A Vegan Lifestyle—What Does the Bible Say?

kirmmy

Well-known member
I'd argue Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were saved, not by being vegans, but by not eating whatever the king was cooking.
You got it and many have missed the point that the Israelites had dietary laws that were quite strict. They couldn't eat pork or some seafood, etc, etc. So they played it safe and didn't eat anything from the king's table. And Jehovah blessed them for it.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
You got it and many have missed the point that the Israelites had dietary laws that were quite strict. They couldn't eat pork or some seafood, etc, etc. So they played it safe and didn't eat anything from the king's table. And Jehovah blessed them for it.
After thinking more about Shadrach et al, it is Jehovah’s signature move to do a 180 degree flipperoo in situations where there is a detrimental cost to showing faith in Jehovah by being obedient to his laws even when it is tough to do. He can take a loss and turn it around into a huge success and that is one way that he magnifies his name by taking what should be a negative and scoring a win with it.
 

StopTheInsanity

Well-known member
BTW, @StopTheInsanity I still have the utmost respect for you, I just don't agree. But at this point I'll just have to say we'll agree to disagree. It's not important enough to me to drive a wedge between us over something only Jehovah can give us the true answer to. Not that I need that, I mean after all, not everyone can be as smart as me... :p
I hit the laugh button, 'cause you're funny, but I also wanted to hit the "love" button, too, but I'll just write it here instead. Truce. Enjoy your steak, buddy. We'll talk about this 50 years from now over an apple juice. :LOL:
 

StopTheInsanity

Well-known member
I respect Dr. Baker because he took a stand against the vaccine and spoke out against it and was very reasonable about it. However, he did an interview a few years ago and released his blood work and it didn't look good. He was prediabetic and had high ferritin levels.

Here is a break down by two nutritionists who are both Type 1 diabetics and run a diabetes program which gets the same results as that study and they explain why the six-month results that Shawn posted in that study are deceptive and why longer-term studies show that over time, it actually harms diabetics. Cyrus has gotten his degree at Stanford:

 

SusanB

Well-known member
I respect Dr. Baker because he took a stand against the vaccine and spoke out against it and was very reasonable about it. However, he did an interview a few years ago and released his blood work and it didn't look good. He was prediabetic and had high ferritin levels.

Here is a break down by two nutritionists who are both Type 1 diabetics and run a diabetes program which gets the same results as that study and they explain why the six-month results that Shawn posted in that study are deceptive and why longer-term studies show that over time, it actually harms diabetics. Cyrus has gotten his degree at Stanford:

Doctor Baker looks exceptional for a sick guy! Sorry but your quote is baloney and so is the faux Stanford guy study. Trying to refute my post is a bit ridiculous but everyone can decide for themselves. I put it up for each one to find it interesting or not. I never intended to debate it. I see and know real world people whose health has improved in an unbelievable way and they’ve been following the diet for years. Unlike those who shill for Big Pharma real life people often post their results for no financial benefit. They are just real stories. And, I know my blood work stats, blood pressure etc. It’s all improved.
 
Last edited:

StopTheInsanity

Well-known member
STI Some of your conclusions are correct but the ultimate error that you make is to assume that Jehovah never intended to give animals as food to humans and that is just something you cannot know. What I am understanding from your logic is that world must return to exactly how it was originally created by Jehovah but we must remember the garden of Eden was a small sample of what Jehovah wanted humans to continue with until the entire earth became a paradise.

Thanks for your thoughts, Susan and you bring out some good points. Yes, you are correct that I believe that Jehovah's purpose is to bring things back to the way they were in the garden. Here's why:

1) The one universal language was confused after the Flood at the Tower of Babel and it has been suggested that it will be returned back to a one world language. The scripture in Zephaniah about the "pure language" has been used, but we know that that can also apply to spiritual truth and not necessarily to be taken literally. However, for the earth to be able to communicate and not be divided, it seems reasonable, although I admit we cannot prove it, that Jehovah would bring humans back to one language. WT says they think it will be Hebrew, since that is the language Adam and Eve spoke and thus Shem's language was not confused, but we really cannot say with conviction what will happen.

