Vegetarianism - The Highest Moral Ideal

< What kind of warped question is this? If someone killed you for food, would that not be unpeaceful? >

It must be the Catholics who need to be asked that question, with their delusion of eating literal flesh.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
ChristianCynic,

What does that have to do with the topic - doesn't that belong in Denominational Discussions or somewhere like that?

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't suppose it matters in what forum you put yourself in the stew.

 

Daniel,

Don't be discouraged; the topic is a good one and worth discussing.

 

Definitely Daniel.
But do think about the implications of living out that way right now. What would happen if it was a reality? The reasons you gave for it being wrong to kill animals means it's wrong for any reason. Think about the implications of that. What does that do to the world? That just doesn't affect our food and clothes, what happens to science and medicine?
Gina

 

paynedaniel asked:

What kind of warped question is this? If someone killed you for food, would that not be unpeaceful?

Well, yes, but I'm not a lesser species generally harvested for food.

Peace, by definition, is the absence of war, hostilities, quarrels, disagreements, and the like. We are not at war with poultry or cattle; therefore, it is absurd to speak of our relationship with them as "peaceful."

Furthermore, the framing of your question above implicitly raises the level of animals to that of humans, or close to it - a claim which I dispute. Man is created in the image of God. Chicken isn't.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

"For, behold, the Lord will come with fire ... and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves ... eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." Isaiah 66:15-17.

Recent scientific studies have confirmed the fact that most heart attacts result from a high cholesterol level in the blood - and that the use of "fats" that are found in meats is largely responsible for this high level. It looks like the Lord knows what He is talking about after all, doesn't it? Thats why nowadays many doctors actually prescribe for their patients to eat from meatless products made from soy proteins and vegetables.

Sincere Christians will bring their lives into harmony with God's rules at once, because they love Him. They know that His rules greatly add to their happiness and protect them from the devil's diseases (Acts 10:38). In the past, people didnt realize that eating meat caused diseases, but now they do. God's counsel and rules are always for our good, just as good parents' rules and counsel are best for their children. And once we know better, God holds us accountable. "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17. If God expects and even commands us to preach the gospel to the world and some will be lost if they dont hear the message... are we not responsible for willfully taking years off our lives by eating harmful foods? Its a fact that on the average, vegetarians live 7 years longer than meat-eaters. By eating unhealthful foods we are cutting years off our lives and therefore robbing who knows how many people of hearing the gospel message.... and doing it willfully... just to satisfy our lusts for meat.

"Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." 3 John 2.

"Eat ye that which is good." Isaiah 55:2. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31

Daniel, what did he eat? pulse... which is vegetables, and it made he and his comrades much more alert mentally and physically than those who ate "the king's meat". I really do believe that Daniel represents God's people in these last days...

Matthew 15:11 says, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out." How do you explain this?
Answer: The subject in Matthew 15:1-20 is eating without first washing the hands (verse 2). The focus is not eating, but washing. The scribes taught that eating any food without a special ceremonial washing defiled the eater. Jesus said the ceremonial washings were meaningless. In verse 19, He listed certian evils - murders, adulteries, thefts, etc. Then He concluded, "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Verse 20.

But didn't Jesus cleanse all animals in Peter's vision, as recorded in Acts 10?
Answer: No! In fact, the subject of this vision is not animals, but people. God gave Peter this vision to show him that the Gentiles were not unclean, as the Jews believed. God had instructed Cornelius, a Gentile, to send men to visit Peter. But Peter would have refused to see them if God had not given him this vision, because Jewish law forbade entertaining Gentiles (verse 28). But when the men finally did arrive, Peter welcomed them, explaining that ordinarily he would not have done so, but "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Verse 28. In the next chapter (Acts 11), the church members criticized Peter for speaking with these Gentiles. So Peter told them the whole story of his vision and its meaning. And Acts 11:18 says, "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed ... and every tree ... yielding seed." "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat." Genesis 1:29, 2:16 Meat-eating was only permitted after sin came to the earth. But God is leading people to realize it's harmfulness. Gradually He is bringing them once again to the state of holiness that existed before sin entered the world... in heaven there wont be violence or killing. Just as God allowed polygamy in old testament times ..though it was wrong... and shed light upon His people gradually and then held them responsible for that light... the same goes for today... He leads us onward so that we can have clear minds to discern His will. Physical abuse of our bodies tends to cloud our minds as well. Our bodies and our health is a gift from God. Don't abuse it.

