quote:

Just out of curiosity, what did the meat eating animals in the garden of eden eat?

quote:

Many more women are vegans and vegetarian than men. But these women suffer much more. Why? Women are naturally deficent in Calcium, Iron and Proteins tahn men because of something that occurs once a month. This depletes those minerals dry, and the best way to get them back is by eating meat. There are many amino acids that the human body can't make for protein, and most of those not made naturally you have to attain by eating. Eating what? Meat. Meat is essential for human devolopment. People who don't eat meat are more sickly than people who do, espically younger children (4-11 years) and the elderly (62+). This is why people should eat meat in their diets.

quote:

If god wanted us to be vegetarian... I'm sure he would've said something.

quote:

People have been slaughtering animals since biblical times! God has called on people to slay goats right in front of him!

quote:

If God wanted us to have vegetarian diets and not harm animals, why were the Biblical sacrificial services established?
During the time of Moses, it was the general practice among all nations to worship by means of sacrifice. There were many associated idolatrous practices. The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides stated that God did not command the Israelites to give up and discontinue all these manners of service because "to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used," For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but "He transferred to His service that which had served as a worship of created beings and of things imaginary and unreal." All elements of idolatry were removed. Maimonides concluded:

By this divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our Faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.
The Jewish philosopher Abarbanel reinforced Maimonides'argument. He cited a Midrash that indicated that the Jews had become accustomed to sacrifices in Egypt. To wean them from these idolatrous practices, God tolerated the sacrifices but commanded that they be offered in one central sanctuary:
Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let them at all times offer their sacrifices before Me in the Tabernacle, and they will be weaned from idolatry, and thus be saved." (Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 562)
Rabbi J. H. Hertz, the late chief rabbi of England, stated that if Moses had not instituted sacrifices, which were admitted by all to have been the universal expression of religious homage, his mission would have failed and Judaism would have disappeared. With the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis state that prayer and good deeds took the place of sacrifice.
Rashi indicated that God did not want the Israelites to bring sacrifices; it was their choice. He bases this on the haphtorah (portion from the Prophets) read on the Sabbath when the book of Leviticus which discusses sacrifices is read:

I have not burdened thee with a meal-offering, Nor wearied thee with frankincense. (Isaiah 43:23)
Biblical commentator David Kimhi (1160-1235) also stated that the sacrifices were voluntary. He ascertained this from the words of Jeremiah:
For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:22-23)
David Kimchi, notes that nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there any reference to sacrifice, and even when sacrifices are first mentioned (Lev. 1:2) the expression used is "when any man of you bringeth an offering," the first Hebrew we ki being literally "if", implying that it was a voluntary act.
Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mountain."

Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:

What I want is mercy, not sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6)
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?" sayeth the Lord. "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he-goats...bring no more vain oblations.... Your new moon and your appointed feasts my soul hateth;...and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-16)
I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me burnt-offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy song; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-4)
Deeds of compassion and kindness toward all creation are of greater significance to God than sacrifices: "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Prov. 21: 3).
Perhaps a different type of sacrifice is required of us today. When Rabbi Shesheth kept a fast for Yom Kippur, he used to conclude with these words:

Sovereign of the Universe, Thou knowest full well that in the time of the Temple when a man sinned he used to bring a sacrifice, and though all that was offered of it was fat and blood, atonement was made for him. Now I have kept a fast and my fat and blood have diminished. May it be Thy will to account my fat and blood which have been diminished as if I have offered they before thee on the altar, and do Thou favor me. (Berachot 17a)
Source: http://www.jewishveg.com/faq03.html

quote:

There are many places in the Bible where God commanded the Jewish people to sacrifice animals. Doesn't this demonstrate that God approves of us killing and using animals?

In The Slaughter of Terrified Beasts, Reverend J. R. Hyland, an ordained, evangelical minister, points out that the later prophets were the first voices in recorded history to proclaim that "the suffering and death of animals was repugnant to God," coming as they did roughly a century before the Indian sage Mahavira, who founded Jainism, and the Buddha.21 In the following passages, these prophets flatly asserted, in the face of extensive Biblical testimony to the contrary, that God had never authorized animal sacrifice.


What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hands? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moons and sabbaths and calling of convocations [ceremonies at which animals were sacrificed] - I cannot endure - they are iniquity, even your solemn convocations. Your new moons and appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am tired of putting up with them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:11-15).
But to sacrifice an ox or to kill a man, slaughter a sheep or break a dog's neck, offer grain or offer pig's blood, burn incense as a token and worship an idol -- all these are the chosen practices of men who revel in their own loathsome rites (Isaiah 66:3).