2) That said, we do know that Zephaniah says that we will have a one-world religion. It's always been Jehovah's purpose to eliminate all the various false religions and to restore true religion earth wide. The earth will indeed "be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah".

3) The earth will be returned to a paradise after Jehovah "ruins those who ruin the earth". There are numerous prophecies about this.

4) All governments will be removed and be replaced by the heavenly one-world government of God's rule by Christ Jesus with his Kingdom arrangement and at the end of the 1,000 years, Christ will turn the rule back over to his father and Jehovah will again be our sole ruler as he was in the garden.

5) Death will be removed and millions of the dead will return to life. All obedient humans will have sin removed and return to perfection just like what Adam and Eve had lost.

6) Peace existed in the garden between humans and animals. Humans were not attacked by animals. We see that they all peacefully co-existed on the Ark for a year. We have the account of Cain offering the sheep as a sacrifice but the only other time we read of a sacrifice of animals is of Noah in Genesis 8 after the Flood . Thus, there were no need for any sacrifices of animals before the sin of Adam and Eve and they wore no clothing, so no animals were killed for them to eat, offer sacrifices or be clothed.

My line of logic goes this way: if we rewind things and go back in time and suppose that Adam and Eve never sinned but had been obedient, then they would still be here on Earth and would be over 6,000 years old. They would still be young in body and would have filled the globe with their children and would have extended the paradise to the entire globe.

Meat eating was permitted by Jehovah AFTER the flood. If Adam and Eve had been obedient, there would have been no Flood. So to say that they would have been given meat at some point doesn't seem to be supported by scripture but is conjecture.

Now, the point you bring up about population control is an interesting one. We do know that animals were not eaten before the Flood for 1650 years in the same quantities as today, if at all, so that's a long time for the animal populations to multiply. Yet there is no record that this posed as a problem.

We also know that after Armageddon, millions of people will be resurrected and so some might feel that the planet might get too full with either humans or animals at some point.

However, there are numerous accounts in the Bible of Jehovah controlling fertility either for the good or for the bad. He opened up wombs like he did for Sarah and Rachel and he shut up wombs as well. Then there's the account of Jacob and his cows that he multiplied with Jehovah's blessing while working for Laban. It is clear that humans have a lot to learn with regards to how to properly manage the ecosystem including animal populations. I have no doubt that Jehovah will teach us these things as well as intervene directly in controlling fertility if necessary, in both humans and animals in order for things not to get too full. It's his purpose to FILL the earth, not to over crowd it. He knows exactly how to do this and has the power to take reproductive ability away.

After thinking about this for awhile, it boils down to this: it is my feeling that violence and killing are the opposite of love. Love is pro-life. It promotes safety and life. Jehovah gave Adam three stewardships to care for forever: 1) the earth 2) children 3) the animals. All were to get loving oversight to manage, protect and make sure that they were cared for and flourished.


In order to eat animals, they would have to die a violent death at the hands of humans. Blood would have to be spilled. Implements such as knives, spears and guns would need to be made and used and learned to be used. This goes against Isaiah 2:3, 4 where Jehovah would teach his people his ways which would include beating weapons into farming implements. Knives, guns and spears are weapons. Farming implements are to be used to grow food.

Dying a natural death and being buried to decompose is not violent. Having blood spilled and being skinned and flayed is. There is no other way to put it. It is also traumatizing for most people to witness the death of an animal. I know just seeing a goose hit by a car and spasming in the road or a deer hit by a car and jerking uncontrollably in pain is horrible to witness. I do not believe that it is our Creator's will for humans to commit any type of violence in his new world, especially since there will be plenty of other food choices to choose from that wouldn't require a need for this.

Plus, there is a psychological component that is numbing on the psyche involved in killing another living being. We really don't know about the emotional and social lives of animals because they do not speak in human languages. But there is a gorilla who has learned sign language, and related remembering seeing his mother being killed by poachers. Animals grieve. This is documented. I remember when one of my cats died, the rest of my cats were sad for days.

