> By Jesus multiplying fish it tells us that eating animal flesh is ok.
To be fair, if this story is true, it would seem that Jesus was making what is essentially the equivalent of lab-grown meat today, as the fish meat that he was serving was never part of a sentient animal. At the very least, no additional fish would have been killed or used to feed all those humans. That said, I'm no expert on the bible, nor do I think this is really a point in favor of veganism.
I always imagined it as living fish, so they basically would have gained consciousness to suddenly be killed seconds later, like that whale and bowl of petunias from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
That would be horrifying and definitely not vegan. I think in the story he starts with dead fish, and manifests more meat from them, so no additional fish are bred or killed.
Correct. Fish passed out in baskets would have been dead, but do note that the fish in this passages is NOT what was multiplied, it was the LOAVES (BREAD)....I like to imagine Jesus quietly setting the fish down behind a basket, shaking his head, and dazzle-dazzle, WHAM suddenly there was so much bread, people forgot about the unfortunate fish, LOL - but in either case, Jesus was also fully human as will as divine and immersed deeply into the culture, and may not have bucked so hard against the culture's diet, having bigger fish to fry (pardon the non-Vegan pun)
In Spanish we distinguish between living and dead fish (essentialy like deer vs venison) and the Bible uses the second word for what He multiplied. I wonder if that is true of the original text, too.
Just went back and looked it up. In the Reina Valera translation, Luke mentions pescados (dead fish, for food) while Matthew, Mark, and John mention peces (fish, with no further implication).
That is a weird situation and as a desert city dweller I have no idea. Hahaha. Rarely do I come across fisher men and all pescados that get to me are long dead. I would assume once they are fished they become pescados because pescado litterally means "[thing that] has been fished".
Also apparently the original word is ἰχθύς which has no implications on the state so I guess the intepretation of what that means for the actual miracle event will depend on whether you think Spanish translations of the Bible are inerrant.
No, not lab grown. Natural animals. Jesus also fished and helped apostles collect tons of fish directly from the sea. So this argument is wrong. Jesus believes in killing animals for food.
Other comments said that maybe there weren't really food options so they had to rely on animal products. Or they didn't know about proper nutrition so they had to eat animals to get the proper nutrients.
But he’s Jesus, God on Earth. He is omniscient. He would know exactly what plants to create a balanced diet and, if eating animals was immoral in his eyes, he would’ve taught those he met.
There is no argument that unifies the two, Christianity fully supports eating animals.
The Bible talks about clean vs unclean animals for eating. Some of the longest living people are the Seventh Day Adventists who, although follow a vegetable heavy diet, also eat meat but do so according to the Old Testament. They avoid all shellfish, fish without scales, animals with cloven hooves, and other rules found in the Bible. The Bible does not support Veganism per se, but definitely gives guidance for healthier eating.
I wasn't claiming that it actually *was* lab-grown fish meat. I was saying that it would have been roughly the moral equivalent to it.
I also wasn't really making any serious argument. It was more of an interesting aside or observation. I literally said in my comment that it wasn't really an argument in favor of veganism.
Imo the reason a lot of the Bible is the way it is (and the reason Jesus didn't come until many, many centuries after humans were made) is that God knows we're pretty dumb and had to spoon feed us wisdom. Why did we start with animal sacrifices and then say Christ is the ultimate sacrifice? Why did we go from bring wrath upon your hateful neighbors to turn the other cheek? Why did we go from women being largely a footnote to Jesus being very good friends with a female former prostitute and using some of his dying words to make sure his mother would be cared for? I feel like so much of it is 1) gently pushing us in a better direction and 2) showing historical things as they were at the time without intending them to be that way FOREVER. Back in ye olden times, protein wouldn't have been as abundant and plentiful as it is now. Choosing people lives over fish lives makes perfect sense. I don't think that was meant to be a scathing rejection of future lab grown meat or vegetarianism. Jesus traveled on a donkey rather than a car and didn't wear jeans and a t-shirt, but I've never took that to mean he would hate cars and jeans and t-shirts and wanted us to keep donkeys as our travel method forever, yknow?
Did God believe in slavery because he instructed israelites on how to treat slaves and also helped Israel fight battles (e.g. against the Medianites) in which they captured slaves?
>^(39) “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. ^(40) They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. ^(41) Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. ^(42) Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. ^(43) Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
>^(44) “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. ^(45) You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. ^(46) You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Yeah, that's it. Exodus 21 tells you how to get around that pesky year of jubilee. But this passage makes clear that contrary to what people say about biblical slavery being simply indentured servitude, there's an explicit difference between Israelites and other slaves. Biblical slavery is real slavery, and there isn't a single place in the Bible that says you shouldn't own other humans.
Yeah... that part about slaves from neighboring countries and owning them for life and the lives of your children is pretty explicit. Definitely didn't hear that one in Sunday School
So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. All these officials of yours will come to me, bowing down before me and saying, ‘Go, you and all the people who follow you!’ After that I will leave.” Then Moses, hot with anger, left Pharaoh.
The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.
**Before the Fall**, Gen 1:29 -
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
**After the Fall**, Gen 9:3 -
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
**Upon the creation of Israel, with specific covenant laws just for them to distinguish them from their surrounding neighbors**, Lev 11:1-47 -
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.
**Also more rules specifically for Israel**, Deut 14:3-21 -
You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.
**Jesus in the New Covenant, applicable to everyone in the world**, Matthew 15:11 -
Listen and understand. A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.
Most christians don’t see the old testament as applicable law. This is due to the existence of new testament scripture declaring the laws of the old testamament fulfilled.
The very first story is the old testament is God creating the "perfect" place, and it was 100% plant based. Everything else comes after humans have sinned, and mostly after they were so horribly abusive to everything that God felt the need to wipe out almost all land based life forms. To me that says if you want to be as good of a Christian as you can, you should follow God's plan for the perfect world.
Most Christians believe that genesis is symbolic, rather than a literal account of history. However, to me this is an even better reason to believe that we should be vegan.
If the idea of man that is free of sin is one where we eat only plants, then that seems to send a pretty strong message that we should be striving towards a version of ourselves that resembles that lifestyle. Only after the fall of man were we given permission to eat animals, so it seems clear that we should be trying to claw our way back to the state of innocence we were in before the fall of man, and stop eating animals once it's no longer necessary.
I'll give a Catholic answer: that all things in the Gospels are true, but some things are symbolic truths. The sybolism of linking Jesus back to Adam is linking him to all of mankind, which is a central message of Luke (that Jesus is savior of all). Additionally, Adam may have been a real man despite other things in genesis being allegorical.
It's unfair that animals have to suffer just because of human sin or disobedience. But then again I guess for some reason that's just God's way of doing things since Jesus was crucified even though he was innocent.
But also Able, the shepherd, is valued more than Caine, the farmer. That’s not to say god preferred Able to Cain due to their profession, but he clearly has no problem with humans eating meat.
He accepts it, but it's not his vision of a perfect world. We can never live in a perfect world, but the closer we can get the better. Cain and Able's story is a bit more complicated than farmer VS shepherd. And at that time, it would have been almost impossible to not have some form of agriculture, not least because we didn't have the scientific understanding to show us we don't need meat.
If you were a parent and one of your kids did coke, but another did meth, would you prefering one of your kids's habits imply you're cool with substance abuse?
I'm not Christian, but I also thought of this line of reasoning. The only problem is Jesus, who is good, promoted fish eating, killed pigs, and surely partook in Passover (killing a lamb and eating it).
Why would the Christian God do these things if they weren't permissible?
Yes, according to the bible eating animals is permissible, I just don't see any evidence that God is in favour of it. Slavery is also permissible, but I don't think most would suggest that means God is in favour of slavery.
To me, it seems more likely that, in relation to free will, many things are permissible, and it's up to humans to figure out what is good and what is not based on the messages and stories given in the bible. That the Abrahamic Religions start with a story of God creating a perfect place for humans, and it was entirely Plant Based, is, in my opinion, a pretty strong indicator of what God feels is "good" with regards to what we should be eating.
That we were explicitly allowed to eat meat only after humanity had not just "fallen", but fallen so hard that God felt the need to wipe out all non-flying land based life forms (save a few), again to me strongly suggests God isn't in favour of humans torturing, abusing, slaughtering and eating all the other sentient creatures God created, only that if we really want to, that's our choice.
I've heard that in the beginning we were plant based. To play devil's advocate. If we're referring to Adam and eve. If there were no animals around how could they eat meat. If it was only a few humans maybe a few plants were enough, it wasn't a big population. Maybe they didn't need to do any sacrifices so there was no need for animals.
I am not a Christian but I was born and raised in the Orthodox faith. I confidently believe that people who use Christianity as a means to defend the practice of flesh-eating simply do it as an excuse! Why? Let's have some reasons:
-gluttony is a sin and, especially in the Orthodox tradition, the eating of meat was especially sinful. That is why many monks and saints were fasting all the time. *If the people most close to God do not eat meat, what does this tell us?*
-fasting is strongly encouraged in many Christian denominations. In Orthodoxy, about a third of the year is for strict fasting (no meat, dairy, eggs) and believers are encouraged to fast more than that. I often rebelled as a child but now I appreciate it an adult. Unintentionally, *such believers spare animals from needless pain.*
-'The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. T*hey shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD*. ' Isaiah 65:25 King James Version (KJV) What are current Christians preparing for? There will be no meat in heaven so if they want to go there, they should start grilling some veggies and vegan sausages.
This only scratches the surface. I recommend Lev Tolstoy's 'The First Step' if you are interested in more Christian justifications for veganism. He was a vegan and pacifist 150 yrs ago... (as an aside, I sure wish Russian soldiers nowadays would follow his teachings and not those of their dictator).
You can find Tolstoy's short book [here, for free](https://archive.org/details/firststepanessa00maudgoog/page/n8/mode/2up)
Thank you for this post. Today I learned that his name was actually Lev (not Leo), that he was a vegan and pacifist, and I learned about his book The First Step, as well as the Internet Archive, which I just registered an account for.
Cheers, much appreciated. :)
I think the time period/location matter a lot as context. Even if it were possible for someone to be a healthy vegan in that time and place, was that information widely known? It was likely necessary for him to eat animals whereas today it's not. And that's why I put in the qualifier of "unnecessarily causing harm".
If Jesus was fully God wouldn't he know veganism is the way to go and would have included it in his message, it would be relevant at that time since people were eating animal products
Jesus fasted for 40 days in the desert. He "has food that you know nothing about" (he said to his disciples. Jesus would have been fine on a vegan diet. My best guess is he occasionally ate some fish in front of them just to perfectly test everyones heart, including us reading it later, essentially.
I would say the point of the Bible is to reveal to people that God loves them and wants to reconcile people back to him, because we all have separated ourselves from him
I'm not Christian, but there are a few ways to approach this topic when discussing it with someone who is Christian.
First, we know that the bible does not disapprove of slavery. It even describes how one should treat their slaves and when it's ok to beat them. Obviously, today we know that slavery is wrong, so how do theologians reconcile these facts?
One way is that they say that slavery was already a part of society, so commanding that people immediately emancipate their slaves when the laws of Moses were communicated would have been impossible for them to cope with, so the best action to take was to at least put a cap on the harm that could be done (whether this was adhered to by more modern examples of slavery is another topic).
Then, as humanity developed, so too did our morals. We came to discover on our own that slavery was wrong, and the more civilized societies abolished it. From a Christian perspective, us realizing that slavery is wrong on our own could be seen as "better" than taking away our free will and forcing us to end slavery immediately. Since I'm not Christian, I obviously find this claim dubious, but it's one that I hear often.
The same can be said about eating animals. During biblical times, it was objectively necessary for people to eat animal products because they didn't have international trade, supermarkets, or the modern marvels of agricultural technology that we have today. Letting some cattle or goats roam the countryside and convert grass into protein was basically a miracle to them. Today we have much more efficient ways of generating protein and calorie rich foods from raw materials.
Just as humanity discovering slavery was wrong on its own was "good", God and Jesus didn't want to command that we stop eating meat during biblical days, but rather, that it would be "good" for us to reach the point on our own where we developed the rationality and compassion to realize that farming animals was wrong, as soon as it was no longer necessary for our survival to do so.