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. [Emphasis added, (Jeremiah 7:22)].

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not savor the smoke from your solemn assemblies. Though you offer me burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; for I will not hear the melody of your viols. But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness as
an everlasting stream. Did you offer me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? [Emphasis added.] (Amos 5:21-25).

For I have desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).

They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings, and eat it, but the LORD does not accept them; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins; they shall return to Egypt [i.e. to slavery] (Hosea 8:13).

Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with tens of thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).

Writers who believe that the divine inspiration of the Bible does not allow for the existence of disagreements within it argue that the prophets are not really condemning sacrifices, but what they call "empty sacrifices," that is, sacrifices that are not accompanied by true repentance and a change of heart. But there are two problems with this interpretation. First, it is not supported by the plain meaning of the texts. Each of these passages flatly condemns all animal sacrifice, not just sacrifice that is unaccompanied by a change of heart. In straightforward language, they call for repentance instead of sacrifices, not repentance in addition to sacrifices. In fact, several call for repentance for having offered sacrifices -- "Your hands are full of blood."

Second, the italicized portions from Isaiah and Amos ask rhetorical questions about the origin of animal sacrifice which make it plain that these prophets did not believe that sacrifice had been commanded by God, while the passage from Jeremiah flatly states that it had not. All seven texts contradict the extensive passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and elsewhere which claim that animal sacrifices were divinely ordained.

On the question of animal sacrifice, the Bible presents us with two views of God. In one, after the fashion of the gods in other ancient Near Eastern religions, God demands cruelty by insisting that worshipers must torment, terrify, and slaughter innocent creatures. In the second, God calls for compassion and mercy by insisting that worshipers not inflict suffering and death upon the harmless. The question then becomes, which view represents the God of infinite justice, love, and mercy described in Jewish and Christian teaching? And which represents a misreading of God's will by people who were, perhaps unconsciously, influenced by the superstitious practices they saw all around them?

Animal sacrifice continued to be part of mainstream Jewish practice until the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, following a rebellion against Roman occupation. Since sacrifice could be practiced only in the Temple, there has been no animal sacrifice in Judaism for nearly two thousand years, with the sole exception of the lambs who are slaughtered each year to be eaten at the Passover seder. Dr. Roberta Kalechofsky has written Haggadah for the Liberated Lamb, Haggadah for the Vegetarian Family, and The Journey of the Liberated Lamb to help observant Jews make the transition to a cruelty-free seder while remaining faithful to their traditions.

quote:

But He himself gave His disciples meat...

quote:
Mark 6:34:
"And when He had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, He looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before them;
And the two fishes divided He among them all.
And they did all eat, and were filled."

quote:

Animal rights groups have started claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian. I think it's wrong for them to distort the Bible to advance their cause.

The truth is that we do not know whether Jesus was a vegetarian or not. But let's look at what the Bible actually says.

First, the New Testament never reports that Jesus ate or drank any kind of animal product before his resurrection. In fact, the only food that the gospels mention him eating prior to the resurrection is bread, which was obviously the staple of his diet.

After the resurrection, we are told that he once ate a piece of fish to prove to his disciples, who thought they were seeing a ghost, that he was truly risen from the dead. (Luke 24:36-43) A second story set after the resurrection has him cooking fish for the disciples, but does not say who caught them or whether he ate any himself (John 21:1-14). And so, the New Testament does not tell us that Jesus ate fish as a part of his diet, but it does say that he once ate a morsel of fish to demonstrate his physical presence after the resurrection, and that he once cooked fish.

According to Acts 1:3, Jesus remained on earth for 40 days following his resurrection. During this time, he did not live with his disciples, as he had before the crucifixion, but only made a few brief appearances to them, appearing suddenly and unpredictably and leaving the same way. Sometimes they did not recognize him until well into the conversation. The descriptions of these appearances in the gospels are not consistent with one another, and they cannot be reconciled with the list of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances given by Paul in I Corinthians 15:3-8. Thus, on the one hand, these narratives are not an historically reliable foundation for a claim that Jesus ate fish, while on the other hand, their presence in the gospels makes it impossible to state with certainty that he did not.

The gospels also describe two occasions on which Jesus was teaching a large crowd out in the Galilean countryside when time came for them to eat. No one in the crowd, including Jesus and his disciples, had food except for a small boy who had brought a picnic basket with several loaves of bread (probably more like rolls) and a few fish. The disciples asked Jesus to dismiss the crowd so they could go and obtain their own food, but instead Jesus instructed them to have the crowd be seated on the grass and to distribute the bread and fish, which he then miraculously multiplied into enough to feed everyone with some left over.

