child, (a toddler is best), and put them in a playpen with an apple and a baby bunny. How much do you want to bet that the toddler won't play with the apple and try to eat the rabbit? Try the same thing with a kitten, a carrot and a mouse.

<--i've heard this before, where is it from? is it from the bible?

Not that I'm aware of. It's used by a number of organizations attempting to bring the problems with popular human diets into the forefront.

i rmember a bible quote about saying about the lion, the boy and the sheep to get along, and some ppl say god want this in the future. i think something like that.

I prefer a quote from one of the vegetarians I most admire from history.

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." -- Leonardo da Vinci​

do you think animals have a soul?

No, I don't.

do all animals even crabs, prawns , oysters have feelings? how do we knoe oyster have feelings/ they have no face?

A face isn't required to feel pain. What is required is a nervous system to transmit signals and a brain to interpret them as pain. And while some animals exhibit a less advanced nervous system than ours, they do exhibit behaviors in response to pain stimuli, which appears to be consistent with pain responses. I recall one study of the nervous system of lobsters. It was decided that the evidence, based on the physiology of the lobster's nervous system, suggests that when they are dropped live, into boiling water, what they experience is not terribly dissimilar to what a human would experience under the same conditions. The animals we utilize most for food, (cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens), have nervous systems very similar to ours and exhibit responses to pain stimuli which many consider to be unmistakable signs that they do indeed suffer from pain in a manner very similar to what we experience. If you've ever stepped on a cat's tail or witnessed a dog struck by a car, the signs of pain seem hard to mistake.

can i ask? what is your religon?

I used to believe in a supreme being. Life experiences pressed me into a hard, serious examination of those beliefs. I have since been an atheist as is reflected by my icon.

in the 'garden' in genisis..... did the lions eat grass too? because isnt' there disgestive system for eating meat?

This is but one of the many problems I see with the Bible. Many Christians do believe that animals with the strict physiology of a carnivore were healthy and happy eating plant matter. Obviously, I do not believe such to be the case.

some ppl say that we should eat meat because it makes sense because we are on top of the food chain and we are a part of the cycle of life???

The place of the carnivore on the food chain is an interesting topic to spend a bit of time examining. When you consider your clothing, would you rather get your clothes new from the store or used after having been handed down through several members of your family? Which would put you at the top of the clothing chain, being the first to own your clothes, or the last before they become too worn to be presentable?

All energy first comes from the Sun, (with a few notable exceptions). Plants are capable of photosynthesis werein they utilize light from the Sun to produce their own food. They store this food in their cells. Herbivores come along and eat the plant, thereby transferring this energy into their own bodies. An omnivore may then come along and eat the herbivore, again transferring the energy into its body. Eventually the omnivore may fall prey to a carnivore and this same energy from the Sun finally makes it into the body of the carnivore. So is the carnivore at the top of the food chain, or at the bottom? It's all a matter of how you look at it.

Some interesting observations have been made where drought has caused massive starvation among animal species over a large region. The animals to suffer first, and suffer the most are not the ones at the bottom of the food chain, but those at the top. Perhaps, if we even have the food chain right-side-up, the top is not the best place to be. We of course, unlike the carnivores, have a choice.

if we aren't meant to eat meat, then won't we die of lack of b12? or get very sick?

Vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious topic. A Vitamin B12 deficiency isn't like many other vitamin deficiencies where you feel sick for a while, obtain the necessary nutrient and return to good health. A deficiency of Vitamin B12 can quickly lead to permanent damage to the coating of the nerve endings. So it's nothing to play with. And it's true that a vegan diet provides almost no Vitamin B12 so it's best to supplement. But there are sources of Vitamin B12 aside from animal-based foods. In fact, years ago, a person could maintain a vegan diet, grow their own food and remain free of any concern for how much Vitamin B12 they were obtaining in their diet. It turns out that tiny microbes in the soil produce Vitamin B12. It's not much, but it's enough. But we don't simply pluck our produce out of the ground, rinse it under clean water and prepare it for the table anymore. Now it is sprayed, harvested, scrubbed transported, stored, refrigerated and often scrubbed again under high pressure washing systems. By the time it gets to our table it is completely devoid of the minute traces of Vitamin B12 it had when harvested. If one were to grow their own food and simply wash the produce, they would likely get more than enough Vitamin B12. So does this mean we were meant to eat meat to obtain enough Vitamin B12?