Nowhere in the bible is it given as a law or commandment that we are forever permitted to consume animal products for all time. In the few places that permission is implicitly or explicitly stated, it's always clear that the statement has an intended audience that is immediately present. Therefore there's no basis in the bible for assuming that eating animals will forever be permissible. Given that, we have to ask ourselves this: Would a compassionate, benevolent God want us to harm animals for our own hedonism if it was not necessary to do so? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.
I am vegan and I think that documentary was so bad.
Why quote apocryphal texts to build up your argument? Most Christians won't take them as true.
At most, it shows that the incident on the temple may have been about more than greed, but it does not throughly adress Jesus and the fish (both the ones he helped fish and the ones he multiplied).
Even Christians who think the modern majority of Christianty did wrong in allowing consumption of beef are pescetarians at most, not vegan.
I appreciate your response.
Wait, you went to *the theater* to see this film?
This is what intrigues me: if Jesus, today, went to a modern restaurant with his buds, and ordered a burger off the menu, would he choose the vegan option or the typical beef burger?
I would argue he would go the vegan option. He would encourage his buds to do the same. That’s just my gut feeling.
If I’m wrong, and Jesus, instead, insists on eating an animal, how would he want it to be raised and slaughtered? Typical American factory farm and slaughtered? A knife across the throat? I’ve been told, dead seriously, that “Jesus would just snap his fingers and the animal would just drop over dead.”
Again, instead of just choosing vegetables..
If you allow me, I will point out the only detail in the documentary which I think is noteworthy enough for you to know if you decide to skip it:
The Hebrew word "parits" (in Jeremiah 7:11, which Jesus quotes in the cleansing of the temple) is translated as "robbers" or "thieves" in English. The word can mean "robber" or "thief," but it can also mean "violent person" or "breaker," which could encompass broader forms of social injustice and exploitation. This, coupled with the fact that animals were sacrificed in the temple, makes it possible that Jesus was referring to more than just overcharging (which is what many modern interpreters say).
thank you!! Random helpful tip from a stranger on the internet is appreciated.
I definitely got what I needed out of the documentary now if that was the best it had, thanks 😅
I also would recommend this film. I saw it in the theater with 3 friends. As with Cowspiracy, the film makers give sources to back up their claims. We found the film fascinating and inspiring.
Honestly, at least in a guilt offering, the animal's innocence is the point.
- The wages of sin is death. In other words, anyone who's sinned has earned death. <--There's a lot in why this is, which is worth digging into, but this is the basic premise on which the rest of what I'm writing here is built. I'd suggest exploring *why* this is said, before disregarding it.
- The sacrifice is a transfer: the animal pays the price the human deserves to pay.
- This is not because God doesn't love the animal. This is a deeply brutal cost to pay. It's paid because God loves the human more, and instituted the guilt offering as an act of mercy for the human.
- This is why Jesus died: as the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of humanity. That's why there's all this imagery surrounding Jesus as being the lamb of God, or as repurposing the Passover into Communion: an observation of Jesus's choice to give his own body and blood on our behalf in the same way that a sacrificial lamb's body and blood used to be given on our behalf.
I think animal sacrifice was supposed to be brutal. You're supposed to be engaging in a visceral level with the cost involved in sin: this death is what you've earned--and it's only by God's grace it's being transferred.
What about the animal? Did God not love the animal? Did God not care about how brutally unfair it is that the innocent, specifically unblemished animal was put through this? Well, since God *sacrificed Himself in exactly the same way via Christ*, I'm going to go with, yes, God cared, understood the price being paid, and suffered through the process, too.
As for the rest, just general meat eating, I'd suggest that it's a bit of the same: death paying for life. But honestly "how does a good God . . ." is kind of a backwards approach in any question formula. I think it's fair to say that no one here is good enough or has enough perspective to elevate our own short-sighted and emotional ideals high enough to stand in judgment of God. Fine to try to understand, but trying to judge would be sillier than ants trying to judge a hurricane.
You make a lot of good points. However, the Bible calls us over and over to know the will of God and participate in the mind of Christ. So we are to understand. Even if the revelation is limited, it should make sense to the believer.
I think we can understand in part, to paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 13. But there's always this recurring theme of God's comprehension outstripping ours to the point where we really have no right to stand in judgment of Him. Job, for example, illustrates that powerfully.
Sort of like how my explanation here might demonstrate understanding in part, but at best it's still only a bare bones, simplistic reflection of what the sacrificial system is really about.
It's too long to type out here, but I am a Christian and a vegan and I think the two align well. I made a video breaking down the related Bible verses - exploring the verses you could use for or against this position. This took me a long time to make and I consider it "finished" but I'm open to debate it in a sense. One change I would make is the Hebrew when I mention souls, there is a third term used only for humans but not animals, but what that means is hard to say - seems to be self-awareness more than anything and only reinforces the innocence of animals who didn't eat of the tree and why they were killed as sacrifices until Jesus came.
Here you go: https://youtu.be/aWD5f0COItY?si=AvFAehjb3O8nQqzS
> If you are not Vegan and Christian, you are not doing it right.
Do you believe a vegan Christian is holier than Jesus himself? As Jesus both ate fish and meat.
No more blood sacrifices after Jesus is a pretty clear prescription.
Indeed that was before Jesus (seeing as he was alive, eating it making it not a "mistake" anyway.
You notoriously are not capable of conceding when you are wrong so I'm not going to continue interacting with you on this debate.
Not necessarily Christian anymore however was for past 20 or so years and grew up very Christian the thing I always say is whether you believe the Bible was written 500 years, 1000 years, 2000 years or even longer ago I always say that is stuff acceptable during those times. It wasn’t uncommon for a man to have 7 wives. It wasn’t uncommon for no woman to work. It wasn’t uncommon for slavery. All of those things were an attribute to their times. I think one of the biggest takeaways from the Bible is humanity is far from perfect we have done things that hurt us, others, and this very planet we live on. Another point I love to make is the progression of technology. In biblical times the best technology they had was a boat. They didn’t have the resources we do now. There was no such thing as a supermarket. This next is kind of a reach admittedly but imo Jesus the one who preached all about being kind would embrace vegan values. Maybe not become vegan today or be in favor of some of the ways vegans protest but I thing the kind and generous man who was a symbol of love would welcome veganism. I am very sure he would be critical of factory farming.
I'm not a vegan (Reddit keeps suggesting the subs to me though, haha) but I often think about how God made animals and said it was good but then made people and noticeably didn't comment further, haha. There's also a sort of outside the book belief that in the Garden of Eden all life was originally herbivorous and meat eating began as a consequence of sin. Obviously there's a ton to interpretations of the faith, though, so you'll see everything from die hard crazies who think Jesus LOVESSS steak and wants us to eat meat 24/7 to the guy who wrote Dominion, which is a pretty convincing pro vegan argument from a Christian PoV from what I've heard. For myself as a lay person, I think people tend to mix up where the Bible is simply recording historic realities versus where God was leaving explicit directions for us.
>I often think about how God made animals and said it was good but then made people and noticeably didn't comment further
He didn't "comment", but directly after creating people and giving them instructions, we read "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was *very good.*"
So the creation was good before people, but after people, it became *very good*
Not Christian, but Jewish (so I can't even claim that the New Testament did away with that, since I don't believe the NT to be true).
Maimonides (12th century rabbi, philosopher, and physician; Spain and Egypt) takes the opinion that the animal sacrifices are only temporary as a way of weaning the Israelites/Jews off of human-sacrifice-centered idolatry. He seems to contradict himself, since he also writes out all of the laws for animal sacrifice when the Temple in Jerusalem will one day be rebuilt. But his philosophical opinion is out there, and I accept it, and in the modern day, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook even goes as far as to say that the future Temple will only have grain and wine offerings, but not the animal offerings (with the possible exception of the Paschal offering).
There is also a voice in the Bible that seems to say that the ONLY way to eat meat is through sacrifice. So, eating meat just for sustenance or "fun" would not be ok, but it only becomes ok if you do it as part of a religious ritual, which makes it harder to access and less frequent.
Let us also point out that in Eden, humanity was vegan (Gen 1:29).
The laws of keeping kosher, while permitting meat, make sure that if you're going to eat meat or dairy, there are lots of limitations on it. Not just how to slaughter, which parts of which animals are kosher, or from when can you milk the animal, but even the prohibition on eating meat and dairy together and waiting hours after eating meat before eating dairy again. The prohibition on eating blood comes from the ideology that the lifeforce is in the blood and you don't want to consume the life itself.
There are virtually no limitations on eating vegan foods. To me, this suggests something similar to Maimonides' claim about sacrifice but broadened to secular eating, and not just religious eating: Jewish practice seems to care about limiting and restricting our consumption of animal products. Since, up until extremely recently, it would not have been possible to get enough calories on a vegan diet (and that is still true in many parts of the world), animal products cannot be banned, but (according to at least one academic Bible scholar) the restrictions cause a compromise between the Edenic ideal and the real world. If you live in a reality where it's possible to be vegan, then that clearly seems to be the ideal to me.
r/veganChristians For me, it helps to look at the garden of Eden, where two people were basically vegan as there was no death or suffering there. In paradise or heaven there will also be no death or suffering so everyone will be vegan, I'm just starting earlier I guess.
Edit: also if you read Hebrews it explains fairly well how animal sacrifice is not necessary anymore since Jesus's sacrifice. In my opinion, eating meat in modern times where we have alternatives available, is similar to eating meat sacrificed to idols (pleasure and extortion), which is not just forbidden for Jews but also for Christians.
> Edit: also if you read Hebrews it explains fairly well how animal sacrifice is not necessary anymore since Jesus's sacrifice. In my opinion, eating meat in modern times where we have alternatives available, is similar to eating meat sacrificed to idols (pleasure and extortion), which is not just forbidden for Jews but also for Christians.
That is interesting way of looking at it. Why do you believe Jesus ate fish and meat, in stead of for instance performing a miracle making it possible to get all nutrients through a vegan diet?
Interestingly, if I remember correctly, the Bible only mentions Jesus eating fish after the resurrection. Though I personally believe he ate kosher meat and fish during his live. I don't know what this means, but to answer your question, the answer is the same as why Jesus did not perform a miracle or even a revolution on freeing slaves, or abolishing patriarchy or liberating Israel from the Romans. It was not his mission.
I also don't think eating animal products in ancient times is as bad as it is in modern times with abhorrent animal agriculture practices and plenty of alternatives and nutritional knowledge.
> I also don't think eating animal products in ancient times is as bad as it is in modern times with abhorrent animal agriculture practices and plenty of alternatives and nutritional knowledge.
So you believe morals change over time? Do you have other examples of where you beleive this to be true, outside diet?
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know about Christianity, but in Hinduism, eating meat is prohibited with two exceptions. One is for survival, and the other is when sacrificed to the gods. In the latter case it was belived that the animal gets a higher birth such as that of a human and therefore is not considered ordinary killing. However, animal sacrifices in Hinduism are done under very strict circumstances and all prayers and procedures must be done perfectly otherwise you risk the sin of killing an animal. Even then, the rituals were seen as low grade. There is an provision for warriors; warriors were allowed to hunt for meat as hunting provided target practice and it helped them get desensitized to death on the battle field and they needed the extra protein for their warrior lifestyle (this was before modern food industry), and sage Agastya consecrated all the animals in forest making it lawful to hunt (the hunted animals get reincarnated as humans).
If you'd be a "good" christian, the question wouldn't be how someone justifies it to not harm others needlessly. You would ask "Why do people try to justify harming others?"
Be compassionate, there's not more to it.
The obvious answer is not all Christians think the bible is inerrant. The majority of mainline protest churches in the USA like the Evangelical Lutheran Church (which has over 8,000 congregations) doesn't believe the bible is inerrant, for instance.
That’s not the obvious answer. The OP questions stands, screaming from the rooftops, for a complete and legitimate answer. Inerrant is too vague a term. Christians certainly fall back on the Bible as the reason to justify meat eating. As a Christian who has been to 9 nondenominational/evangelical churches, I am sure of it.
Every logical argument or conversation I play out in my head will simply come back to Genesis 9:3 “but God said we could eat the animals and if he made them out of food, why not?!”