In the second century, 200 years before any of our current gospel manuscripts was written, the Christian theologian Irenaeus [ear-REE-nee-us) retold these stories. In his narratives, Irenaeus spoke only of loaves of bread and never mentioned fish, suggesting that in the gospel manuscripts he read, the fish were not mentioned.

If, however, in the absence of more direct evidence, you are unwilling to discount the fish as a legendary addition to the original story, consider this. All four gospels lay great stress on the fact that Jesus and his disciples did not procure or prepare the fish. In fact, when Jesus and his disciple Philip discussed the possibility of buying food for the crowd, they talked only of bread, and never mentioned fish. The fish were caught, cooked, and brought to the gathering without Jesus' knowledge. Having decided that the crowd was too large to buy food for, he had to either find some other way to feed them or send them away to feed themselves. If he sent them away, many of them would probably have bought fish, which were plentiful and popular in Galilee. But the miraculous multiplication of fish that were already dead involved no harm to any living creature. It caused no suffering and no death. The real lesson of the story may be that when circumstances force us to choose between two less than perfect alternatives, we should take the path that causes the less suffering, even at the risk of being misunderstood.

The New Testament portrays John the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus, a man sent by God to proclaim Jesus' coming. According to the gospels the Baptist was a vegetarian, at least by the standards of the day, for he may have eaten grasshoppers -- possibly not considering them a high enough life-form to be able to suffer. Following Jesus' crucifixion, the leadership of the Christian community was assumed by a man known as James the Just, who was either Jesus' brother (the protestant and secular belief) or his first cousin (the Catholic belief). Even Peter and Paul deferred to James until his assassination around AD 62, and Christianity recognizes him as the first bishop of Jerusalem. According to the fourth century Christian historian, Eusebius (you-SEE-bee-us), James the Just was a lifelong vegetarian, having been raised as such by his parents.

Finally, the original followers of Jesus in Galilee and Judea were known as Ebionites, from the Hebrew word ebionim, meaning "poor." Unlike many gentile Christians, who followed the teachings of St. Paul (whom we will discuss in a moment), the Ebionites, who had learned their practices directly from Jesus and the original apostles, were vegetarians.

The evidence concerning Jesus' diet (except for bread) is meager and largely circumstantial, while the arguments on both sides of the question are speculative. None is conclusive one way or the other. And that is really the point. We cannot determine as a matter of historical fact whether Jesus was a vegetarian or not. His only guidance on this subject comes to us from his teaching, not his life. He is never portrayed in the gospels as commending the killing of animals or the eating of meat, while his opposition to animal sacrifice and sayings like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Blessed are the merciful," point us in the direction of not bringing suffering and death upon any of God's creatures, certainly not for reasons as trivial as enjoying the taste of their flesh or the feel of their skin on our feet.

quote:

Doesn't Jesus eat fish after the resurrection, help the fisherman catch fish, and serve fish during the multiplication miracle?

First, regardless of whether the fish in these events are actual fish, Christians today must ask ourselves, considering the fact that we have absolutely no physical justification for consuming the flesh of any animals, why we would chose to do so. We know that, biologically and physiologically, fish feel pain in the same way others animals do. We know that eating them is not good for us. Why, for a simple palate preference, would we cause pain and suffering to God's creatures? For more information on fish, visit PETA's pro-fish Web site: NoFishing.net.

Second, it's important to remember that Jesus was not a fisherman, but a carpenter like Joseph, and that the fish symbol has deep meaning for Christians, as it has for almost 2,000 years. The meaning given to the fish in Christianity is a result of the Greek word for fish, IXOUS, being a Greek acronym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." In many instances, seeing the fish as symbols makes far more sense than a literal interpretation, within the context of the stories. Let's look at each of the fish stories, both literally and symbolically.

The loaves and the fishes:
Clearly, this story has deep symbolic meaning beyond a literal interpretation, and that is the entire meaning of the story, according to most Biblical scholars. For most scholars, the story has two meanings: first, this story represents Jesus' espousal of an ethic of compassion. Jesus teaches us that we are to share what we have with the needy, and that if everyone shares, there will be plenty for all. Second, the story represents Jesus' promise to the disciples that he will make them "fishers of men." That is, in multiplying fish, he multiplies disciples, symbolized by the fish.

