NationStates Jolt Archive

How often does the Bible contradict itself?
In some parts of the Bible it says that people were made to be vegetarians and in others it says that God gave animals to us for food?
Which part are we supposed to believe?

How often does the Bible contradict itself?
In some parts of the Bible it says that people were made to be vegetarians and in others it says that God gave animals to us for food?
Which part are we supposed to believe?
It doesn't say don't eat meat. It does say humans have dominion over all the earth.

In Genisis it says that God originally gave us only plants of the tree and vine for food. And does diminion mean that we have the right to senselessly kill them for our own selfish desire.

In Genisis it says that God originally gave us only plants of the tree and vine for food. And does diminion mean that we have the right to senselessly kill them for our own selfish desire.
It says we have plants and vine for food and the right to do whatever with animals. It doesn't say, you can do whatever you want just don't eat meat. The law is clearly outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There is plenty of sense in killing animals, food. Animals do it, people it. Survival is inherently selfish, so your argument holds no water.

It says we have plants and vine for food and the right to do whatever with animals. It doesn't say, you can do whatever you want just don't eat meat. The law is clearly outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There is plenty of sense in killing animals, food. Animals do it, people it. Survival is inherently selfish, so your argument holds no water.

Humans are also supposed to be more civilized than animals, thats what sets us apart. We should consider animals sacredness (as with all life), empathy, something else that sets us apart from the animals you seem to enjoy killing.

Humans are also supposed to be more civilized than animals, thats what sets us apart. We should consider animals sacredness (as with all life), empathy, something else that sets us apart from the animals you seem to enjoy killing.
Humans are not supposed to be anything but mindful of God's wishes. The only difference between humans and animals is that God breathed his essence into them after they were made. Animals did not receive that portion of the Almighty, and thus are the same as plants or cars. I don't care when you kill plants, you shouldn't care when I kill animals.

Humans are not supposed to be anything but mindful of God's wishes. The only difference between humans and animals is that God breathed his essence into them after they were made. Animals did not receive that portion of the Almighty, and thus are the same as plants or cars. I don't care when you kill plants, you shouldn't care when I kill animals.

Does a plant feel the scyth taking its life, does it scream in pain as we murder it? NO. An animal does.

Plants and cars are not conscious beings able to feel emotion, converse with others of its kind, or are even in knowledge of their existence. Animals are all of the above.

Does a plant feel the scyth taking its life, does it scream in pain as we murder it? NO. An animal does.
Yes it does. When a giraffe eats a particular tree, he always eats trees upwind of the previous one. Why is this? The first tree, as it is being eaten, releases a phermone that other trees can pick up. When they do, they start producing a poisonous protein, that makes the giraffe very sick. So the giraffe moves upwind, because those plants aren't receiving the phermones. A computer can be programmed to interpret damage to the system as "pain," something bad that is to be avoided. I'm not saying animals should be clubbed and stabbed for fun (or fur, incidentally), but they are no better than anything else.

Plants and cars are not conscious beings able to feel emotion, converse with others of its kind, or are even in knowledge of their existence. Animals are all of the above.
Even bacteria send out messages that other bacteria interpret and respond to. All life communicates when itself. It's simple biology.

No plant or bacteria has anything resembing a central nervous system like animals have. Sure they may react to things but not nearly on the same level.

No plant or bacteria has anything resembing a central nervous system like animals have. Sure they may react to things but not nearly on the same level.
And no animal communicates with another by altering the pH of your environment, no animal can photosynthesize, no animal can exceed speeds of 80 miles per hour. I fail to understand how one arbitrary trait is more than another arbitrary trait. Besides, your argument is logically flawed, bacteria are far better communicators than animals, that's how they're able to form colonies of billions of cells and all remain healthy. That's how cells form tissue. The farther down you go evolutionarily, the better at communicating an organism becomes. The better at understanding its environment an organism becomes.

i never claimed animals do any of these things. The fact is they do have brains and central nervous systems where plants and bacteria do not. They are capible of suffering as well as a degree of understanding and emotions. We could debate specifically how much they have but the fact is they do exist where as in plants and baceria their is no evidence they do.

The beauty part is, you can interpret it any way you want to and claim that you're doing God's work and following His will.

i never claimed animals do any of these things. The fact is they do have brains and central nervous systems where plants and bacteria do not. They are capible of suffering as well as a degree of understanding and emotions. We could debate specifically how much they have but the fact is they do exist where as in plants and baceria their is no evidence they do.
And why does that one trait matter? Who cares? It's just something they have that others don't. It doesn't make them better or worse.

The claim was that killing animals and killing baceria was the same morally. The fact that one can suffer and one can not tends to invalidate the view.

The claim was that killing animals and killing baceria was the same morally. The fact that one can suffer and one can not tends to invalidate the view.
What is suffering? It's experiencing a stimulus you identify as bad. Bacteria suffer, as you start killing them with heat you can monitor their biological activity, and they freak out. Besides, if sparing pain is your only concern, is it ok to kill animals if they're first anesthetized?

One problem: Not all animals have a central nervous system. Starfish, anyone? Or cockroaches, who have a nervous system with centers scattered across their entire body instead of centralized like ours.