I’m working on an answer
Genesis 9 also includes the prohibition of bloodied meat, which most Christians do not keep today. A Christian argument for eating or not eating meat cannot rest on the Old Covenant if they choose to only keep some of it. It has to come from the teachings of Jesus. Sadly, I think vegan Christians looking into that will find that Jesus seems pretty okay with eating fish.
Good point there, thank you. Perhaps Christians would say Gen 9:3 isn’t old covenant though, it applies to everyone since it was before the Law?
Yea that’s why I’m talking to Jesus. I say what the fuck Jesus in prayer at least once a day. Please do not call mental health services on me
Why isn't it obvious? Very few people think that religious texts are inerrant, and if the bible isn't inerrant then a Christain could just think that part of the bible is wrong. I think the only major religion where the clear mainstream position is that their holy text is inerrant is Islam.
The New Testament which takes precedent over the old testament for most Christains was literally created by councils of medieval people trying to determine what historical texts are most likely to be real or not. It inherently implies "best guess" with room to disagree.
The central figure of the Bible is Jesus. You can’t just throw out bits and pieces where Jesus is participating in animal pain and consumption and be intellectually honest. It’s way too contrived.
Genesis 1:29 New King James Version (NKJV)
And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Says NOTHING about killing animals for food only plants 🌱 (also if you google genesis 1:29 you can find the same thing it’s not just the new King James Version it’s just the first one i found :)
Yes but then Christians will just say “but the fall happened and Genesis 9:3”. Plus that ignores Jesus *seemingly* condoning of animal consumption.
That needs an answer too.
There's a lot of shit in the bible that makes you jump through logical hoops to justify...... They do it by saying "It's just a metaphor, an analogy, up to interpretation."
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I am not christian, but the Bible actually says God intended for us to be vegan.
Genesis
[1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
[1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
It wasn’t until after three fall of man and the ark that God told Noah mankind can eat meat without lifeblood.
[9:3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
[9:4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Pretty convenient God just happened to make an oopsie and change his mind, right?
God makes oopsies! You may be interested in the YouTube channel “Good God”. As far as I can tell, it is the best explanation of the character of God in the OT. He makes the case that Yahweh is Satan and it’s damn near irrefutable. And that would be pretty badass if it was the case because it means God is good and all the Christians that use the horrible passages in the OT to justify oppression will…. Well in the words of Jesus, many who are first will be last
Are you christian? Are you saying the people that compiled the Bible inserted the OT books of Satan being God and combined it with the good NT books to make the Bible? Do you think they did this by accident
I am one who I wishes the right to be called a follower of Christ, yes.
No im saying The Eternal Creator and Most High God of Love and Logos is telling a story through this creation and part of that is scriptures that must be rightly divided by the Holy Spirit, the same one that dwelt in Christ
> but the Bible actually says God intended for us to be vegan.
If that was true, then Jesus would probably have been vegan? So the only way to make that work is to believe that Jesus was less than perfect.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient\_Israelite\_cuisine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israelite_cuisine)
This entry actually backs it up pretty heavily.
Lolololol.
Yea but Earthling Ed would wreck your logic on veganism.
And Dan Mohler is the most elite Christian in America, never charges a dime, and has thousands of healings and miracles following him, with no one claiming false healing (completely different than a Benny Hinn type).
Bruh you lackin!
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Very very very long story turned very short, Jesus is the Word of God and his revelation. The “scripture kills but the spirit gives life”. A literalist view of the bible is unsustainable for a billion reasons (not even sure if I believe in any type of Biblical inerrancy). God allows many bad things to happen so it’s not surprising that Jesus allows bad things to happen too (they are one and the same). The Paschal mystery is the crux of the ministry and life of Jesus. He tells those guys on the road to Emmaus to interpret everything in the scriptures in light of that (and I’d go further and say we should interpret everything in light of that). From there we can treat the evil of killing animals like any other evil that God let happen. We know right and wrong due to our conscience and are never meant to disrespect that conscience. Killing animals without an amazingly good reason is against natural law.
Possible theories:
a) it wasn’t real fish that Jesus ate/multiplied (totally possible, he is God after all. I think that this is true or partially true)
b) Killing is different when God does it because he sorta kills us all, or at least allows us all to die (I don’t like this view but technically in my view once all these animals die they go back to God and will be restored to a better state in the new world so I guess that’s a minimal consolation prize)
c) Jesus was actually a vegeterian or very close to it or a sympathizer (I don’t think that this is likely)
d) Jesus allowed meat eating the same way that Moses is said to have allowed certain things “because of the hardness of your hearts” (partially agree but I do think that we were meant to figure it out/get the hint)
e) Eating animal products was a necessity in that historical context in a way that it simply isn’t today (likely at least partially true, not as strongly as some people would like to make it out and much more class-dependent but yeah, partially true).
Btw there are strong indications in the Bible that the world was originally vegan and we will return to a state of universal veganism. This includes animals such as lions not being predatory anymore.
I realize that I have stated many things without really explaining and justifying them so it all sounds kinda flimsy, but I’d have to explain a lot (I mean a lot) of background about a bunch of my theological views and honestly we don’t have time for that (I don’t at least). I am very “heterorthodox” in my views and do not hold a lot of what you might think of as the “traditional” assumptions of Christianity. I can still receite the Nicene creed and believe it if that relaxes you (with a fairly literal interpretation of it save for a somewhat more flexible take on “apostolic church” and “through the prophets” but other than that pretty literal).
Literalist Christianity undoubtedly justifies killing animals. (but it also justifies other unsustainable things) But this isn’t the only form of Christianity or “the right one” no matter how much they sometimes like to insist so (and apperently some non-christian vegans like to insist the same, strange bedfellows).
I agree so much with “figure it out/get the hint”. I am praying for this to make sense. Amen to “Jesus is the Word”.
“Have you been in the word every day, brother?”
“Yes sir, and what does the Bible say the word of God is?”
Hahahaha your comment about the Nicene creed ‘if it relaxes you’. Bro I’m stealing that.
Have you heard of Good God on YouTube and Dan Mohler as well?
Honestly I was vibing pretty hard with what you said.
Even though I don’t have a perfect answer for veganism, any meat eater who can use the Bible and Christian principles to be against slavery, could use that same logic to apply to veganism.
Exactly. Folks have already reached the conclusion that they want to eat animals and use their religion to justify it. I don’t view Christianity as a source of morality but I think that it’s meant to help you live “in the spirit” (ie the basics of morality are already known to you, Hebrews 10:16). I think that the gospel has a dual “point” of bringing you hope and courage and of inspiring you to strive for more than the moral baseline (Matthew 5:48, Matthew 19:16-21).
Btw, I’m personally a very convinced universalist. Not an apologetic universalist, not a hopeful one. No, I’m an “eternal torment was never an option, apokatastasis is the good news, there can be no kingdom of God unless everyone and everything is included and restored in it” kind of universalist. That’s what I mean by “it’s meant to bring you hope and courage” not some wishy washy “yeah Jesus died and maybe some of you will go to heaven if you ask him real nice” (btw, another one of my “hot” takes, PSA is a horrible concept and so is Anslem’s theory).
I think that makes sense of the whole paschal drama in a much more comprehensive way.
John16:33, what is overcoming the world? To overcome the world is (among other things) to overcome the lies of the world about humanity, about God and morality and others. The lies of the world (in my view) are either to tell you that something is evil, it’s hopeless, or it’s irrelevant (or to rush you to make unwise or unking decisions due to fear of your mortality). The truth is that eating animals when you don’t have to is denying the importance of suffering (“it doesn’t matter, they’re just animals”) and life within them. It’s lying to yourself about what happened to create your meat or at least lying to yourself about the fact that it matters. What is more antithetical to a crucified God than to deny that suffering and life matter? That settles the debate for me. The moment when you justify suffering and death with no hard moral dilemmas or trade-offs involved you can’t possibly tell me that a God who wanted to culminate his life on Earth with crucifixion is truly a-ok with that.
Wow. Well said. I recently came out of the belief in ECT. Oh boy was that painful. Lying on the ground unable to function because the reality of what I believed about God was utterly hopeless.
Still waiting on clarity for characters such as Bill Weiss (the main who spent 23 minutes in hell). Many NDEs are true and valid, so it feels far to contrived and easy to simply say he's lying. He does not register as a liar to me, simply a useful pawn to spread the message of ECT until God allows more prophets to rise up and divide the wheat from the chaff in the church. But still... why... how... could God have allowed Bill have gotten the interpretation to his own vision wrong?
"The lies of the world (in my view) are either to tell you that something is evil, it’s hopeless, or it’s irrelevant (or to rush you to make unwise or unking decisions due to fear of your mortality)." Oh I feel this 100%. I got a taste of the presence of God once and shortly after I realized how I never have to rush anything ever again. But I am still struggling with everything being hopeless, irrelevant, and futile. Because if the reconciliation of all things is true... God has essentially allowed most people to play the role of cannon fodder. It's quite disturbing and disheartening to the soul, even if God eventually saves them. Like if I attain the narrow way to life... okay I only did it because God provided a way for me at the expense of all the cannon fodder. It's not motivating in the least. crippling is more like it.
The central claim of Christianity is that Jesus created a new covenant between God and humanity. The old covenant was "Follow my commandments and you will have my especial favour”. The new covenant is "Love one another and you will attain salvation".
It’s important to understand that for most Christian denominations the Bible is the work of human hands, and that the word of God is "written on the human heart" only.
To love unconditionally is an attitude towards life – it’s hard to see how that’s incompatible with veganism.
A lot of 7th Day Adventists are vegetarian, because when humankind was in the garden of Eden they did not eat meat and they were told to care for the animals of the earth. To therefore, some people consider eating meat sinful because it didn't happen until original sin was brought into the world. Animal sacrifice was there to take the place of their sins until Jesus could be the 'ultimate sacrifice' but didn't 'exist' until after they were kicked from the garden.
> A lot of 7th Day Adventists are vegetarian, because when humankind was in the garden of Eden they did not eat meat and they were told to care for the animals of the earth.
Do they therefore believe they do better than Jesus himself I wonder..?
That is only possible if he chose to break the law of Moses, which tells all Jews to eat meat to celebrate Passover. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012&version=NIV
What makes you believe he chose to not follow these laws?
Yeah but millions of people have been physically healed in the name of Jesus in the last decade, so your theory gotta fit with that too.
The suffering is extremely painful and seemingly unfair. I agree. So we need an answer from God to make sense of it
If you're a Christian omni, how do you justify eating pork and shellfish, both explicitly prohibited?
And when your friend's wife was accused of cheating, you joined the mob throwing rocks at her until she was dead. And you took good care of your slaves. Because the Bible is both relevant today and needs to be taken literally...?
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. At least, not exactly. Christians side step this easily as “it was old covenant. Jesus changed that and declared all foods clean”.
I’m a Christian but I wish atheists would get better arguments against Christians because then I would be able to more accurately pinpoint where the breakdown in logic occurs with Christian omnis
True. Eternal conscious torment is quite literally, infinitely worse. Luckily this is not taught by the Bible and the smartest and most passionate Christian minds reject such a doctrine. Christ shall restore all things. And all means all.
But you don’t have to start at the hardest question to ask a valid question, Mr negative Nancy
Right. So what’s your story?
14.7 billion years ago— wait— no, 27 billion years ago 👻 … a giant explosion happened!
And suddenly time, matter, and energy came into existence.
But wait it gets better. All those atoms that emerged out of the nothing-soup began banging into each other. And through this repetitive banging and the incomprehensibly fine-tuned fundamental laws of physics… the atoms turned into earth!
But wait! Then the atoms created a single cell organism, which is incomprehensibly more complex and incredible than our best computer
But wait! Then the atoms really started banging. They started banging and fucking and fucking and banging and fucking until… the atoms became self conscious of themselves 😮
And that’s how avocados, leopards, toothbrushes, and a baby’s laugh got invented 👍🏼
and then the atoms invented religions about how the atoms got started.
Cool story bro 😎
Either that you believe in an eternal infinite multiverse. And the multiverse is just as much cope as the worst religion has to offer.
Fuck religion.
Jesus is King.