But even a literal interpretation does not justify eating animals. Multiplying fish who are already dead (thus causing no additional suffering), to feed them to hungry people who do not understand the ethical objection to eating fish, could be seen as an act of compassion. Three other observations regarding the events as written down seem warranted:
·When the disciples ask where they will get enough food to feed everyone, they speak only of bread. This is borne out later as well: Every time the disciples discuss food, they discuss vegetarian food, principally bread.
·This miracle takes place on the sea, and Jesus at no point suggests that anyone go fishing, the logical choice, if he has no objection to causing God's sea animals to suffer. Rather, he creates plenty where there is want.
·When Jesus refers back to this event (e.g., Mt. 17, Mk. 8), he refers only to the loaves, never mentioning the fish, and he interprets the event symbolically, saying explicitly that the disciples are totally missing the point, when they interpret the event literally.

At the very least, we can say for certain regarding this miracle that Jesus does not cause fish to suffer or die and does not consider the fish to have been an integral aspect of this miracle. Again, though, no matter how this miracle is viewed, it does not justify the horrific treatment of fish and other animals for food today.

The nets filled with fish:
In Luke and John, Jesus is seen helping the disciples catch a vast quantity of fish. In Luke, the event is depicted as his first call of the disciples. In John, the event occurs after the resurrection.

Most reputable Biblical scholars see the events symbolically, and from a symbolic standpoint, Jesus assisting the disciples in netting massive quantities of fish could not be much clearer, especially considering his promise that he will make them "fishers of men." They are bringing disciples (fish) into the fold.

Regardless, a literal reading of the text shows animals cooperating with Jesus to prove his divinity. In both Gospels, so many fish fill the nets that the boats begin to sink. In Luke, Jesus told the disciples, "Henceforth, you will be catching men," and then they returned to shore, "left everything, and followed him." The story is clear: They couldn't get the fish into the boat because the boat was sinking. And since they immediately leave everything and follow, it seems unlikely that they somehow got the fish to the shore and left them to suffocate and rot.

The post-resurrection fish consumption stories:
The post-resurrection stories are seen by most scholars as late additions to the Gospels, intended to settle a historical schism in the Church regarding whether Jesus rose bodily. The inclusion of fish consumption, which occurs only in the Gospels of Luke and John (the last two written), would bolster the idea of Jesus rising bodily, showing that he must and can fulfill his need for food. Interestingly, the post-resurrection stories include the one aspect of Jesus' life that almost all scholars consider dubious, Jesus' statement that "these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." Few Christians believe they can consume poison or should play with poisonous snakes.

Regardless, it is difficult to imagine that these stories as precise representations of events, considering that there is almost no similarity among the four Gospels regarding the events that take place. And again, even if literally true, Jesus' decision to eat fish upon his return to earth (the ONLY time he is seen eating meat anywhere in the Gospels) should not make us feel good about supporting cruelty to God's creatures today. That Jesus may have had some ethereal reason to consume animal flesh, which seems unlikely, does not justify the horrific practices of commercial fishing fleets, slaughterhouses, and so on, today.

Conclusion:
For additional analysis of the "fish stories," please read the answer to the question, "Do you believe Jesus was a vegetarian?" But even if one believes that Jesus ate fish after the resurrection, multiplied them to feed the multitudes, and filled the disciples nets with them, that does not justify supporting the violent meat industry today. For more on this argument, please read our answer to the question that begins: "I believe that the Bible is literally true." For more information on the suffering of fish, please visit PETA's pro-fish Web site: NoFishing.net. For more information on factory farming and other abuses of cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys, visit PETA's vegetarian Web site: MeatStinks.com. The fact is, the only reason we can give for eating animals is that we like the taste of their flesh. Eating meat is bad for us, for the environment, and of course, for the animals. If, for a simple palate preference, we are willing to become animal abusers, what does that say about our belief in compassion and mercy?

quote:

and many vegetarians out there may be thinking... "you dont need meat to live, so that previous statement is a bunch of blech."
but in many cases, meat is necessary- easier to get a hold of, and provides many essential nutrients.

quote:

Mark 6:34:
"And when He had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, He looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before them;
And the two fishes divided He among them all.
And they did all eat, and were filled."

quote:

Originally posted by Barkid:
Just out of curiosity, what did the meat eating animals in the garden of eden eat? I say that if a lion is allowed to eat deer than I should be allowed to eat deer, or the lion, either will do.

quote:

and whats up with vegans eating fish? God created fish with the same mind-set as cows, horses, chickens....so whats up with that?

quote:

Look, I love animals, and I am an animal rights activist, and I am a Christian, but have you ever seen a HEALTHY vegetarian? They're always all pale and their system kicks back foods that your body should never react that way to.

quote:

God created humnans to be superior over humans, so they should be eaten.