The simple answer is, no. The human body has some rather remarkable processes in place to assure that our need for Vitamin B12 remains minimal. Firstly, we only need about 1 microgram of Vitamin B12 per day. Our liver is capable of storing enough to last several months. And part of our efficient use of Vitamin B12 is due to the fact that the body actually recycles about 70% of the Vitamin B12 we use. So it seems clear to me that the human body is designed to operate optimally with far less Vitamin B12 than is obtained through a carnivorous or omnivorous diet.

so what kind of diet are you now?

I was a vegetarian from birth to the age of 32. At that point I became far more interested in diet and began researching diet information which I continue to do to this day. I had no intention of altering my diet but as the information mounted, I eventually switched to a vegan diet.

no your answers are interesting to read, no way boring because they are well thought out and alot of very good points there i must say. i like reading them. and thanks for the time you take to write them =), very appreciated.

I'm glad you appreciate them. I've had enough experience at this to know that many people are extremely defensive of their diets. Even those who have never studied diet seem to have a natural defensiveness toward the topic. Many will defend their diet more readily than their religion or their politics. Hopefully, I'm learning to tread with a lighter step.

ihope my questions aren't annoying .....

Not at all. I think they show that you're really thinking and not just "regurgitating" as seems to sometimes happen.

 

[myquestions]

It was a nickname given to me by a romantic interest years and years ago. If you're attempting to associate it with "the Beast" of the Bible, you won't have any luck. It was a name of affection given to me by someone who is sadly, no longer in my life..

sorry to hear about that. who is the beast in the bible?




Not that I'm aware of. It's used by a number of organizations attempting to bring the problems with popular human diets into the forefront.




I prefer a quote from one of the vegetarians I most admire from history.

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." -- Leonardo da Vinci​

.[/QUOTE]

wow, that is realy good quote. was leonardo da vinci vegan?

No, I don't.

.[/QUOTE]

why don't you think animals have a soul???? how do we knoe WE have a soul?


A face isn't required to feel pain. What is required is a nervous system to transmit signals and a brain to interpret them as pain. And while some animals exhibit a less advanced nervous system than ours, they do exhibit behaviors in response to pain stimuli, which appears to be consistent with pain responses. I recall one study of the nervous system of lobsters. It was decided that the evidence, based on the physiology of the lobster's nervous system, suggests that when they are dropped live, into boiling water, what they experience is not terribly dissimilar to what a human would experience under the same conditions. The animals we utilize most for food, (cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens), have nervous systems very similar to ours and exhibit responses to pain stimuli which many consider to be unmistakable signs that they do indeed suffer from pain in a manner very similar to what we experience. If you've ever stepped on a cat's tail or witnessed a dog struck by a car, the signs of pain seem hard to mistake.

.[/QUOTE] yes i've read about that. that is very sad. i bet they do feel pain cooked in hot water alive! gasps!


I used to believe in a supreme being. Life experiences pressed me into a hard, serious examination of those beliefs. I have since been an atheist as is reflected by my icon.

.[/QUOTE] if you dont' mind me asking? why did you exam those belifeft? and would you ever consider God again????????? no meaning any offense of any type at all or anyhting, by why to atheist come to thses forums.


This is but one of the many problems I see with the Bible. Many Christians do believe that animals with the strict physiology of a carnivore were healthy and happy eating plant matter. Obviously, I do not believe such to be the case.
.[/QUOTE]

so do you think it's ok for animals to cause harm to other animals? but why can't humans?


The place of the carnivore on the food chain is an interesting topic to spend a bit of time examining. When you consider your clothing, would you rather get your clothes new from the store or used after having been handed down through several members of your family? Which would put you at the top of the clothing chain, being the first to own your clothes, or the last before they become too worn to be presentable?

All energy first comes from the Sun, (with a few notable exceptions). Plants are capable of photosynthesis werein they utilize light from the Sun to produce their own food. They store this food in their cells. Herbivores come along and eat the plant, thereby transferring this energy into their own bodies. An omnivore may then come along and eat the herbivore, again transferring the energy into its body. Eventually the omnivore may fall prey to a carnivore and this same energy from the Sun finally makes it into the body of the carnivore. So is the carnivore at the top of the food chain, or at the bottom? It's all a matter of how you look at it.

Some interesting observations have been made where drought has caused massive starvation among animal species over a large region. The animals to suffer first, and suffer the most are not the ones at the bottom of the food chain, but those at the top. Perhaps, if we even have the food chain right-side-up, the top is not the best place to be. We of course, unlike the carnivores, have a choice.
.[/QUOTE]
why do the top sufer? i can't see how?


Vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious topic. A Vitamin B12 deficiency isn't like many other vitamin deficiencies where you feel sick for a while, obtain the necessary nutrient and return to good health. A deficiency of Vitamin B12 can quickly lead to permanent damage to the coating of the nerve endings. So it's nothing to play with. And it's true that a vegan diet provides almost no Vitamin B12 so it's best to supplement. But there are sources of Vitamin B12 aside from animal-based foods. In fact, years ago, a person could maintain a vegan diet, grow their own food and remain free of any concern for how much Vitamin B12 they were obtaining in their diet. It turns out that tiny microbes in the soil produce Vitamin B12. It's not much, but it's enough. But we don't simply pluck our produce out of the ground, rinse it under clean water and prepare it for the table anymore. Now it is sprayed, harvested, scrubbed transported, stored, refrigerated and often scrubbed again under high pressure washing systems. By the time it gets to our table it is completely devoid of the minute traces of Vitamin B12 it had when harvested. If one were to grow their own food and simply wash the produce, they would likely get more than enough Vitamin B12. So does this mean we were meant to eat meat to obtain enough Vitamin B12?
.[/QUOTE] how is the b12 in homegrown vegies?

The simple answer is, no. The human body has some rather remarkable processes in place to assure that our need for Vitamin B12 remains minimal. Firstly, we only need about 1 microgram of Vitamin B12 per day. Our liver is capable of storing enough to last several months. And part of our efficient use of Vitamin B12 is due to the fact that the body actually recycles about 70% of the Vitamin B12 we use. So it seems clear to me that the human body is designed to operate optimally with far less Vitamin B12 than is obtained through a carnivorous or omnivorous diet.
.[/QUOTE] but how come we still need vitamin tablets then?


I was a vegetarian from birth to the age of 32. At that point I became far more interested in diet and began researching diet information which I continue to do to this day. I had no intention of altering my diet but as the information mounted, I eventually switched to a vegan diet.
.[/QUOTE] how come you were vegetarian from brith??? i am interested in health alot too, but just wondering do you think it's bad to be 'waste' time on studying diet info? do you feel better vegan now??


I'm glad you appreciate them. I've had enough experience at this to know that many people are extremely defensive of their diets. Even those who have never studied diet seem to have a natural defensiveness toward the topic. Many will defend their diet more readily than their religion or their politics. Hopefully, I'm learning to tread with a lighter step. .[/QUOTE] that's fantastic =) that you can share your info to others, would you ever think of writing a book or something? what do you do as a living, if you dont mind me asking ? yeh alot of ppl are defensive. sorry if any of my questions seem demanding or what , but i really aren't getting defensive in any way. i think discussion is good.


Not at all. I think they show that you're really thinking and not just "regurgitating" as seems to sometimes happen.[/QUOTE]

awaiting your reply

 

[myquestions]

opps, sorry about the mess in my last post! i am not sure how to do the end quote for you to add your comments in between the writting. ??????

 

[2Bhumble]

My thanks to Beastt for his input and point of view. And for others asking very intriguing questions. This has been a very very intersting discussion!

 

[Christ Aficionado]

Perhaps the confusion is caused by the fact that my references are to what has been found through the study of reality, rather than scripture. My point in commenting on the scripture is that the Bible makes some dietary recommendations which seem contrary to what nutrition and medicine show to be the case.

Hi Beastt ,


Let's say you were a vegan living off the land in the rainforests. No vitamins existed, no fortified products, etc. Isn't it true that within a couple of years of your vegan lifestyle you would begin to develop a Vitamin B-12 deficiency? Isn't it also true that the only way for you to cure that Vitamin B-12 deficiency would be to eat red meat, fish, cow milk or eggs? In fact, the current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be relied on as a safe source of Vitamin B-12. Vitamin B-12 deficiency impairs the body’s ability to make blood, accelerates blood cell destruction, and damages the nervous system. The result of Vitamin B-12 deficiency is pernicious anemia.

 

[Beastt]

sorry to hear about that. who is the beast in the bible?

Most seem to feel that "The Beast" in the Bible is the antiChrist. I'm sure there are a number of differing opinons.

wow, that is realy good quote. was leonardo da vinci vegan?

Leonardo was a vegetarian, not a vegan. The same goes for Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Mahatma Ghandi, Plato, Plutarch, Pythagorus, Albert Schweitzer, Socrates, George Bernard Shaw, Nikola Tesla, Henry David Thoreau, Tolstoy, Voltaire, Diogenes and a number of other notables from both the past and the present. That, of course, doesn't really mean anything. I just find it to be an interesting observation.

how do we knoe WE have a soul?