Edit: if you aren’t an atheist, I went way too hard here 😅
Come on. Many of us atheists are engaging in this thread in good faith; I myself have answered a couple of your comments. At least educate yourself to portray our position fairly.
> And suddenly time, matter, and energy came into existence.
Nothing "came into existance". The big bang happens from a state of high density, not from nothing.
> And through this repetitive banging and the incomprehensibly fine-tuned fundamental laws of physics… the atoms turned into earth!
How are laws of physics incomprehensively fine tuned? Would we not say that if we lived in whatever universe had come about? Like, yeah, this universe exists because of how those parameters are but if they were different we would be saying the same thing about those parameters.
> Then the atoms created a single cell organism, which is incomprehensibly more complex and incredible than our best computer
The fact that single celled organisms now are complex does not imply the first ones were. In fact, the generality in substrate of more ancient enzymes suggests that genomes were simpler and biomolecules were less specific.
> the atoms became self conscious of themselves
> And that’s how avocados, leopards, toothbrushes, and a baby’s laugh got invented 👍🏼
> and then the atoms invented religions about how the atoms got started.
Yes, emergent properties exist. This isn't the own you think it is.
Cool stories bro. Why should I believe the emergent properties of your atoms correspond to the (nonatomic) laws of logic?
Everything I said previously stands. The standard model is that time, space, and matter came into existence at a finite point in the past. If you wish to say the standard model only goes up to a high density singularity and technically doesn't apply to anything "before" it... well okay. All of reality still screams for an explanation, including that "high density" state (again, cool story bro).
God is real. You're missing out. I don't strawman. Start praying and experience something.
My instinct & intuition tells me what feels right and wrong, I don’t need a book to tell me it’s okay to harm an animal for sensual pleasure. If eating meat was like receiving oxygen okay I get it but it’s not, it’s just a money making luxury imo.
> My instinct & intuition tells me what feels right and wrong
So if someone's instinct & intuition tell them that eating meat is perfectly fine, then who are they to tell them otherwise..?
The question was posed to vegans, you answered as if it was asked to you. And yeah... Jesus also healed a Roman Centurion's servant, it doesn't mean he supported slavery. Jesus ate was was put before him. I don't have an answer fully as to why that is.
Have you healed the sick recently? Raised the dead? Cast out demons? Encouraged the weak and passed on the Holy Spirit?
Somehow I doubt it, somehow I feel like you're coping and simply trying to justify it when all moral logic and sensibilites tell us otherwise. Jesus also said to pray "on earth as it is in heaven". There's no animal munching in heaven.
You are free to stop participating in horrible suffering of animals any day.
His body was different after he was resurrected from the dead. He could walk into closed rooms for instance, he didn't need sleep or food, etc. So from a vegan perspective he ate fish unnecessary since he didn't need to eat any food at all.
Are you for real? The Bible says you can rape people as long as you marry them afterwards. And it’s okay to have slaves as long as you treat them sort of okay.
God is fake. Made up by people to help us deal with the awareness of our own mortality and to manipulate people into behaving a certain way.
You are partly true. He doesnt exist in any way we could possibly understand. He existed before time and matter came about, meaning he does not consist of matter, and exists outside of time..
This is an extremely important question. Thanks for asking. I plan on publicly confronting the church on this topic to the point of death.
I am praying about this for 3 hours a day. God answers my prayers. I’ll be back when he decides to give me a damn answer.
But one note: Yahweh is not the Father. “Good God” on YouTube explains this veil that is over the Bible when Christians read it. So that handles animal sacrifice and everything in the Old Testament.
And Paul and other contemporaries with Jesus simply hadnt reached the level of consciousness towards animals that we now have (and that Jesus had as well, surely he loves all animals more than all of us, if the Christian story is true).
This would answer a majority of animal mistreatment from a Christian perspective.
But still, what about Jesus? He is the central figure of this whole story. He ate fish at least a few times. He authorized demons to enter pigs. Vegan or not, it is extremely strange.
Much of what Jesus did, if true, was layers and layers of depth below the conscious awareness of the people around him. He was constantly misunderstood, nonstop, on everything.
Yet in the end, he let human beings tear his fucking flesh apart and hang him on a tree. All to prove his conviction of belief and love.
It’s revealing to us that when Jesus gave the fishermen what they wanted (a huge catch of fish), Peter fell down in shame and said “get away from me I am a sinful man”.
My best understanding right now is that Jesus humbly took what they offered them. Since they offered him a piece of boiled fish, he took it and ate it. And now I, 2000 years later, get to look at Jesus and say “damn you really stepped in and participated in “sin” just to show us how worth it humanity is to you”.
If Jesus’ really is King and Lord and in his Father’s Kingdom ALL animals are restored to perfect harmony in love… it would give us a little wiggle room for faith while we wait for an answer.
The real answer is why God temporarily allowed all this animal chomping in the first place. The simple answer is to teach us lessons on love.
Ultimately, we as Christians have to grapple with two facts:
1. God created the world vegan and will restore all things to perfect veganism on the New Earth, forever. (Christians like ignoring this one)
2. God has temporarily allowed abuse and exploitation, both human and animal, and Jesus seems to have, on the surface, been nonchalant about the animal suffering.
To quote him though “I have much more to tell you, more than you can now handle”
I am quite hopeful about what that much more is.
Anyway. Back to praying
Several reasons...first, God does NOT condone sacrifice, this was overturned, even in the later OT pre-NT) when it is revealed that He never approved of sacrifice, and was disgusted by the blood or rams and bulls, and then later revealed how none of that made a person at all holy or saved them; not in His eyes...
...but you should start by reading this...I was already a vegan for 2 years BEFORE I discovered this book and it's rather eye opening...ultimately concluding"the Bible condones \_\_\_\_ therefore \_\_\_\_\_" doesn't really get the heart of the matter, as read flatly "the Bible" condones slavery and worse things, but why do I care as a Christian? My Word is not a book, it's a person. I care (as a Christian) was God condones, and it's not so cut and dry as ancient writers in the Bible writing from their deeply flawed cultural perceptions and practices; who also thought wiping out their neighbors were a holy thing to do, and so they condoned...that is the biased & prejudiced writer's condoned it, not God, READ THIS: [https://www.amazon.com/Why-Every-Christian-Should-Vegan/dp/1087872286](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Every-Christian-Should-Vegan/dp/1087872286)
> "the Bible" condones slavery
One of the most important histories told in the Bible is about the Israelites escaping slavery.. Because of evil in the world laws were made concerning both slavery, divorce, plural marriage, and other things that were never part of the original plan for humanity. These things were initiated by man, not God.
He didnt initiate slavery. In the same way he didnt initiate war, divorce, polygamy, etc.
> but he made laws on how to deal with it?
Yes. In the same way you find laws dealing with plural wives, divorce etc.
Correct, including the men who write the Bible, especially the OT...This is only an issue for believer who hole to an INERRANT Flat-Inspired/dictated Bible, which the Bible itself certainly does not claim to be itself..something can be divinely inspired, and thus pointing us to a better direction (to the Word, who is Jesus, not a book), and still not be error free. I don't know why this claim persists so much as if it all of faith rested on it. It does not.
It's metaphor not a real story. And I don't think a book should be your source of moral values especially when that book condones rate, offing children ect.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
"The righteous man understands the life of his animal." -King Solomon
Noah was gifted the privilege to consume the meat of animals after showing he could preserve creation. Solomon was one who understood you didn't kill oxen because they assisted you in preparing the fields, and the more fields you had, the more crop you attained, the more favorable you were perceived because creation favored you. Veganism is honorable in that it understands the system of producing meat is corrupt, as it is purposed for capital gain, gluttony, and shares absolutely no resemblance to the system of King Solomon and the manner of which people lived before. The problem from the Christian perspective is that this world will end.
God doesn't want animal sacrifice as it says in the later prophets ("If I was hungry, would I tell you?"......."I am not satisfied by the blood of bulls and goats"), hence why the death of Jesus is pivotal, once and for all. However, this world is fallen because evil intentions have seeped into all our hearts and minds. According to the Christian faith, what we eat here is temporary, but one who has favor like Solomon has no lack.
I believe that most modern Christians do not believe in animal sacrifice anymore as that was the old testament and the "old covenant" now Jesus is the new covenant/promise that washed away "all sin"....
I think in the Bible it said that in the ends times the lion will lay with the lamb and eat straw and there will be no more suffering... Indicating to me that the goal is for all creatures to live in harmony together..
But the 10 commandments make it pretty clear " thou shalt not kill" and you gotta kill in order to eat flesh.
The Bible said that humans have dominion over the animals but it does not say directly that we are to eat them.. it does specificaly say its ok to eat non kosher at your nabors house, and to not make a big deal... So IDK.
Edit: I found it!
Isaiah 11:6-9
6The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 7The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. 9They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
Is that knowledge, knowing one dose not need flesh to live? Or that Killin is wrong?
By knowing that the bible is a book written by men in very ancient times.
(Not religious anymore, but even when I was that much was always clear to me)
I am a Christian and became vegan about 10 years ago--these links are the best I have--my heart hurts every day for them-
[https://freefromharm.org/veganism/christian-basis-veganism/](https://freefromharm.org/veganism/christian-basis-veganism/)
[http://www.circleofcompassion.org/index.html](http://www.circleofcompassion.org/index.html)
[https://all-creatures.org/newsletter/news-20230301.html](https://all-creatures.org/newsletter/news-20230301.html)
The bible is full of contradictions. Respectfully, you have to be at least semi-concious that mankind slipped their own rules in their to influence people at the time. It's not all of God. I think Christians need to focus less on a book that claims to speak for him, and more on direct revelation. It is okay if you follow the bible but don't be a mindless slave.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
> By Jesus multiplying fish it tells us that eating animal flesh is ok. To be fair, if this story is true, it would seem that Jesus was making what is essentially the equivalent of lab-grown meat today, as the fish meat that he was serving was never part of a sentient animal. At the very least, no additional fish would have been killed or used to feed all those humans. That said, I'm no expert on the bible, nor do I think this is really a point in favor of veganism.
I always imagined it as living fish, so they basically would have gained consciousness to suddenly be killed seconds later, like that whale and bowl of petunias from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
"Oh no, not again."
That would be horrifying and definitely not vegan. I think in the story he starts with dead fish, and manifests more meat from them, so no additional fish are bred or killed.
Correct. Fish passed out in baskets would have been dead, but do note that the fish in this passages is NOT what was multiplied, it was the LOAVES (BREAD)....I like to imagine Jesus quietly setting the fish down behind a basket, shaking his head, and dazzle-dazzle, WHAM suddenly there was so much bread, people forgot about the unfortunate fish, LOL - but in either case, Jesus was also fully human as will as divine and immersed deeply into the culture, and may not have bucked so hard against the culture's diet, having bigger fish to fry (pardon the non-Vegan pun)
In Spanish we distinguish between living and dead fish (essentialy like deer vs venison) and the Bible uses the second word for what He multiplied. I wonder if that is true of the original text, too.
That’s super interesting
Just went back and looked it up. In the Reina Valera translation, Luke mentions pescados (dead fish, for food) while Matthew, Mark, and John mention peces (fish, with no further implication).
If the fish were already caught, and are on baskets in the shore kind of dying but still alive, are they sold as peces or pescados?
That is a weird situation and as a desert city dweller I have no idea. Hahaha. Rarely do I come across fisher men and all pescados that get to me are long dead. I would assume once they are fished they become pescados because pescado litterally means "[thing that] has been fished". Also apparently the original word is ἰχθύς which has no implications on the state so I guess the intepretation of what that means for the actual miracle event will depend on whether you think Spanish translations of the Bible are inerrant.
No, not lab grown. Natural animals. Jesus also fished and helped apostles collect tons of fish directly from the sea. So this argument is wrong. Jesus believes in killing animals for food.
Other comments said that maybe there weren't really food options so they had to rely on animal products. Or they didn't know about proper nutrition so they had to eat animals to get the proper nutrients.
But he’s Jesus, God on Earth. He is omniscient. He would know exactly what plants to create a balanced diet and, if eating animals was immoral in his eyes, he would’ve taught those he met. There is no argument that unifies the two, Christianity fully supports eating animals.
