Christian Vegetarianism

[Dusty Fro]

I've been a vegetarian for 7 years now. I find something very wrong with contributing to the murder of God's creation. I believe that a vegetarian lifestyle is what God had in mind in the beginning when he told Adam and Eve that they had every plant to eat (except the one of course). I think that it is a healthy way to live, and feel that it's one thing I can do to keep my body (temple) in good shape. I'm also a bit of an animal rights activist (not so far as PETA, those guys are carazy!) I believe in using cruelty-free products, and if I lived on my own, I would be a vegan because I disagree with the conditions of dairy and egg factories (when other people make your food, it's hard). Or I'd raise chickens and treat them well.

What are your opinions on all of this? Is anyone else here a vegetarian?

[MorphRC]

This is unbiblical.

[MorphRC]

[font="Times"][color=blue][b]God, The Bible & Meat - The Book of Leviticus[/b][/color][/font]

[b]Leviticus 6:28[/b]
The clay pot the [b]meat[/b] is cooked in must be broken; but if it is cooked in a bronze pot, the pot is to be scoured and rinsed with water.

[b]Meat as an offering.[/b]

[b]Leviticus 7:15[/b]
The [b]meat[/b] of his fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; he must leave none of it till morning.

[b]Meat as an offering.[/b]

[b]Leviticus 7:17[/b]
Any [b]meat[/b] of the sacrifice left over till the third day must be burned up.

[b]Leviticus 7:19[/b]
" '[b]Meat[/b] that touches anything ceremonially unclean must not be eaten; it must be burned up. As for other [b]meat[/b], anyone ceremonially clean may eat it.

[b]Leviticus 8:31[/b]
Moses then said to Aaron and his sons, "[b]Cook the meat [/b]at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and eat it there with the bread from the basket of ordination offerings, as I commanded, saying, [ 8:31 Or [ I was commanded ] [:] ] 'Aaron and his sons are to eat it.'

[b]God Forbides Pork To The Jews[/b]

[b]Leviticus 11[/b]
[b]7[/b] And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. [b]8[/b] You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
[b]9[/b] " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales.

----------

Your belief is contrary to the bible.

[StColette]

[quote]Whether Adam in the state of innocence had mastership over the animals?

Objection 1. It would seem that in the state of innocence Adam had no mastership over the animals. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 14), that the animals were brought to Adam, under the direction of the angels, to receive their names from him. But the angels need not have intervened thus, if man himself were master over the animals. Therefore in the state of innocence man had no mastership of the animals.

Objection 2. Further, it is unfitting that elements hostile to one another should be brought under the mastership of one. But many animals are hostile to one another, as the sheep and the wolf. Therefore all animals were not brought under the mastership of man.

Objection 3. Further, Jerome says [The words quoted are not in St. Jerome's works. St. Thomas may have had in mind Bede, Hexaem., as quoted in the Glossa ordinaria on Gn. 1:26: "God gave man mastership over the animals, although before sin he had no need of them: for God foresaw that after sin animals would become useful to man." Therefore, at least before sin, it was unfitting for man to make use of his mastership.

Objection 4. Further, it is proper to a master to command. But a command is not given rightly save to a rational being. Therefore man had no mastership over the irrational animals.

On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:26): "Let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the beasts of the earth" [Vulg."and the whole earth"].

I answer that, As above stated (95, 1) for his disobedience to God, man was punished by the disobedience of those creatures which should be subject to him. Therefore in the state of innocence, before man had disobeyed, nothing disobeyed him that was naturally subject to him. Now all animals are naturally subject to man. This can be proved in three ways.

[b]First, from the order observed by nature; for just as in the generation of things we perceive a certain order of procession of the perfect from the imperfect (thus matter is for the sake of form; and the imperfect form, for the sake of the perfect), so also is there order in the use of natural things; thus the imperfect are for the use of the perfect; as the plants make use of the earth for their nourishment, and animals make use of plants, and man makes use of both plants and animals. Therefore it is in keeping with the order of nature, that man should be master over animals. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5) that the hunting of wild animals is just and natural, because man thereby exercises a natural right. [/b]

Secondly, this is proved by the order of Divine Providence which always governs inferior things by the superior. Wherefore, as man, being made to the image of God, is above other animals, these are rightly subject to his government.

Thirdly, this is proved from a property of man and of other animals. For we see in the latter a certain participated prudence of natural instinct, in regard to certain particular acts; whereas man possesses a universal prudence as regards all practical matters. Now whatever is participated is subject to what is essential and universal. Therefore the subjection of other animals to man is proved to be natural.

Reply to Objection 1. A higher power can do many things that an inferior power cannot do to those which are subject to them. Now an angel is naturally higher than man. Therefore certain things in regard to animals could be done by angels, which could not be done by man; for instance, the rapid gathering together of all the animals.

Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Gn. 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.

Reply to Objection 3. In the state of innocence man would not have had any bodily need of animals--neither for clothing, since then they were naked and not ashamed, there being no inordinate motions of concupiscence--nor for food, since they fed on the trees of paradise--nor to carry him about, his body being strong enough for that purpose. But man needed animals in order to have experimental knowledge of their natures. This is signified by the fact that God led the animals to man, that he might give them names expressive of their respective natures.

Reply to Objection 4. All animals by their natural instinct have a certain participation of prudence and reason: which accounts for the fact that cranes follow their leader, and bees obey their queen. So all animals would have obeyed man of their own accord, as in the present state some domestic animals obey him. [/quote]

provided by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109601.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109601.htm[/url]

Also

Lv:11:2:
2 Say to the children of Israel: These are the animals which you are to eat of all the living things of the earth. (DRV)

We are to respect animals and to not abuse them but they are provided for us for reasons.

[MorphRC]

[font="Times"][color=blue][b]God, The Bible & Meat - New Testament[/b][/color][/font]

[b]Acts 15:29[/b]
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Luke only says we cant eat meat that has been dedicated to gods, and those that have been stranged as clearly stated, does not say we cannot eat meat at all.

[b]Acts 21:25[/b]
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

Repeated Again

[b]Romans 14:6[/b]
He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

---------

New Testament doesnt deny meat either.

[url="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=meat&SearchType=AND&version=NIV&restrict=New_Testament&StartRestrict=MATT&EndRestrict=JUDE&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0&x=8&y=6"]GospelCom - Search - NT- Books[/url]

[franciscanheart]

^^agreed^^

[StColette]

Catholic Catechism

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2457 Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's needs.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

[Aloysius]

FYI: with creulty-free products-- all that means is that the product as a whole has not been tested on animals. however, they have all tested each individual ingredient on animals. thus: techically, creulty-free products cause more animals to be tested rather than less, because each ingredient has to be seperately tested.

[MorphRC]

How Nice

[StColette]

Yep you're right Al

[Crusader_4]

I actually work in a hog barn....so i have some authority i think on this. The conditions are actually not that bad at all. Especially like air quailty, lagoon and animal welfare they are not bad at all. The animals are raised in the enivroment and are often genetically advanced (notice not engineereed) for it so its actually better for them then the wild in many cases.

[Spriles]

Acts 10:13
Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

[dairygirl4u2c]

Acts 10:9
On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed and made clean, thou shalt not call unclean. Acts 10:15

This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 9 2004, 10:21 AM'] This is unbiblical. [/quote]
So are cars.

[homeschoolmom]

I didn't realize there was anything in the bible that taught against the use of motor vehicles at all. I thought Scripture was silent on that issue. However, Scripture is not silent on eating meat, as dairygirl and spriles noted. Choosing to be a vegetarian is one thing... saying that one must be a vegetarian to follow the bible is, well, an error.