I think the short answer here is that we don't know. Many believe we have a soul and the idea that humans have a soul seems to be very popular among most, if not all, of the world's popular religions. I just don't see any credible evidence for the idea. I think it comes from the general disbelief that our sentience -- that which we believe is the true us, from inside our bodies and mind, could possibly be the sum total of electrical and chemical reactions. Most people feel there has to be something more to us. If we exist beyond our bodies in some manner, then this would be the soul. I see it as a the difficulty people have in believing that all that they are as a being could simply be gone when they die. The Bible makes it very clear that we are supposed to continue on in a non-physical form. Then again, if read literally, the Bible makes it clear that plants were supposed to be growing on the Earth before there was a Sun.

why don't you think animals have a soul????

For pretty much the same reasons I don't think people have souls. And while many have suggested that there is no meaning, or less meaning, to our lives if we simply die and are gone, I disagree. To me, that which is limited is far more valuable while it exists than that which is infinite. It makes the time we're alive all the more precious. And while most Christians seem to believe that animals don't have a soul because they are simply a gift to man, if man has a soul and animals don't, I would see that as all the more reason to allow animals to enjoy the one and only existence they can ever know.

if you dont' mind me asking? why did you exam those belifeft?

I went through a period when it seemed I progressively lost nearly everything that was important to me. It started with the person I most valued in my life, progressed to my home, very nearly my job and then I almost lost my freedom. Since I still believed in God I naturally prayed through the 4-months this was occuring. Yet nothing got better. Everytime there was a significant change, it made things worse and worse. For a long time I asked myself and prayed why this could happen. I didn't understand how a caring God could allow such a total destruction of my life and the lives of people around me that I cared about. Eventually I found an answer which I observed rather reluctantly at first. But the more I examined the possibility, the more it offered clarity to things which had never made sense. I no longer need phrases such as, "the lord works in mysterious ways", "the lord helps he who helps himself", "who are we to understand the ways of the lord", "the lord is simply testing your faith" and others which seem to be designed to prevent the need to address the inconsistencies between what most believe and what reality shows to be the case.

and would you ever consider God again?????????

I can't say that I wouldn't. Certainly, there was a time when I was so convinced that I could never have considered that there wasn't a God. It would take some pretty strong evidence.

no meaning any offense of any type at all or anyhting, by why to atheist come to thses forums.

I'm sure if you ask several different atheists you'll receive several different answers. There are actually entire threads dedicated to this question and it's certainly a reasonable question to ask. My reasons are two-fold. Firstly, I think it's important to be able to continue examining the beliefs of others from a fresh perspective. We are never able to accept or even compare beliefs which we are unfamiliar with. Secondly, I feel there is a degree of harm done by beliefs in the mystical. Those things which cannot be evidenced seem to me to be beliefs of hope. It's what people desire rather than what is. And through the popularity of such beliefs people tend to take on beliefs in nearly anything they wish were true rather than utilizing their cognitive abilities within he realms of evidenced reality. Many think there is nothing wrong with this but that is to turn a blind eye to those who believe that any war their country engages in is the "will of God". The very idea that it's okay to kill animals and even to raise them in conditions worse than a living death arises from these kinds of beliefs. So it can lead to cruelty on a scale perhaps not matched since the Holocaust. And in saying that, I'm not trying to say that Christian are evil. But some of the ideas that arise from beliefs like the superiority of man and right to do whatever man finds convenient to other beings on the planet is not unlike beliefs and practices once directed at Native Americans and people captured in Africa and brought to America as human laborers. There was a time when the Native Americans, (Indians), were not seen as people with souls. The same goes for African slaves. It seems to be a label we put on those we wish to abuse. If we can see ourselves as having souls and label others as not having souls, it's a kind of permission we give ourselves to abuse them and treat them as less than sentient beings. So part of my reason for coming to such a forum is to try to keep this awareness alive among those who might otherwise allow it to die. I abhore cruelty regardless of the name it is practiced under.

so do you think it's ok for animals to cause harm to other animals? but why can't humans?

To needlessly cause pain and suffering is simply wrong in my opinion. Is it wrong for a human to raise pigs in gargantuan barns with the animals packed in crates so small that the animals can't even turn around? Is it cruel that the air in these factory farms is so pungent with ammonia from the excrement of the animals that human workers are required to wear respirators and take breaks every 15 minutes? Is it wrong to force these animals to live their entire lives in conditions which practically guarantee that they will have pneumonia and be only weeks from dying of disease when taken to slaughter? For me, the clear answer is "yes".