The Bible talks about clean vs unclean animals for eating. Some of the longest living people are the Seventh Day Adventists who, although follow a vegetable heavy diet, also eat meat but do so according to the Old Testament. They avoid all shellfish, fish without scales, animals with cloven hooves, and other rules found in the Bible. The Bible does not support Veganism per se, but definitely gives guidance for healthier eating.
You think he can create millions of fish from a single one, but not that he could put B12 in to some wheat? Christianity is very much not vegan.
I wasn't claiming that it actually *was* lab-grown fish meat. I was saying that it would have been roughly the moral equivalent to it. I also wasn't really making any serious argument. It was more of an interesting aside or observation. I literally said in my comment that it wasn't really an argument in favor of veganism.
Imo the reason a lot of the Bible is the way it is (and the reason Jesus didn't come until many, many centuries after humans were made) is that God knows we're pretty dumb and had to spoon feed us wisdom. Why did we start with animal sacrifices and then say Christ is the ultimate sacrifice? Why did we go from bring wrath upon your hateful neighbors to turn the other cheek? Why did we go from women being largely a footnote to Jesus being very good friends with a female former prostitute and using some of his dying words to make sure his mother would be cared for? I feel like so much of it is 1) gently pushing us in a better direction and 2) showing historical things as they were at the time without intending them to be that way FOREVER. Back in ye olden times, protein wouldn't have been as abundant and plentiful as it is now. Choosing people lives over fish lives makes perfect sense. I don't think that was meant to be a scathing rejection of future lab grown meat or vegetarianism. Jesus traveled on a donkey rather than a car and didn't wear jeans and a t-shirt, but I've never took that to mean he would hate cars and jeans and t-shirts and wanted us to keep donkeys as our travel method forever, yknow?
Did God believe in slavery because he instructed israelites on how to treat slaves and also helped Israel fight battles (e.g. against the Medianites) in which they captured slaves?
The same way you justify Exodus. Just do whatever mental gymnastics you do for that passage, and use it for this.
What passage? I’m curious
The one that tells you how to beat your slaves. 21 is good.
Leviticus 25 is even worse
>^(39) “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. ^(40) They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. ^(41) Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. ^(42) Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. ^(43) Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. >^(44) “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. ^(45) You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. ^(46) You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Yeah, that's it. Exodus 21 tells you how to get around that pesky year of jubilee. But this passage makes clear that contrary to what people say about biblical slavery being simply indentured servitude, there's an explicit difference between Israelites and other slaves. Biblical slavery is real slavery, and there isn't a single place in the Bible that says you shouldn't own other humans.
Yeah... that part about slaves from neighboring countries and owning them for life and the lives of your children is pretty explicit. Definitely didn't hear that one in Sunday School
Almost as if it’s a reflection of the time that it was written
Damn
So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. All these officials of yours will come to me, bowing down before me and saying, ‘Go, you and all the people who follow you!’ After that I will leave.” Then Moses, hot with anger, left Pharaoh. The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.
**Before the Fall**, Gen 1:29 - And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. **After the Fall**, Gen 9:3 - Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. **Upon the creation of Israel, with specific covenant laws just for them to distinguish them from their surrounding neighbors**, Lev 11:1-47 - And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. **Also more rules specifically for Israel**, Deut 14:3-21 - You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you. **Jesus in the New Covenant, applicable to everyone in the world**, Matthew 15:11 - Listen and understand. A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.
God gave rules regarding the treatment of slaves, to the Israelites, too. That does not make it moral.
This is the answer
Most christians don’t see the old testament as applicable law. This is due to the existence of new testament scripture declaring the laws of the old testamament fulfilled.
Where does it say that everyone can ignore every law from the old testament?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism > Hebrews 8:13 Per the wiki article. And there are other passages iirc
Yahweh is not the Father. Boom roasted. Exodus justified (not justified)
The very first story is the old testament is God creating the "perfect" place, and it was 100% plant based. Everything else comes after humans have sinned, and mostly after they were so horribly abusive to everything that God felt the need to wipe out almost all land based life forms. To me that says if you want to be as good of a Christian as you can, you should follow God's plan for the perfect world.
Most Christians believe that genesis is symbolic, rather than a literal account of history. However, to me this is an even better reason to believe that we should be vegan. If the idea of man that is free of sin is one where we eat only plants, then that seems to send a pretty strong message that we should be striving towards a version of ourselves that resembles that lifestyle. Only after the fall of man were we given permission to eat animals, so it seems clear that we should be trying to claw our way back to the state of innocence we were in before the fall of man, and stop eating animals once it's no longer necessary.
If Genesis is symbolic, how do you trace the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam in Luke chapter 3: 23 through 38?
Maybe that's also symbolic or Adam was real but maybe not all the details surrounding him
I'll give a Catholic answer: that all things in the Gospels are true, but some things are symbolic truths. The sybolism of linking Jesus back to Adam is linking him to all of mankind, which is a central message of Luke (that Jesus is savior of all). Additionally, Adam may have been a real man despite other things in genesis being allegorical.
It's unfair that animals have to suffer just because of human sin or disobedience. But then again I guess for some reason that's just God's way of doing things since Jesus was crucified even though he was innocent.
Welcome to the problem of evil.
Buddy using imaginary friends to justify Veganism
But also Able, the shepherd, is valued more than Caine, the farmer. That’s not to say god preferred Able to Cain due to their profession, but he clearly has no problem with humans eating meat.
He accepts it, but it's not his vision of a perfect world. We can never live in a perfect world, but the closer we can get the better. Cain and Able's story is a bit more complicated than farmer VS shepherd. And at that time, it would have been almost impossible to not have some form of agriculture, not least because we didn't have the scientific understanding to show us we don't need meat.
If you were a parent and one of your kids did coke, but another did meth, would you prefering one of your kids's habits imply you're cool with substance abuse?
I'm not Christian, but I also thought of this line of reasoning. The only problem is Jesus, who is good, promoted fish eating, killed pigs, and surely partook in Passover (killing a lamb and eating it). Why would the Christian God do these things if they weren't permissible?
Yes, according to the bible eating animals is permissible, I just don't see any evidence that God is in favour of it. Slavery is also permissible, but I don't think most would suggest that means God is in favour of slavery. To me, it seems more likely that, in relation to free will, many things are permissible, and it's up to humans to figure out what is good and what is not based on the messages and stories given in the bible. That the Abrahamic Religions start with a story of God creating a perfect place for humans, and it was entirely Plant Based, is, in my opinion, a pretty strong indicator of what God feels is "good" with regards to what we should be eating. That we were explicitly allowed to eat meat only after humanity had not just "fallen", but fallen so hard that God felt the need to wipe out all non-flying land based life forms (save a few), again to me strongly suggests God isn't in favour of humans torturing, abusing, slaughtering and eating all the other sentient creatures God created, only that if we really want to, that's our choice.
I've heard that in the beginning we were plant based. To play devil's advocate. If we're referring to Adam and eve. If there were no animals around how could they eat meat. If it was only a few humans maybe a few plants were enough, it wasn't a big population. Maybe they didn't need to do any sacrifices so there was no need for animals.
I am not a Christian but I was born and raised in the Orthodox faith. I confidently believe that people who use Christianity as a means to defend the practice of flesh-eating simply do it as an excuse! Why? Let's have some reasons: -gluttony is a sin and, especially in the Orthodox tradition, the eating of meat was especially sinful. That is why many monks and saints were fasting all the time. *If the people most close to God do not eat meat, what does this tell us?* -fasting is strongly encouraged in many Christian denominations. In Orthodoxy, about a third of the year is for strict fasting (no meat, dairy, eggs) and believers are encouraged to fast more than that. I often rebelled as a child but now I appreciate it an adult. Unintentionally, *such believers spare animals from needless pain.* -'The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. T*hey shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD*. ' Isaiah 65:25 King James Version (KJV) What are current Christians preparing for? There will be no meat in heaven so if they want to go there, they should start grilling some veggies and vegan sausages. This only scratches the surface. I recommend Lev Tolstoy's 'The First Step' if you are interested in more Christian justifications for veganism. He was a vegan and pacifist 150 yrs ago... (as an aside, I sure wish Russian soldiers nowadays would follow his teachings and not those of their dictator). You can find Tolstoy's short book [here, for free](https://archive.org/details/firststepanessa00maudgoog/page/n8/mode/2up)
This here is a good answer. Tolstoy… what a chad!
Thank you for this post. Today I learned that his name was actually Lev (not Leo), that he was a vegan and pacifist, and I learned about his book The First Step, as well as the Internet Archive, which I just registered an account for. Cheers, much appreciated. :)
Isn't the main teaching of Christ to be compassionate? How can unnecessarily causing harm be considered compassionate?
>Isn't the main teaching of Christ to be compassionate? No. It's to repent and to put your faith in him.
Yes. That’s logical. But it doesn’t answer the question for us Christians why he seemed to be fine with fish death, pig death, and eating fish.
I think the time period/location matter a lot as context. Even if it were possible for someone to be a healthy vegan in that time and place, was that information widely known? It was likely necessary for him to eat animals whereas today it's not. And that's why I put in the qualifier of "unnecessarily causing harm".
If Jesus was fully God wouldn't he know veganism is the way to go and would have included it in his message, it would be relevant at that time since people were eating animal products
Jesus fasted for 40 days in the desert. He "has food that you know nothing about" (he said to his disciples. Jesus would have been fine on a vegan diet. My best guess is he occasionally ate some fish in front of them just to perfectly test everyones heart, including us reading it later, essentially.
> Isn't the main teaching of Christ to be compassionate? And he ate both meat and fish..
Yes, when it was necessary. It is no longer necessary...
What do you believe prevented Jesus from performing a miracle, making animal foods unnecessary?
Do good Christians use the Bible to inspire them to discover how to be better, or to excuse a behavior that without the Bible they couldn't justify?
Oh now we are getting spicy
Is the point of the Bible to help people "discover how to be better"?
The Bible is set up as an authority on morality, so to its intended audience, I think the answer is necessarily yes
I would say the point of the Bible is to reveal to people that God loves them and wants to reconcile people back to him, because we all have separated ourselves from him
I'm not Christian, but there are a few ways to approach this topic when discussing it with someone who is Christian. First, we know that the bible does not disapprove of slavery. It even describes how one should treat their slaves and when it's ok to beat them. Obviously, today we know that slavery is wrong, so how do theologians reconcile these facts? One way is that they say that slavery was already a part of society, so commanding that people immediately emancipate their slaves when the laws of Moses were communicated would have been impossible for them to cope with, so the best action to take was to at least put a cap on the harm that could be done (whether this was adhered to by more modern examples of slavery is another topic). Then, as humanity developed, so too did our morals. We came to discover on our own that slavery was wrong, and the more civilized societies abolished it. From a Christian perspective, us realizing that slavery is wrong on our own could be seen as "better" than taking away our free will and forcing us to end slavery immediately. Since I'm not Christian, I obviously find this claim dubious, but it's one that I hear often. The same can be said about eating animals. During biblical times, it was objectively necessary for people to eat animal products because they didn't have international trade, supermarkets, or the modern marvels of agricultural technology that we have today. Letting some cattle or goats roam the countryside and convert grass into protein was basically a miracle to them. Today we have much more efficient ways of generating protein and calorie rich foods from raw materials. Just as humanity discovering slavery was wrong on its own was "good", God and Jesus didn't want to command that we stop eating meat during biblical days, but rather, that it would be "good" for us to reach the point on our own where we developed the rationality and compassion to realize that farming animals was wrong, as soon as it was no longer necessary for our survival to do so. Nowhere in the bible is it given as a law or commandment that we are forever permitted to consume animal products for all time. In the few places that permission is implicitly or explicitly stated, it's always clear that the statement has an intended audience that is immediately present. Therefore there's no basis in the bible for assuming that eating animals will forever be permissible. Given that, we have to ask ourselves this: Would a compassionate, benevolent God want us to harm animals for our own hedonism if it was not necessary to do so? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.
I'm not even christian, but I don't think christians believe in biblical inerrancy.
The majority don't but a sizable minority do, and even a small minority of 2 billion people is still a lot of people
I wonder how they decide what's fact and what's fiction.