Some have been taught that since animals are not as intelligent as humans, that they are there to serve us and were put on earth for humans. We cannot say this for sure since in Genesis, it shows that Adam was supposed to have oversight to care for the animals, not to dominate them.

For me, it boils down to not wanting to see any type of violence being done in a New World with a government based on love. I believe that our loving God cares about these creatures and that is borne out in the scriptures and that he has many ways to care for this planet and for the animals and controlling their populations that don't need to include humans killing them.

When Jehovah says that we will have "peace and security" and that "no one will be making them tremble" that includes not seeing our neighbors skinning deer alive on their front lawns. If you look at the WT's pictures of the paradise and especially in the food scenes, you never see meat dishes. Are they right on this? Do the scriptures support this? For me, the answer is yes. For the animals not to fear humans, then hunting and killing of them would need to cease. Animals would need to be able to roam freely, die natural deaths and be cared for in order for those scriptures to be filled.

That's just the most honest, from the heart answer I can give. This thread has given me a heavy heart. Just thinking about a new world where animals are slaughtered on a daily basis puts a knot in my stomach and makes me sad. I don't mean to say this to judge anyone, but just to let them know the impact that those actions would have on others. And I know I am not alone in this. Most children would not have the instinct to kill animals. They would have to be taught this. It's not our natural way. I know that I could never do it. I have never owned a gun nor will I. What drew me to the JW organization was its message of peace in the face of violence and the fact that they wouldn't go to war.

We've been given permission right now since the Flood to kill and eat animals, it's true, but the Israelites were given permission to kill the Canaanites and other wicked nations, but later Jesus revoked that right to violence and set a new standard based on love telling his disciples to return their sword to its place and to give their lives for each other. So we see a pattern that Jesus kept returning the standard back to the way it was in the Garden: monogamy, no warfare, not to take your brother to court, etc. Will that continue in the new system to include no killing of animals? Can we say dogmatically yes? No, we can't. We can only infer from some of the prophecies in Isaiah and from knowing the personality of Jehovah and Christ Jesus.

That's my take on it. I have a profound respect for these creatures that we share the planet with and have witnessed their deaths both natural and violently and I know that animals feel pain and don't wish to die. They feel fear and they grieve. I am affected by those experiences and that's why I share what I do.
 

Jahrule

Well-known member
In order to eat animals, they would have to die a violent death at the hands of humans. Blood would have to be spilled.
Not necessarily. Just wait until we get those food synthesizers or replicators I posted about before. I love me some buffalo wings. Also I love eggs, cheese, fish, etc. If I have to wait a few thousand years until the tech arrives so be it. I'm patient. Good chicken wings are worth the wait. Fingers crossed that replicators will be a thing. And if it is, we can have all the food we want without ever harming anything. We can also use that tech to build starships, warp drives, force fields, and possibly even simulate gravity. But then, who knows what the future holds? Just saying not everything may be so straight forward. There may be some huge surprises in the future we're not expecting. In fact, the bible kind of suggests that's exactly what will happen. Whether we eat meat, or vegetables, or if replicators ever become a thing, regardless I am certain we will be happy and fulfilled. I will happily follow whatever dietary guidelines Jah sets up. If he tells me to live off crackers and water or birdseed, I'll take it and be happy.

 

Revvzone

Well-known member
what if there were studies that showed being on a cannibalistic diet improved health... should people implement that for the sake of pure personal health, or consider how their actions of intake affect others?
There's a recent study on cannibalism.. These two cannibals were eating the remains of a comedian that had gone missing, one turned to the other and asked, Does this taste funny to you?
 