Is it cruel for a lion to chase down and kill an antelope? I feel for the antelope. But I also see it as the lion acting within its nature. It's part of the exchange of organic material which perpetuates the cycle of life on this planet. It's very easy to sit back and label is as right or wrong, good or bad, loving or evil. But all of that requires the same kind of anthropomorphication which man seems to apply to nearly all of his various gods. The alternative is to label it as the life cycle which has evolved naturally. It is neither evil nor loving. It's simply life. Some will win and others will lose. The key to allowing some deviation to this pattern is the mutual symbiosis of societies.

why do the top sufer? i can't see how?

I can understand why it's not readily apparent. Perhaps the easiest way to see how this works is to revisit my analogy on handed-down clothing. In such a situation, should new clothing become less readily available, who suffers most, those who receive new clothing or those who rely upon others to obtain their used clothing? The same thing happens in the human economy. When the stock market crashed, it is those at the bottom of the receiving line who seem to suffer most. When you have no money, food becomes the replacement for currency. Calories becomes your budget and this is the financial system of the animals. When cash flow ceases, it is those who depend upon that cash flow the most who suffer the most. Put more directly, dry grasses continue to be available in a drought. But as those grasses diminish, the grazing animals will wander and feed along the way. The animals at what we consider the "top" of the food chain must follow or die. But they become weakened first because carnivorous animals have very different physiologies. They sleep most of the day. The average lion spends about 21-hours each day just sleeping. When they are active it is in short bursts. They have little endurance. Their prey are awake more than half the day and can exert for long periods of time. So as the search for new grazing areas progresses, the lions tire far more than the prey animals. It wears them down and they are less able to hunt effectively. The predators in such a situation always suffer a higher percentage of loss in their populations.

how is the b12 in homegrown vegies?

Microbes in the soil produce Vitamin B12. When tubers and other such plants which grow in the soil are harvested and washed, trace amounts of the Vitamin B12 remain on the surface of the produce. It's only a very tiny amount but more than fulfills human requirements. But with today's automated systems and repeated washings, the trace amounts of Vitamin B12 are removed.

but how come we still need vitamin tablets then?

Because of the processing systems commonly utilized in harvesting, storing, transporting and selling the produce. Some produce is even coated with glazes so that it appears shiny for market. One of the more common compounds used is "shellac". The word comes from the source of the compound. It is the "shell" of the "Lac" beetle. Or more accurately, the shell from the egg cases of the Lac beetle. It is picked from plants, dissolved and sprayed onto fruits and vegetables because it makes them shiny and more cosmetically appealing.

how come you were vegetarian from brith??? i am interested in health alot too, but just wondering do you think it's bad to be 'waste' time on studying diet info? do you feel better vegan now??

My father became interested in vegetarianism before I was born. So both of my parents became vegetarians. Obviously, I don't think it's a waste of time to learn about diet or I would have wasted more time than I care to think about.

When I was eating a vegetarian diet I felt fine. I didn't see it as a problem at all. I certainly seemed as healthy as those around me who ate a more culturally accepted diet. I probably averaged fewer colds and fewer cases of the flu than average. I probably contracted about 2 or 3 colds each year. Since switching to a vegan diet, I almost never get colds. I seem to have one about every 5 or 6 years and the duration seems to be 2 or 3 days rather than a week or more. But I've also taken up cycling which means I get a lot more exercise than I used to. I'm not sure how much of the change should be properly attributed to diet and how much is due to the exercise.

 

[Beastt]

Hi Beastt ,


Let's say you were a vegan living off the land in the rainforests. No vitamins existed, no fortified products, etc. Isn't it true that within a couple of years of your vegan lifestyle you would begin to develop a Vitamin B-12 deficiency? Isn't it also true that the only way for you to cure that Vitamin B-12 deficiency would be to eat red meat, fish, cow milk or eggs? In fact, the current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be relied on as a safe source of Vitamin B-12. Vitamin B-12 deficiency impairs the body’s ability to make blood, accelerates blood cell destruction, and damages the nervous system. The result of Vitamin B-12 deficiency is pernicious anemia.

I'm headed to work now, Christ Aficionado. I'll try to answer your questions more fully when I get home tonight. You might find the answer, in part, in my last post to MyQuestions, (post #39). I also touched on this in post #34 but I'll be glad to address your questions more directly when I return home from work.