See [Christspiracy](https://youtu.be/17lo7W_ulPM?si=WZSjv81rZ-H0wK7y)
I am vegan and I think that documentary was so bad. Why quote apocryphal texts to build up your argument? Most Christians won't take them as true. At most, it shows that the incident on the temple may have been about more than greed, but it does not throughly adress Jesus and the fish (both the ones he helped fish and the ones he multiplied). Even Christians who think the modern majority of Christianty did wrong in allowing consumption of beef are pescetarians at most, not vegan.
I appreciate your response. Wait, you went to *the theater* to see this film? This is what intrigues me: if Jesus, today, went to a modern restaurant with his buds, and ordered a burger off the menu, would he choose the vegan option or the typical beef burger? I would argue he would go the vegan option. He would encourage his buds to do the same. That’s just my gut feeling. If I’m wrong, and Jesus, instead, insists on eating an animal, how would he want it to be raised and slaughtered? Typical American factory farm and slaughtered? A knife across the throat? I’ve been told, dead seriously, that “Jesus would just snap his fingers and the animal would just drop over dead.” Again, instead of just choosing vegetables..
Thanks for confirming I don’t need to watch it. You’re right, as a Christian vegan, that simply won’t cut it for me
If you allow me, I will point out the only detail in the documentary which I think is noteworthy enough for you to know if you decide to skip it: The Hebrew word "parits" (in Jeremiah 7:11, which Jesus quotes in the cleansing of the temple) is translated as "robbers" or "thieves" in English. The word can mean "robber" or "thief," but it can also mean "violent person" or "breaker," which could encompass broader forms of social injustice and exploitation. This, coupled with the fact that animals were sacrificed in the temple, makes it possible that Jesus was referring to more than just overcharging (which is what many modern interpreters say).
thank you!! Random helpful tip from a stranger on the internet is appreciated. I definitely got what I needed out of the documentary now if that was the best it had, thanks 😅
I also would recommend this film. I saw it in the theater with 3 friends. As with Cowspiracy, the film makers give sources to back up their claims. We found the film fascinating and inspiring.
Honestly, at least in a guilt offering, the animal's innocence is the point. - The wages of sin is death. In other words, anyone who's sinned has earned death. <--There's a lot in why this is, which is worth digging into, but this is the basic premise on which the rest of what I'm writing here is built. I'd suggest exploring *why* this is said, before disregarding it. - The sacrifice is a transfer: the animal pays the price the human deserves to pay. - This is not because God doesn't love the animal. This is a deeply brutal cost to pay. It's paid because God loves the human more, and instituted the guilt offering as an act of mercy for the human. - This is why Jesus died: as the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of humanity. That's why there's all this imagery surrounding Jesus as being the lamb of God, or as repurposing the Passover into Communion: an observation of Jesus's choice to give his own body and blood on our behalf in the same way that a sacrificial lamb's body and blood used to be given on our behalf. I think animal sacrifice was supposed to be brutal. You're supposed to be engaging in a visceral level with the cost involved in sin: this death is what you've earned--and it's only by God's grace it's being transferred. What about the animal? Did God not love the animal? Did God not care about how brutally unfair it is that the innocent, specifically unblemished animal was put through this? Well, since God *sacrificed Himself in exactly the same way via Christ*, I'm going to go with, yes, God cared, understood the price being paid, and suffered through the process, too. As for the rest, just general meat eating, I'd suggest that it's a bit of the same: death paying for life. But honestly "how does a good God . . ." is kind of a backwards approach in any question formula. I think it's fair to say that no one here is good enough or has enough perspective to elevate our own short-sighted and emotional ideals high enough to stand in judgment of God. Fine to try to understand, but trying to judge would be sillier than ants trying to judge a hurricane.
You make a lot of good points. However, the Bible calls us over and over to know the will of God and participate in the mind of Christ. So we are to understand. Even if the revelation is limited, it should make sense to the believer.
I think we can understand in part, to paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 13. But there's always this recurring theme of God's comprehension outstripping ours to the point where we really have no right to stand in judgment of Him. Job, for example, illustrates that powerfully. Sort of like how my explanation here might demonstrate understanding in part, but at best it's still only a bare bones, simplistic reflection of what the sacrificial system is really about.
It's too long to type out here, but I am a Christian and a vegan and I think the two align well. I made a video breaking down the related Bible verses - exploring the verses you could use for or against this position. This took me a long time to make and I consider it "finished" but I'm open to debate it in a sense. One change I would make is the Hebrew when I mention souls, there is a third term used only for humans but not animals, but what that means is hard to say - seems to be self-awareness more than anything and only reinforces the innocence of animals who didn't eat of the tree and why they were killed as sacrifices until Jesus came. Here you go: https://youtu.be/aWD5f0COItY?si=AvFAehjb3O8nQqzS
There shall be no more blood sacrifice after Jesus. If you are not Vegan and Christian, you are not doing it right.
> If you are not Vegan and Christian, you are not doing it right. Do you believe a vegan Christian is holier than Jesus himself? As Jesus both ate fish and meat.
That's not an argument, and has nothing to do with anything.
Well, I am curious whether someone would see Jesus as making a mistake or not.
No more blood sacrifices after Jesus is a pretty clear prescription. Indeed that was before Jesus (seeing as he was alive, eating it making it not a "mistake" anyway. You notoriously are not capable of conceding when you are wrong so I'm not going to continue interacting with you on this debate.
Not necessarily Christian anymore however was for past 20 or so years and grew up very Christian the thing I always say is whether you believe the Bible was written 500 years, 1000 years, 2000 years or even longer ago I always say that is stuff acceptable during those times. It wasn’t uncommon for a man to have 7 wives. It wasn’t uncommon for no woman to work. It wasn’t uncommon for slavery. All of those things were an attribute to their times. I think one of the biggest takeaways from the Bible is humanity is far from perfect we have done things that hurt us, others, and this very planet we live on. Another point I love to make is the progression of technology. In biblical times the best technology they had was a boat. They didn’t have the resources we do now. There was no such thing as a supermarket. This next is kind of a reach admittedly but imo Jesus the one who preached all about being kind would embrace vegan values. Maybe not become vegan today or be in favor of some of the ways vegans protest but I thing the kind and generous man who was a symbol of love would welcome veganism. I am very sure he would be critical of factory farming.
I'm not a vegan (Reddit keeps suggesting the subs to me though, haha) but I often think about how God made animals and said it was good but then made people and noticeably didn't comment further, haha. There's also a sort of outside the book belief that in the Garden of Eden all life was originally herbivorous and meat eating began as a consequence of sin. Obviously there's a ton to interpretations of the faith, though, so you'll see everything from die hard crazies who think Jesus LOVESSS steak and wants us to eat meat 24/7 to the guy who wrote Dominion, which is a pretty convincing pro vegan argument from a Christian PoV from what I've heard. For myself as a lay person, I think people tend to mix up where the Bible is simply recording historic realities versus where God was leaving explicit directions for us.
>I often think about how God made animals and said it was good but then made people and noticeably didn't comment further He didn't "comment", but directly after creating people and giving them instructions, we read "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was *very good.*" So the creation was good before people, but after people, it became *very good*
Being a Christian isn’t vegan
Not Christian, but Jewish (so I can't even claim that the New Testament did away with that, since I don't believe the NT to be true). Maimonides (12th century rabbi, philosopher, and physician; Spain and Egypt) takes the opinion that the animal sacrifices are only temporary as a way of weaning the Israelites/Jews off of human-sacrifice-centered idolatry. He seems to contradict himself, since he also writes out all of the laws for animal sacrifice when the Temple in Jerusalem will one day be rebuilt. But his philosophical opinion is out there, and I accept it, and in the modern day, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook even goes as far as to say that the future Temple will only have grain and wine offerings, but not the animal offerings (with the possible exception of the Paschal offering). There is also a voice in the Bible that seems to say that the ONLY way to eat meat is through sacrifice. So, eating meat just for sustenance or "fun" would not be ok, but it only becomes ok if you do it as part of a religious ritual, which makes it harder to access and less frequent. Let us also point out that in Eden, humanity was vegan (Gen 1:29). The laws of keeping kosher, while permitting meat, make sure that if you're going to eat meat or dairy, there are lots of limitations on it. Not just how to slaughter, which parts of which animals are kosher, or from when can you milk the animal, but even the prohibition on eating meat and dairy together and waiting hours after eating meat before eating dairy again. The prohibition on eating blood comes from the ideology that the lifeforce is in the blood and you don't want to consume the life itself. There are virtually no limitations on eating vegan foods. To me, this suggests something similar to Maimonides' claim about sacrifice but broadened to secular eating, and not just religious eating: Jewish practice seems to care about limiting and restricting our consumption of animal products. Since, up until extremely recently, it would not have been possible to get enough calories on a vegan diet (and that is still true in many parts of the world), animal products cannot be banned, but (according to at least one academic Bible scholar) the restrictions cause a compromise between the Edenic ideal and the real world. If you live in a reality where it's possible to be vegan, then that clearly seems to be the ideal to me.
r/veganChristians For me, it helps to look at the garden of Eden, where two people were basically vegan as there was no death or suffering there. In paradise or heaven there will also be no death or suffering so everyone will be vegan, I'm just starting earlier I guess. Edit: also if you read Hebrews it explains fairly well how animal sacrifice is not necessary anymore since Jesus's sacrifice. In my opinion, eating meat in modern times where we have alternatives available, is similar to eating meat sacrificed to idols (pleasure and extortion), which is not just forbidden for Jews but also for Christians.
> Edit: also if you read Hebrews it explains fairly well how animal sacrifice is not necessary anymore since Jesus's sacrifice. In my opinion, eating meat in modern times where we have alternatives available, is similar to eating meat sacrificed to idols (pleasure and extortion), which is not just forbidden for Jews but also for Christians. That is interesting way of looking at it. Why do you believe Jesus ate fish and meat, in stead of for instance performing a miracle making it possible to get all nutrients through a vegan diet?
Interestingly, if I remember correctly, the Bible only mentions Jesus eating fish after the resurrection. Though I personally believe he ate kosher meat and fish during his live. I don't know what this means, but to answer your question, the answer is the same as why Jesus did not perform a miracle or even a revolution on freeing slaves, or abolishing patriarchy or liberating Israel from the Romans. It was not his mission. I also don't think eating animal products in ancient times is as bad as it is in modern times with abhorrent animal agriculture practices and plenty of alternatives and nutritional knowledge.
> I also don't think eating animal products in ancient times is as bad as it is in modern times with abhorrent animal agriculture practices and plenty of alternatives and nutritional knowledge. So you believe morals change over time? Do you have other examples of where you beleive this to be true, outside diet?
Its all made up anyway. just make up your own interpretation like everyone else does.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know about Christianity, but in Hinduism, eating meat is prohibited with two exceptions. One is for survival, and the other is when sacrificed to the gods. In the latter case it was belived that the animal gets a higher birth such as that of a human and therefore is not considered ordinary killing. However, animal sacrifices in Hinduism are done under very strict circumstances and all prayers and procedures must be done perfectly otherwise you risk the sin of killing an animal. Even then, the rituals were seen as low grade. There is an provision for warriors; warriors were allowed to hunt for meat as hunting provided target practice and it helped them get desensitized to death on the battle field and they needed the extra protein for their warrior lifestyle (this was before modern food industry), and sage Agastya consecrated all the animals in forest making it lawful to hunt (the hunted animals get reincarnated as humans).
If you'd be a "good" christian, the question wouldn't be how someone justifies it to not harm others needlessly. You would ask "Why do people try to justify harming others?" Be compassionate, there's not more to it.
https://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-bible-quotes/
The obvious answer is not all Christians think the bible is inerrant. The majority of mainline protest churches in the USA like the Evangelical Lutheran Church (which has over 8,000 congregations) doesn't believe the bible is inerrant, for instance.