Claudia

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Claudia Thompson ]

 

Colossians 2:16-17 -- Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day-- things which are a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:
If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't made them out of meat.

http://www.keylife.org<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is way too funny!!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
OK - I think the above post (mine) implies that animals were created more as relatives to us than we usually give assent to. I am not saying they are exactly similar, but that Scripture teaches they have the same nephesh as we, which is translated as life, soul, personality, etc. I also think there is something to be said for the afterlife of the animal. I, for one, would hate to be sharing heaven with an animal that I killed.
If God cares so much for the animal, why do we give our ok to animal factories that slaughter animals for our selfish "good dining." It is simply not necessary.

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul told us that we could even eat meat sacrificed to idols.

God killed an animal to clothe Adam & Eve.

Jesus handed fish out to people. From what I understand, he handed out a lot of fish.

When the prodigal son returned, meat was served.

I don't agree with animals being related to man. I do agree there will be animals in heaven. but we are commanded, in Genesis, to have dominion over the earth, fish, fowl, cattle, every creeping thing....

I grew up near a farm. Cows are dumb animals, so are turkeys & chicken. If God didn't want us eating them, he would have given them enough brains to get out of their own way. Not so with pigs. They are quite smart. But if I'm hungry I will exersize my dominion over them also. This is a good subject to talk about, but I can not see any biblical reference on avoidig meat.

 

Hello all -

I must say, this topic went far further than I thought it would! Oh, well, I may as well throw my insight in as well.
Noone addressed Helen's citing on the first page of Acts 10:9 - 16. This passage seems rather clear and specific on this issue.

Acts 10: 9 - 16

Kill and eat seems rather specific to me. I will also add, at the risk of starting one of those creation/evolution frenzies, that we exhibit traits of predatory animals: canine teeth, eyes on the front of our head for depth perception, etc.

If one is worried about killing lower life forms, where does one draw the line? Everytime we swallow any food, bacterium die by the scores when they hit the HCl of our stomach. Your own bloodstream is in a constant mortal combat with invading, LIVING microbes. Do you swerve off of the road and hit a tree just to avoid running over a squirrel? Do you set mouse traps or let invading rodents carry disease into your house and soil your food? You could run yourself crazy aiming for this "higher" ideal.

In the pacifism thread, Mr. Payne claimed that his views were more along the Mennonite line. I believe in this one, he is a bit more Hindu.

May God bless all of you

- Clint

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
As Christians, shouldn't we strive for the highest moral ideal in every area of life? What about the food we eat? In the perfectness of the beginning, God instituted a vegetarian diet for Adam. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So being vegetarian is a higher morality than, say ... stopping abortion?

 

Daniel,
Jesus cooked fish for his disciples-see John 21:9-14, and fed the multitudes with fish and loaves (I think that account is in all Gospels). If Jesus is the criteria by which all scripture is to be interpreted, then any scripture reference used to justify vegetarianism is inferior. Lets face it, if Jesus is the word made flesh (and he is), then there is nothing wrong with eating animals.

 

I think paynedaniel makes some valid points. There is no stricture against eating meat. However, numerous studies have shown that lowering your protein intake from 30% down to 10-15% is much healthier. We can get protein from other sources than meat. If our bodies are temples then it behooves us to eat healthily.

Having said all that - I'm from Texas. If you reach to take my t-bone away, I guarantee you'll draw back a nub.

 

Optional said:

I think paynedaniel makes some valid points. There is no stricture against eating meat. However, numerous studies have shown that lowering your protein intake from 30% down to 10-15% is much healthier.

I don't think anybody really disputes that eating less meat is good for you. I've cut down myself recently.

But there is an unwarranted logical leap from the proposition, "Less meat is good for your health," to the proposition, "Abstaining from meat altogether is the highest moral ideal." It is the latter claim by daniel, which is not a point of nutrition but of moral law, which is in question.

(Just as an aside, I've altered my argument in my previous post in this thread - not that anyone responded to it, so the remainder of the thread won't look weird.)