Last edited:

goldie

Well-known member
Thanks for your thoughts, Susan and you bring out some good points. Yes, you are correct that I believe that Jehovah's purpose is to bring things back to the way they were in the garden. Here's why:

1) The one universal language was confused after the Flood at the Tower of Babel and it has been suggested that it will be returned back to a one world language. The scripture in Zephaniah about the "pure language" has been used, but we know that that can also apply to spiritual truth and not necessarily to be taken literally. However, for the earth to be able to communicate and not be divided, it seems reasonable, although I admit we cannot prove it, that Jehovah would bring humans back to one language. WT says they think it will be Hebrew, since that is the language Adam and Eve spoke and thus Shem's language was not confused, but we really cannot say with conviction what will happen.

2) That said, we do know that Zephaniah says that we will have a one-world religion. It's always been Jehovah's purpose to eliminate all the various false religions and to restore true religion earth wide. The earth will indeed "be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah".

3) The earth will be returned to a paradise after Jehovah "ruins those who ruin the earth". There are numerous prophecies about this.

4) All governments will be removed and be replaced by the heavenly one-world government of God's rule by Christ Jesus with his Kingdom arrangement and at the end of the 1,000 years, Christ will turn the rule back over to his father and Jehovah will again be our sole ruler as he was in the garden.

5) Death will be removed and millions of the dead will return to life. All obedient humans will have sin removed and return to perfection just like what Adam and Eve had lost.

6) Peace existed in the garden between humans and animals. Humans were not attacked by animals. We see that they all peacefully co-existed on the Ark for a year. We have the account of Cain offering the sheep as a sacrifice but the only other time we read of a sacrifice of animals is of Noah in Genesis 8 after the Flood . Thus, there were no need for any sacrifices of animals before the sin of Adam and Eve and they wore no clothing, so no animals were killed for them to eat, offer sacrifices or be clothed.

My line of logic goes this way: if we rewind things and go back in time and suppose that Adam and Eve never sinned but had been obedient, then they would still be here on Earth and would be over 6,000 years old. They would still be young in body and would have filled the globe with their children and would have extended the paradise to the entire globe.

Meat eating was permitted by Jehovah AFTER the flood. If Adam and Eve had been obedient, there would have been no Flood. So to say that they would have been given meat at some point doesn't seem to be supported by scripture but is conjecture.

Now, the point you bring up about population control is an interesting one. We do know that animals were not eaten before the Flood for 1650 years in the same quantities as today, if at all, so that's a long time for the animal populations to multiply. Yet there is no record that this posed as a problem.

We also know that after Armageddon, millions of people will be resurrected and so some might feel that the planet might get too full with either humans or animals at some point.

However, there are numerous accounts in the Bible of Jehovah controlling fertility either for the good or for the bad. He opened up wombs like he did for Sarah and Rachel and he shut up wombs as well. Then there's the account of Jacob and his cows that he multiplied with Jehovah's blessing while working for Laban. It is clear that humans have a lot to learn with regards to how to properly manage the ecosystem including animal populations. I have no doubt that Jehovah will teach us these things as well as intervene directly in controlling fertility if necessary, in both humans and animals in order for things not to get too full. It's his purpose to FILL the earth, not to over crowd it. He knows exactly how to do this and has the power to take reproductive ability away.

After thinking about this for awhile, it boils down to this: it is my feeling that violence and killing are the opposite of love. Love is pro-life. It promotes safety and life. Jehovah gave Adam three stewardships to care for forever: 1) the earth 2) children 3) the animals. All were to get loving oversight to manage, protect and make sure that they were cared for and flourished.


In order to eat animals, they would have to die a violent death at the hands of humans. Blood would have to be spilled. Implements such as knives, spears and guns would need to be made and used and learned to be used. This goes against Isaiah 2:3, 4 where Jehovah would teach his people his ways which would include beating weapons into farming implements. Knives, guns and spears are weapons. Farming implements are to be used to grow food.

Dying a natural death and being buried to decompose is not violent. Having blood spilled and being skinned and flayed is. There is no other way to put it. It is also traumatizing for most people to witness the death of an animal. I know just seeing a goose hit by a car and spasming in the road or a deer hit by a car and jerking uncontrollably in pain is horrible to witness. I do not believe that it is our Creator's will for humans to commit any type of violence in his new world, especially since there will be plenty of other food choices to choose from that wouldn't require a need for this.