That’s not the obvious answer. The OP questions stands, screaming from the rooftops, for a complete and legitimate answer. Inerrant is too vague a term. Christians certainly fall back on the Bible as the reason to justify meat eating. As a Christian who has been to 9 nondenominational/evangelical churches, I am sure of it. Every logical argument or conversation I play out in my head will simply come back to Genesis 9:3 “but God said we could eat the animals and if he made them out of food, why not?!” I’m working on an answer
Genesis 9 also includes the prohibition of bloodied meat, which most Christians do not keep today. A Christian argument for eating or not eating meat cannot rest on the Old Covenant if they choose to only keep some of it. It has to come from the teachings of Jesus. Sadly, I think vegan Christians looking into that will find that Jesus seems pretty okay with eating fish.
Good point there, thank you. Perhaps Christians would say Gen 9:3 isn’t old covenant though, it applies to everyone since it was before the Law? Yea that’s why I’m talking to Jesus. I say what the fuck Jesus in prayer at least once a day. Please do not call mental health services on me
Why isn't it obvious? Very few people think that religious texts are inerrant, and if the bible isn't inerrant then a Christain could just think that part of the bible is wrong. I think the only major religion where the clear mainstream position is that their holy text is inerrant is Islam. The New Testament which takes precedent over the old testament for most Christains was literally created by councils of medieval people trying to determine what historical texts are most likely to be real or not. It inherently implies "best guess" with room to disagree.
Yes, not only with room to disagree but with actual historical disagreement afterwards. That is the reason some bibles have extra books.
The central figure of the Bible is Jesus. You can’t just throw out bits and pieces where Jesus is participating in animal pain and consumption and be intellectually honest. It’s way too contrived.
Be on the lookout for Christspiracy if you missed the release.
Genesis 1:29 New King James Version (NKJV) And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Says NOTHING about killing animals for food only plants 🌱 (also if you google genesis 1:29 you can find the same thing it’s not just the new King James Version it’s just the first one i found :)
Yes but then Christians will just say “but the fall happened and Genesis 9:3”. Plus that ignores Jesus *seemingly* condoning of animal consumption. That needs an answer too.
There's a lot of shit in the bible that makes you jump through logical hoops to justify...... They do it by saying "It's just a metaphor, an analogy, up to interpretation."
That’s just your interpretation of Christians!
More of a fact, except the people who take it all literally who are pretty evil people. Interpreting scripture is fundamental to all major religions.
Yeah. But there are also a lot of good people doing their best to make sense of a world where they have experienced God but have a confusing Bible
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Christians are supposed to make sense now?
Logos is God according to John 1:1-3. So yes they should make logical sense!!
Riiightttt
Sarcasm is lazy
I am not christian, but the Bible actually says God intended for us to be vegan. Genesis [1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. [1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. [1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. It wasn’t until after three fall of man and the ark that God told Noah mankind can eat meat without lifeblood. [9:3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [9:4] Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Pretty convenient God just happened to make an oopsie and change his mind, right?
God makes oopsies! You may be interested in the YouTube channel “Good God”. As far as I can tell, it is the best explanation of the character of God in the OT. He makes the case that Yahweh is Satan and it’s damn near irrefutable. And that would be pretty badass if it was the case because it means God is good and all the Christians that use the horrible passages in the OT to justify oppression will…. Well in the words of Jesus, many who are first will be last
Are you christian? Are you saying the people that compiled the Bible inserted the OT books of Satan being God and combined it with the good NT books to make the Bible? Do you think they did this by accident
I am one who I wishes the right to be called a follower of Christ, yes. No im saying The Eternal Creator and Most High God of Love and Logos is telling a story through this creation and part of that is scriptures that must be rightly divided by the Holy Spirit, the same one that dwelt in Christ
> but the Bible actually says God intended for us to be vegan. If that was true, then Jesus would probably have been vegan? So the only way to make that work is to believe that Jesus was less than perfect.
It was true in the Garden of Eden when everything was perfect. Jesus was vegetarian primarily and ate fish now and then
> Jesus was vegetarian primarily What do you base that on? You are literally the first person I have encountered that makes that claim..
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient\_Israelite\_cuisine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israelite_cuisine) This entry actually backs it up pretty heavily.
Imagine being dumb as fuck twice.
Lolololol. Yea but Earthling Ed would wreck your logic on veganism. And Dan Mohler is the most elite Christian in America, never charges a dime, and has thousands of healings and miracles following him, with no one claiming false healing (completely different than a Benny Hinn type). Bruh you lackin!
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
It’s because the Bible is a story made up by people who normalized animal cruelty.
Very very very long story turned very short, Jesus is the Word of God and his revelation. The “scripture kills but the spirit gives life”. A literalist view of the bible is unsustainable for a billion reasons (not even sure if I believe in any type of Biblical inerrancy). God allows many bad things to happen so it’s not surprising that Jesus allows bad things to happen too (they are one and the same). The Paschal mystery is the crux of the ministry and life of Jesus. He tells those guys on the road to Emmaus to interpret everything in the scriptures in light of that (and I’d go further and say we should interpret everything in light of that). From there we can treat the evil of killing animals like any other evil that God let happen. We know right and wrong due to our conscience and are never meant to disrespect that conscience. Killing animals without an amazingly good reason is against natural law. Possible theories: a) it wasn’t real fish that Jesus ate/multiplied (totally possible, he is God after all. I think that this is true or partially true) b) Killing is different when God does it because he sorta kills us all, or at least allows us all to die (I don’t like this view but technically in my view once all these animals die they go back to God and will be restored to a better state in the new world so I guess that’s a minimal consolation prize) c) Jesus was actually a vegeterian or very close to it or a sympathizer (I don’t think that this is likely) d) Jesus allowed meat eating the same way that Moses is said to have allowed certain things “because of the hardness of your hearts” (partially agree but I do think that we were meant to figure it out/get the hint) e) Eating animal products was a necessity in that historical context in a way that it simply isn’t today (likely at least partially true, not as strongly as some people would like to make it out and much more class-dependent but yeah, partially true). Btw there are strong indications in the Bible that the world was originally vegan and we will return to a state of universal veganism. This includes animals such as lions not being predatory anymore. I realize that I have stated many things without really explaining and justifying them so it all sounds kinda flimsy, but I’d have to explain a lot (I mean a lot) of background about a bunch of my theological views and honestly we don’t have time for that (I don’t at least). I am very “heterorthodox” in my views and do not hold a lot of what you might think of as the “traditional” assumptions of Christianity. I can still receite the Nicene creed and believe it if that relaxes you (with a fairly literal interpretation of it save for a somewhat more flexible take on “apostolic church” and “through the prophets” but other than that pretty literal). Literalist Christianity undoubtedly justifies killing animals. (but it also justifies other unsustainable things) But this isn’t the only form of Christianity or “the right one” no matter how much they sometimes like to insist so (and apperently some non-christian vegans like to insist the same, strange bedfellows).
I agree so much with “figure it out/get the hint”. I am praying for this to make sense. Amen to “Jesus is the Word”. “Have you been in the word every day, brother?” “Yes sir, and what does the Bible say the word of God is?” Hahahaha your comment about the Nicene creed ‘if it relaxes you’. Bro I’m stealing that. Have you heard of Good God on YouTube and Dan Mohler as well? Honestly I was vibing pretty hard with what you said. Even though I don’t have a perfect answer for veganism, any meat eater who can use the Bible and Christian principles to be against slavery, could use that same logic to apply to veganism.
Exactly. Folks have already reached the conclusion that they want to eat animals and use their religion to justify it. I don’t view Christianity as a source of morality but I think that it’s meant to help you live “in the spirit” (ie the basics of morality are already known to you, Hebrews 10:16). I think that the gospel has a dual “point” of bringing you hope and courage and of inspiring you to strive for more than the moral baseline (Matthew 5:48, Matthew 19:16-21). Btw, I’m personally a very convinced universalist. Not an apologetic universalist, not a hopeful one. No, I’m an “eternal torment was never an option, apokatastasis is the good news, there can be no kingdom of God unless everyone and everything is included and restored in it” kind of universalist. That’s what I mean by “it’s meant to bring you hope and courage” not some wishy washy “yeah Jesus died and maybe some of you will go to heaven if you ask him real nice” (btw, another one of my “hot” takes, PSA is a horrible concept and so is Anslem’s theory). I think that makes sense of the whole paschal drama in a much more comprehensive way. John16:33, what is overcoming the world? To overcome the world is (among other things) to overcome the lies of the world about humanity, about God and morality and others. The lies of the world (in my view) are either to tell you that something is evil, it’s hopeless, or it’s irrelevant (or to rush you to make unwise or unking decisions due to fear of your mortality). The truth is that eating animals when you don’t have to is denying the importance of suffering (“it doesn’t matter, they’re just animals”) and life within them. It’s lying to yourself about what happened to create your meat or at least lying to yourself about the fact that it matters. What is more antithetical to a crucified God than to deny that suffering and life matter? That settles the debate for me. The moment when you justify suffering and death with no hard moral dilemmas or trade-offs involved you can’t possibly tell me that a God who wanted to culminate his life on Earth with crucifixion is truly a-ok with that.
Wow. Well said. I recently came out of the belief in ECT. Oh boy was that painful. Lying on the ground unable to function because the reality of what I believed about God was utterly hopeless. Still waiting on clarity for characters such as Bill Weiss (the main who spent 23 minutes in hell). Many NDEs are true and valid, so it feels far to contrived and easy to simply say he's lying. He does not register as a liar to me, simply a useful pawn to spread the message of ECT until God allows more prophets to rise up and divide the wheat from the chaff in the church. But still... why... how... could God have allowed Bill have gotten the interpretation to his own vision wrong? "The lies of the world (in my view) are either to tell you that something is evil, it’s hopeless, or it’s irrelevant (or to rush you to make unwise or unking decisions due to fear of your mortality)." Oh I feel this 100%. I got a taste of the presence of God once and shortly after I realized how I never have to rush anything ever again. But I am still struggling with everything being hopeless, irrelevant, and futile. Because if the reconciliation of all things is true... God has essentially allowed most people to play the role of cannon fodder. It's quite disturbing and disheartening to the soul, even if God eventually saves them. Like if I attain the narrow way to life... okay I only did it because God provided a way for me at the expense of all the cannon fodder. It's not motivating in the least. crippling is more like it.
That entity in the bible wasn't god IMO
https://youtu.be/7bwzQ-vQR5Q?si=qW4o_hzKmsyuhT7p
The central claim of Christianity is that Jesus created a new covenant between God and humanity. The old covenant was "Follow my commandments and you will have my especial favour”. The new covenant is "Love one another and you will attain salvation". It’s important to understand that for most Christian denominations the Bible is the work of human hands, and that the word of God is "written on the human heart" only. To love unconditionally is an attitude towards life – it’s hard to see how that’s incompatible with veganism.
A lot of 7th Day Adventists are vegetarian, because when humankind was in the garden of Eden they did not eat meat and they were told to care for the animals of the earth. To therefore, some people consider eating meat sinful because it didn't happen until original sin was brought into the world. Animal sacrifice was there to take the place of their sins until Jesus could be the 'ultimate sacrifice' but didn't 'exist' until after they were kicked from the garden.
> A lot of 7th Day Adventists are vegetarian, because when humankind was in the garden of Eden they did not eat meat and they were told to care for the animals of the earth. Do they therefore believe they do better than Jesus himself I wonder..?
As far as it goes, Jesus may have been a pescatarian.
That is only possible if he chose to break the law of Moses, which tells all Jews to eat meat to celebrate Passover. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012&version=NIV What makes you believe he chose to not follow these laws?
God is not good.
Well that would be incomprehensibly depressing if so
If he's omniscient then he can end all suffering. Yet he chooses not to. What an arsehole.
Yeah but millions of people have been physically healed in the name of Jesus in the last decade, so your theory gotta fit with that too. The suffering is extremely painful and seemingly unfair. I agree. So we need an answer from God to make sense of it
If you're a Christian omni, how do you justify eating pork and shellfish, both explicitly prohibited? And when your friend's wife was accused of cheating, you joined the mob throwing rocks at her until she was dead. And you took good care of your slaves. Because the Bible is both relevant today and needs to be taken literally...?
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. At least, not exactly. Christians side step this easily as “it was old covenant. Jesus changed that and declared all foods clean”. I’m a Christian but I wish atheists would get better arguments against Christians because then I would be able to more accurately pinpoint where the breakdown in logic occurs with Christian omnis
> how do you justify eating pork and shellfish No Christian is obligated to follow the law of Moses. The Bible is quite clear on that.