Plus, there is a psychological component that is numbing on the psyche involved in killing another living being. We really don't know about the emotional and social lives of animals because they do not speak in human languages. But there is a gorilla who has learned sign language, and related remembering seeing his mother being killed by poachers. Animals grieve. This is documented. I remember when one of my cats died, the rest of my cats were sad for days.

Some have been taught that since animals are not as intelligent as humans, that they are there to serve us and were put on earth for humans. We cannot say this for sure since in Genesis, it shows that Adam was supposed to have oversight to care for the animals, not to dominate them.

For me, it boils down to not wanting to see any type of violence being done in a New World with a government based on love. I believe that our loving God cares about these creatures and that is borne out in the scriptures and that he has many ways to care for this planet and for the animals and controlling their populations that don't need to include humans killing them.

When Jehovah says that we will have "peace and security" and that "no one will be making them tremble" that includes not seeing our neighbors skinning deer alive on their front lawns. If you look at the WT's pictures of the paradise and especially in the food scenes, you never see meat dishes. Are they right on this? Do the scriptures support this? For me, the answer is yes. For the animals not to fear humans, then hunting and killing of them would need to cease. Animals would need to be able to roam freely, die natural deaths and be cared for in order for those scriptures to be filled.

That's just the most honest, from the heart answer I can give. This thread has given me a heavy heart. Just thinking about a new world where animals are slaughtered on a daily basis puts a knot in my stomach and makes me sad. I don't mean to say this to judge anyone, but just to let them know the impact that those actions would have on others. And I know I am not alone in this. Most children would not have the instinct to kill animals. They would have to be taught this. It's not our natural way. I know that I could never do it. I have never owned a gun nor will I. What drew me to the JW organization was its message of peace in the face of violence and the fact that they wouldn't go to war.

We've been given permission right now since the Flood to kill and eat animals, it's true, but the Israelites were given permission to kill the Canaanites and other wicked nations, but later Jesus revoked that right to violence and set a new standard based on love telling his disciples to return their sword to its place and to give their lives for each other. So we see a pattern that Jesus kept returning the standard back to the way it was in the Garden: monogamy, no warfare, not to take your brother to court, etc. Will that continue in the new system to include no killing of animals? Can we say dogmatically yes? No, we can't. We can only infer from some of the prophecies in Isaiah and from knowing the personality of Jehovah and Christ Jesus.

That's my take on it. I have a profound respect for these creatures that we share the planet with and have witnessed their deaths both natural and violently and I know that animals feel pain and don't wish to die. They feel fear and they grieve. I am affected by those experiences and that's why I share what I do.
I don't know how anyone can argue with these points .. beautiful!
 
Last edited:

Nomex

Well-known member
I hit the laugh button, 'cause you're funny, but I also wanted to hit the "love" button, too, but I'll just write it here instead. Truce. Enjoy your steak, buddy. We'll talk about this 50 years from now over an apple juice. :LOL:
I really appreciate this. I have said for a long time, "you have the right to be wrong." So, it's perfectly Okay with me, that you're wrong. Jehovah will straighten you out. :p I say that as a joke, but It's what I really believe, that is to say, "we have the right to be wrong", that's literally what free will is.


This whole Covid WT experience has taught me, that what we believe on the most fundamental level, can be quickly and in my case easily over turned. And there is a lot of reasons for this, the foundation was there. In any case, I think just like when Jesus came to the earth the first time, he's gonna have to correct us quite a bit....and I am Okay with that!


I have said this about other things I believe...I am not married to anything, when it comes to things like this...I could be wrong, I don't think I am obviously, but that doesn't mean I haven't left the possibility open in my mind. I believed WT on 1914 and I didn't even question their "over lapping generation", not really, until the whole Covid fiasco. Looking back, I can't believe it took me this long to "come to my senses." But I like to think of myself as someone who is not unreasonable, and willing to be corrected! But I am not wishy washy, so I need some evidence that would be able to over turn my well thought out and reasonable conclusion on what I believe is true about this subject. Not to rehash the argument, but to say "Jehovah did not create Satan", is comparing apples and oranges. Satan became Satan by the choices the Angel who became Satan made.

Animals did not "sin" by becoming predators. It's not at all the same thing. I suppose you could be arguing that they became predators because of Satan's rebellion, but I just don't agree.


I have said this a few times now. I think we need to balance our understanding of what we believe about the Bible with good reasoning. A shark for example not only is a predator, but they are also the oceans garbage disposal. I believe these predators serve a God assigned purpose. All predators. And my argument is their predator instincts came from Jehovah, unless somehow you are going to argue they came from Satan, and in that case we are diametrically opposed. So if they came from Jehovah, and Jehovah is unchangeable, then he always meant for certain animals to be predators.


Again, I am not wanting to rehash the argument, I just thought I'd make these last comments with less emotion on the subject.
 
Last edited:

Ms_ladyblue

Well-known member
Some have been taught that since animals are not as intelligent as humans, that they are there to serve us and were put on earth for humans. We cannot say this for sure since in Genesis, it shows that Adam was supposed to have oversight to care for the animals, not to dominate them.
NWT says: “Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Gen. 1:28)

KJV says: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

ASV says: “And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

What does man having “subjection“ or having ”dominion“ over …every living creature mean then?
 

robins

Well-known member
NWT says: “Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Gen. 1:28)

KJV says: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

ASV says: “And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

What does man having “subjection“ or having ”dominion“ over …every living creature mean then?
probably the same thing as Christ over the congregation and man over his wife: responsibility, care, and love
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
STI Some of your conclusions are correct but the ultimate error that you make is to assume that Jehovah never intended to give animals as food to humans and that is just something you cannot know. What I am understanding from your logic is that world must return to exactly how it was originally created by Jehovah but we must remember the garden of Eden was a small sample of what Jehovah wanted humans to continue with until the entire earth became a paradise. And, I don’t believe that means an exact copy in all details but leaves a lot of room for variety. Based on the type of logic that says the world must revert to the exact garden of Eden conditions, one would conclude that the 4 seasons would revert back to the pre-flood atmosphere and the bible is very clear that will not be the case. So, your logic is flawed in that sense. Can any of us really say exactly what Jehovah has purposed for the earth in every detail?

Isaiah 40:13: “Who has taken the measurements of the spirit of Jehovah, And who can instruct him as his adviser?”

1 Corinthians 2:16: “For ‘who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?‘ But we do have the mind of Christ.”


So we cannot know the depth of God’s wisdom but should look at the life of Jesus and imitate it. He ate meat and offered animal sacrifices as the law required. We can feel confident that these things are not a sin and not to be looked down on and we should not teach other people that will be the case in the future, since that would be going beyond what the bible actually says. We should teach and promote the bible accurately and be humble enough to say, “I don’t know and we can look to our Creator for an answer to that issue at the right time.”

A second error that I perceive is that you appear to agree that population control of the animals could occur by their natural death and you accept that. So, why could you not accept that since their lives are so limited, what difference would it really make to raise livestock for a specific purpose of slaughter for food? I really don’t see that as being out of the question. And, the practical aspect of whether natural animal death leads to a balancing of the eco-system has been PROVEN to not be the case. Otherwise when the wolves in Yellowstone were nearly eradicated then it would not have the poor result that is documented on what happened to their eco-system and how it was returned to a normal balance once they returned wolves to Yellowstone. In fact, there was more abundant life after these “predators” were returned to Yellowstone. To me this is real world evidence that when Jehovah decreed that humans and animals could eat meat, he made it to balance perfectly within his creation if it is done with the proper respect and care that would exemplify Jehovah’s qualities.