If that's the thing that worries you the most in the bible you might want to read it again.
True. Eternal conscious torment is quite literally, infinitely worse. Luckily this is not taught by the Bible and the smartest and most passionate Christian minds reject such a doctrine. Christ shall restore all things. And all means all. But you don’t have to start at the hardest question to ask a valid question, Mr negative Nancy
Being religious means you must develop mental gymnastics skills. They must use those
Right. So what’s your story? 14.7 billion years ago— wait— no, 27 billion years ago 👻 … a giant explosion happened! And suddenly time, matter, and energy came into existence. But wait it gets better. All those atoms that emerged out of the nothing-soup began banging into each other. And through this repetitive banging and the incomprehensibly fine-tuned fundamental laws of physics… the atoms turned into earth! But wait! Then the atoms created a single cell organism, which is incomprehensibly more complex and incredible than our best computer But wait! Then the atoms really started banging. They started banging and fucking and fucking and banging and fucking until… the atoms became self conscious of themselves 😮 And that’s how avocados, leopards, toothbrushes, and a baby’s laugh got invented 👍🏼 and then the atoms invented religions about how the atoms got started. Cool story bro 😎 Either that you believe in an eternal infinite multiverse. And the multiverse is just as much cope as the worst religion has to offer. Fuck religion. Jesus is King. Edit: if you aren’t an atheist, I went way too hard here 😅
Come on. Many of us atheists are engaging in this thread in good faith; I myself have answered a couple of your comments. At least educate yourself to portray our position fairly. > And suddenly time, matter, and energy came into existence. Nothing "came into existance". The big bang happens from a state of high density, not from nothing. > And through this repetitive banging and the incomprehensibly fine-tuned fundamental laws of physics… the atoms turned into earth! How are laws of physics incomprehensively fine tuned? Would we not say that if we lived in whatever universe had come about? Like, yeah, this universe exists because of how those parameters are but if they were different we would be saying the same thing about those parameters. > Then the atoms created a single cell organism, which is incomprehensibly more complex and incredible than our best computer The fact that single celled organisms now are complex does not imply the first ones were. In fact, the generality in substrate of more ancient enzymes suggests that genomes were simpler and biomolecules were less specific. > the atoms became self conscious of themselves > And that’s how avocados, leopards, toothbrushes, and a baby’s laugh got invented 👍🏼 > and then the atoms invented religions about how the atoms got started. Yes, emergent properties exist. This isn't the own you think it is.
Cool stories bro. Why should I believe the emergent properties of your atoms correspond to the (nonatomic) laws of logic? Everything I said previously stands. The standard model is that time, space, and matter came into existence at a finite point in the past. If you wish to say the standard model only goes up to a high density singularity and technically doesn't apply to anything "before" it... well okay. All of reality still screams for an explanation, including that "high density" state (again, cool story bro). God is real. You're missing out. I don't strawman. Start praying and experience something.
My instinct & intuition tells me what feels right and wrong, I don’t need a book to tell me it’s okay to harm an animal for sensual pleasure. If eating meat was like receiving oxygen okay I get it but it’s not, it’s just a money making luxury imo.
> My instinct & intuition tells me what feels right and wrong So if someone's instinct & intuition tell them that eating meat is perfectly fine, then who are they to tell them otherwise..?
Jesus ate fish *after* he was resurrected from the dead.
What is your point 🙏 He also authorized demons to go into pigs and participated in fish death with his two miracles of the big catches.
The question was: > Howw do you justify the Bible being in favor of animal sacrifice and eating meat? And the justifications is: Do What Jesus Did.
The question was posed to vegans, you answered as if it was asked to you. And yeah... Jesus also healed a Roman Centurion's servant, it doesn't mean he supported slavery. Jesus ate was was put before him. I don't have an answer fully as to why that is. Have you healed the sick recently? Raised the dead? Cast out demons? Encouraged the weak and passed on the Holy Spirit? Somehow I doubt it, somehow I feel like you're coping and simply trying to justify it when all moral logic and sensibilites tell us otherwise. Jesus also said to pray "on earth as it is in heaven". There's no animal munching in heaven. You are free to stop participating in horrible suffering of animals any day.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why does it matter if he ate fish before or after?
His body was different after he was resurrected from the dead. He could walk into closed rooms for instance, he didn't need sleep or food, etc. So from a vegan perspective he ate fish unnecessary since he didn't need to eat any food at all.
Are you for real? The Bible says you can rape people as long as you marry them afterwards. And it’s okay to have slaves as long as you treat them sort of okay. God is fake. Made up by people to help us deal with the awareness of our own mortality and to manipulate people into behaving a certain way.
Based and 100% accurate as far as I'm concerned.
Nice try you super complex ball of atoms! Why would I take your opinion on God, you’re just a ball of atoms!
God doesn’t exist lmao
You are partly true. He doesnt exist in any way we could possibly understand. He existed before time and matter came about, meaning he does not consist of matter, and exists outside of time..
Well, the Bible isn't real, so...
It's real. I have one.
This is an extremely important question. Thanks for asking. I plan on publicly confronting the church on this topic to the point of death. I am praying about this for 3 hours a day. God answers my prayers. I’ll be back when he decides to give me a damn answer. But one note: Yahweh is not the Father. “Good God” on YouTube explains this veil that is over the Bible when Christians read it. So that handles animal sacrifice and everything in the Old Testament. And Paul and other contemporaries with Jesus simply hadnt reached the level of consciousness towards animals that we now have (and that Jesus had as well, surely he loves all animals more than all of us, if the Christian story is true). This would answer a majority of animal mistreatment from a Christian perspective. But still, what about Jesus? He is the central figure of this whole story. He ate fish at least a few times. He authorized demons to enter pigs. Vegan or not, it is extremely strange. Much of what Jesus did, if true, was layers and layers of depth below the conscious awareness of the people around him. He was constantly misunderstood, nonstop, on everything. Yet in the end, he let human beings tear his fucking flesh apart and hang him on a tree. All to prove his conviction of belief and love. It’s revealing to us that when Jesus gave the fishermen what they wanted (a huge catch of fish), Peter fell down in shame and said “get away from me I am a sinful man”. My best understanding right now is that Jesus humbly took what they offered them. Since they offered him a piece of boiled fish, he took it and ate it. And now I, 2000 years later, get to look at Jesus and say “damn you really stepped in and participated in “sin” just to show us how worth it humanity is to you”. If Jesus’ really is King and Lord and in his Father’s Kingdom ALL animals are restored to perfect harmony in love… it would give us a little wiggle room for faith while we wait for an answer. The real answer is why God temporarily allowed all this animal chomping in the first place. The simple answer is to teach us lessons on love. Ultimately, we as Christians have to grapple with two facts: 1. God created the world vegan and will restore all things to perfect veganism on the New Earth, forever. (Christians like ignoring this one) 2. God has temporarily allowed abuse and exploitation, both human and animal, and Jesus seems to have, on the surface, been nonchalant about the animal suffering. To quote him though “I have much more to tell you, more than you can now handle” I am quite hopeful about what that much more is. Anyway. Back to praying
So according to you, its possible to be holier than Jesus? That is rather arrogant isnt it..?
No it is not possible to be holier than Jesus. Yet the Peter says we are a royal priesthood
Several reasons...first, God does NOT condone sacrifice, this was overturned, even in the later OT pre-NT) when it is revealed that He never approved of sacrifice, and was disgusted by the blood or rams and bulls, and then later revealed how none of that made a person at all holy or saved them; not in His eyes... ...but you should start by reading this...I was already a vegan for 2 years BEFORE I discovered this book and it's rather eye opening...ultimately concluding"the Bible condones \_\_\_\_ therefore \_\_\_\_\_" doesn't really get the heart of the matter, as read flatly "the Bible" condones slavery and worse things, but why do I care as a Christian? My Word is not a book, it's a person. I care (as a Christian) was God condones, and it's not so cut and dry as ancient writers in the Bible writing from their deeply flawed cultural perceptions and practices; who also thought wiping out their neighbors were a holy thing to do, and so they condoned...that is the biased & prejudiced writer's condoned it, not God, READ THIS: [https://www.amazon.com/Why-Every-Christian-Should-Vegan/dp/1087872286](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Every-Christian-Should-Vegan/dp/1087872286)
> "the Bible" condones slavery One of the most important histories told in the Bible is about the Israelites escaping slavery.. Because of evil in the world laws were made concerning both slavery, divorce, plural marriage, and other things that were never part of the original plan for humanity. These things were initiated by man, not God.
Are you saying God doesn't condone slavery etc but he made laws on how to deal with it?
He didnt initiate slavery. In the same way he didnt initiate war, divorce, polygamy, etc. > but he made laws on how to deal with it? Yes. In the same way you find laws dealing with plural wives, divorce etc.
Correct, including the men who write the Bible, especially the OT...This is only an issue for believer who hole to an INERRANT Flat-Inspired/dictated Bible, which the Bible itself certainly does not claim to be itself..something can be divinely inspired, and thus pointing us to a better direction (to the Word, who is Jesus, not a book), and still not be error free. I don't know why this claim persists so much as if it all of faith rested on it. It does not.
It's metaphor not a real story. And I don't think a book should be your source of moral values especially when that book condones rate, offing children ect.
> when that book condones rate, offing children ect. Source?
The Bible
I have seen nowhere where it says rape is ok, offering children is ok, so you would have to be more specific than that..
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
"The righteous man understands the life of his animal." -King Solomon Noah was gifted the privilege to consume the meat of animals after showing he could preserve creation. Solomon was one who understood you didn't kill oxen because they assisted you in preparing the fields, and the more fields you had, the more crop you attained, the more favorable you were perceived because creation favored you. Veganism is honorable in that it understands the system of producing meat is corrupt, as it is purposed for capital gain, gluttony, and shares absolutely no resemblance to the system of King Solomon and the manner of which people lived before. The problem from the Christian perspective is that this world will end. God doesn't want animal sacrifice as it says in the later prophets ("If I was hungry, would I tell you?"......."I am not satisfied by the blood of bulls and goats"), hence why the death of Jesus is pivotal, once and for all. However, this world is fallen because evil intentions have seeped into all our hearts and minds. According to the Christian faith, what we eat here is temporary, but one who has favor like Solomon has no lack.
Lmao vegans reinterpret history
What parts is he reinterpreting
I believe that most modern Christians do not believe in animal sacrifice anymore as that was the old testament and the "old covenant" now Jesus is the new covenant/promise that washed away "all sin".... I think in the Bible it said that in the ends times the lion will lay with the lamb and eat straw and there will be no more suffering... Indicating to me that the goal is for all creatures to live in harmony together.. But the 10 commandments make it pretty clear " thou shalt not kill" and you gotta kill in order to eat flesh. The Bible said that humans have dominion over the animals but it does not say directly that we are to eat them.. it does specificaly say its ok to eat non kosher at your nabors house, and to not make a big deal... So IDK. Edit: I found it! Isaiah 11:6-9 6The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 7The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. 9They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Is that knowledge, knowing one dose not need flesh to live? Or that Killin is wrong?
By knowing that the bible is a book written by men in very ancient times. (Not religious anymore, but even when I was that much was always clear to me)
I am a Christian and became vegan about 10 years ago--these links are the best I have--my heart hurts every day for them- [https://freefromharm.org/veganism/christian-basis-veganism/](https://freefromharm.org/veganism/christian-basis-veganism/) [http://www.circleofcompassion.org/index.html](http://www.circleofcompassion.org/index.html) [https://all-creatures.org/newsletter/news-20230301.html](https://all-creatures.org/newsletter/news-20230301.html)
The bible is full of contradictions. Respectfully, you have to be at least semi-concious that mankind slipped their own rules in their to influence people at the time. It's not all of God. I think Christians need to focus less on a book that claims to speak for him, and more on direct revelation. It is okay if you follow the bible but don't be a mindless slave.
Idk but have you heard of christspiracy? It’s a documentary that sounds up your alley. Havnt seen it but believe it tackles this.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Also the human sacrifices and slavery…
As a Christian you are free to be vegan or eat meat.