I think you have the edge on the conversation. STI has some modern day moralistic points but the problem is that one cannot make a spiritual conclusion on something that is not written. Especially so when the opposite is written clearly. Thus we cannot read the mind of Jehovah. From my own perspective, I don’t like to kill anything. In fact, I still carry guilt for wantonly killing a sparrow and the horror of seeing my father kill a nest of starlings in a bucket of water. Yet, I can eat meat with no worries about the animal I did not see slaughtered. It’s a contradiction in terms that I have never sought to rationalise because it just is that way with me. And it is because the bible simply says we can eat meat.

What I did rationalise in thinking the matter through, is the question of what life is. That appears to be the crux of the matter, not the meat attached to it. What was it that Jehovah “breathed” into the nostrils of the inert body of Adam and that brought the machine that was his body into perceptive consciousness and that could express or animate the substance of ”life” that was breathed into him. Clearly the two are separate.

If that truly is the case, then we are to fathom the same degree of awareness upon the animal body as our own and that we enjoy ourselves, seemingly within the complete range of our own abilities? We see many facets of perception in animals that we ourselves enjoy, some in singular form even more advantageous in one respect than our own, such as sight in an extended range of the light spectrum. Necessary for the animal, but not for us though. Odd, is it not? Why?

If we take into account - and this is an area STI has not considered in the matter - the projected time-span for the prophesy uttered in the garden, it is necessary for the food source to be extended laterally across the creation if the prophesy is to reach its fulfilment in the allotted span. This includes the maximum provision for the maximum amount of lives to be supported. Even now, more than one third of the world population is underfed. So in consideration of bringing the system to its conclusion within the prophesy of the “day” then meat is a necessity. It is interesting to note that Jehovah Himself enjoys the “restful odour” of roast lamb and even to the point of the fact that the “fatty parts” hold the most flavour. Jehovah had animals sacrificed well before the flood. The intrinsic values of life and its expressive forms must therefore be considered as to values congruent with the creators values if we are to reason productively rather than argue.

This must surely bring into contention then, the above point of life as an independent entity, and the means of expression given it in bodily form for the conceptual boundaries of awareness to be be measured, restricted or fully given and enjoyed. This is demonstrated in all given life forms from vegetation through to angels. Even plants respond to stimuli. But more! Even natural law can be manipulated in its manifestation - bend your own light with magnetism and vary time by the same process. Are laws of nature “alive”? Why not ask the question?

It is best to leave what is written alone. We are given meat to eat. Eat it then. Who would not give meat to a starving child? Why question the quality and gift of Jehovah’s provision? “When we ask our father for food, does he give us a stone to eat?” Even today, vegans suffer from depletion in nutrients just as meat eaters suffer from other ailments. Who would trade their life for a principle? That is the question. The ultimate principle is in the blood, so the bible says. Pour that out, and eat the carcass. Jehovah provides birds for that purpose too. It’s odd, is it not, that the same principle was first found in a fruit upon a tree all those years ago and we still argue over it. Perhaps we should just not eat at all.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
I think you have the edge on the conversation. STI has some modern day moralistic points but the problem is that one cannot make a spiritual conclusion on something that is not written. Especially so when the opposite is written clearly. Thus we cannot read the mind of Jehovah. From my own perspective, I don’t like to kill anything. In fact, I still carry guilt for wantonly killing a sparrow and the horror of seeing my father kill a nest of starlings in a bucket of water. Yet, I can eat meat with no worries about the animal I did not see slaughtered. It’s a contradiction in terms that I have never sought to rationalise because it just is that way with me. And it is because the bible simply says we can eat meat.

What I did rationalise in thinking the matter through, is the question of what life is. That appears to be the crux of the matter, not the meat attached to it. What was it that Jehovah “breathed” into the nostrils of the inert body of Adam and that brought the machine that was his body into perceptive consciousness and that could express or animate the substance of ”life” that was breathed into him. Clearly the two are separate.

If that truly is the case, then we are to fathom the same degree of awareness upon the animal body as our own and that we enjoy ourselves, seemingly within the complete range of our own abilities? We see many facets of perception in animals that we ourselves enjoy, some in singular form even more advantageous in one respect than our own, such as sight in an extended range of the light spectrum. Necessary for the animal, but not for us though. Odd, is it not? Why?

If we take into account - and this is an area STI has not considered in the matter - the projected time-span for the prophesy uttered in the garden, it is necessary for the food source to be extended laterally across the creation if the prophesy is to reach its fulfilment in the allotted span. This includes the maximum provision for the maximum amount of lives to be supported. Even now, more than one third of the world population is underfed. So in consideration of bringing the system to its conclusion within the prophesy of the “day” then meat is a necessity. It is interesting to note that Jehovah Himself enjoys the “restful odour” of roast lamb and even to the point of the fact that the “fatty parts” hold the most flavour. Jehovah had animals sacrificed well before the flood. The intrinsic values of life and its expressive forms must therefore be considered as to values congruent with the creators values if we are to reason productively rather than argue.

This must surely bring into contention then, the above point of life as an independent entity, and the means of expression given it in bodily form for the conceptual boundaries of awareness to be be measured, restricted or fully given and enjoyed. This is demonstrated in all given life forms from vegetation through to angels. Even plants respond to stimuli. But more! Even natural law can be manipulated in its manifestation - bend your own light with magnetism and vary time by the same process. Are laws of nature “alive”? Why not ask the question?

It is best to leave what is written alone. We are given meat to eat. Eat it then. Who would not give meat to a starving child? Why question the quality and gift of Jehovah’s provision? “When we ask our father for food, does he give us a stone to eat?” Even today, vegans suffer from depletion in nutrients just as meat eaters suffer from other ailments. Who would trade their life for a principle? That is the question. The ultimate principle is in the blood, so the bible says. Pour that out, and eat the carcass. Jehovah provides birds for that purpose too. It’s odd, is it not, that the same principle was first found in a fruit upon a tree all those years ago and we still argue over it. Perhaps we should just not eat at all.
Very nice insight. And, something I have been wondering about is how (me included) animal lovers have a tendency to elevate animals to the level of humans. But we are not animals although we can have animalistic traits and animals are not humans. We are a different type of creation. So, I then wondered about the fall of the angels, who liked women a bit too much, if it wasn’t something similar. Humans are not angels and angels are not humans. Perhaps angels felt fond of humans the way humans feel about animals. Perhaps they elevated their attraction to humans to something out of balance with creation. Not perhaps, they did do that. We all have a place in Jehovah’s creation and we should stay in our lane. I know there is so so so much about Jehovah that we have yet to learn, when we are able to take it in. But as the scripture says, we can never know everything about Jehovah.
 

Watchman

Moderator
Staff member
Very nice insight. And, something I have been wondering about is how (me included) animal lovers have a tendency to elevate animals to the level of humans. But we are not animals although we can have animalistic traits and animals are not humans. We are a different type of creation. So, I then wondered about the fall of the angels, who liked women a bit too much, if it wasn’t something similar. Humans are not angels and angels are not humans. Perhaps angels felt fond of humans the way humans feel about animals. Perhaps they elevated their attraction to humans to something out of balance with creation. Not perhaps, they did do that. We all have a place in Jehovah’s creation and we should stay in our lane. I know there is so so so much about Jehovah that we have yet to learn, when we are able to take it in. But as the scripture says, we can never know everything about Jehovah.
Angels and humans are both made in God's image. That is the connection. Angels may be superior in power and intelligence and have experience beyond anything humans could ever acquire, but we have the same Creator, so we relate to each other on that basis. Jesus apparently made a pretty smooth transition from spirit to human and back to spirit.
 

DR75 less 1

Well-known member
you can put a 1000 head of beef on 400 acre,

That is very high. You can put 1000 head on 400 acres but the 400 won't feed them for long before they need to be moved. The ideal grazing down under was 1 stock unit per acre. When I was farming 40 yrs ago. That is 1 cow can survive on i acre. If we fenced the acre maybe it could feed 2 cows. 3? you would need to buy in/produce extra hay and/or silage.
 
Top