You are talking reactions to stimuli. i am talking suffering. Example a thermstat reacts to stimuli. it does not suffer. If someone pours acid on your hand you would suffer. And while I certainly am in favor of better means of stunning. not all animals are stunned under our current system due to the speed at which slaughterhouses operate. Howver it does not in and of itself resolve the problem.


What is suffering? It's experiencing a stimulus you identify as bad. Bacteria suffer, as you start killing them with heat you can monitor their biological activity, and they freak out. Besides, if sparing pain is your only concern, is it ok to kill animals if they're first anesthetized?

You are talking reactions to stimuli. i am talking suffering. Example a thermstat reacts to stimuli. it does not suffer. If someone pours acid on your hand you would suffer. And while I certainly am in favor of better means of stunning. not all animals are stunned under our current system due to the speed at which slaughterhouses operate. Howver it does not in and of itself resolve the problem.
Why not? If an animal's suffering is confined to expressions in its central nervous system, which is still merely the expression of electric pulses, easily recreated in a machine, then by your logic if you suppress the central nervous system, the animal can no longer suffer.

How often does the Bible contradict itself?
In some parts of the Bible it says that people were made to be vegetarians and in others it says that God gave animals to us for food?
Which part are we supposed to believe?

Baaaack on track ... Personally, I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, though there are several misunderstandings. Some, like this one, are fairly easy to clear up, and others are rather difficult and require more time (like waiting until we discovered the Earth was round for some verses to make sense).

In this, only at the very beginning does God talk about eating only plants. After the flood, the situation had (understandably) changed. This is when God said it was stage 2. Just as He gave the plants before, now He gave them everything for food.

Is that a contradiction or just a second stage in the plan? Just like animal sacrifices used to be part of the plan, then Jesus came and instituted a new plan. One led to the fulfillment of the other.

If you create some matrix-like system for them sure. However their are many other causes of suffering such as the fact most aminals are raised in horrid conditions often without enough room to move. The fact is in any industrial system you are going to have tremendous suffering.

By the way if I keep you incapacitated is it OK to kill you?

Why not? If an animal's suffering is confined to expressions in its central nervous system, which is still merely the expression of electric pulses, easily recreated in a machine, then by your logic if you suppress the central nervous system, the animal can no longer suffer.

concerning the Bible and vegetarianism, what really grills my tofu are the carnivores who say
"but Jesus ate meat"
:rolleyes:
Jesus walked on water. Jesus accepted crucifiction.Can you do these things?

By the way if I keep you incapacitated is it OK to kill you?
No, because I do not base my right to live on my central nervous system.

You are talking reactions to stimuli. i am talking suffering. Example a thermstat reacts to stimuli. it does not suffer. If someone pours acid on your hand you would suffer. And while I certainly am in favor of better means of stunning. not all animals are stunned under our current system due to the speed at which slaughterhouses operate. Howver it does not in and of itself resolve the problem.

All pain amounts to is a system of informing the individual they are damaged or taking damage and should try to do something to remedy that and allow for healing. Whether or not it requires a nervous system is moot.

concerning the Bible and vegetarianism, what really grills my tofu are the carnivores who say
"but Jesus ate meat"
:rolleyes:
Jesus walked on water. Jesus accepted crucifiction.Can you do these things?

With enough preparation and some suicidal thoughts I can.

Jesus walked on water. Jesus accepted crucifiction.Can you do these things?


If we had the faith of Christ, then yes, we could.

Well you are closer to cows, pigs etc as far as this and other qualities are concerned then they are to bacteria. Something you may want to consider.

No, because I do not base my right to live on my central nervous system.

Believe in yourselves and the possibilities for a better future. Ehricia ;)

concerning the Bible and vegetarianism, what really grills my tofu are the carnivores who say
"but Jesus ate meat"
:rolleyes:
Jesus walked on water. Jesus accepted crucifiction.Can you do these things?

Erm ... ok. How about, so did the twelve disciples, samual, samson, david, noah, job, and just about everyone else in the Bible after Noah and his family.

Does that work?

Well you are closer to cows, pigs etc as far as this and other qualities are concerned then they are to bacteria. Something you may want to consider.
On the cellular level, we're practically identical. But that's not the point, I base the right to life on Genesis, not on science. Which is what this thread is about.

The thread was about vegetarianism and i was replying to the point about animals ability to suffer being the same as bacteria.

On the cellular level, we're practically identical. But that's not the point, I base the right to life on Genesis, not on science. Which is what this thread is about.

The thread was about vegetarianism and i was replying to the point about animals ability to suffer being the same as bacteria.
It was based on vegetarianism in the Bible, which is unambiguous in its allowed for eating meat. Suffering is a mechanical process that all life exhibits.

Doesn't the bible allow slavery as well?

It was based on vegetarianism in the Bible, which is unambiguous in its allowed for eating meat. Suffering is a mechanical process that all life exhibits.

Doesn't the bible allow slavery as well?

Yes, but a more humane form than what popped up when Europe went colonial. Not all forms of slavery were bad.

Doesn't the bible allow slavery as well?
And that has everything to do with the price of tea in China.
Vegetarianism in the Bible

But I'll indulge you, yes it does, but only if you capture them in war.

Good slavery don't buy it.

And if you are going to base things on the bible then every section is relevent.....

Not to mention their are vegetarian Christian groups....

And that has everything to do with the price of tea in China.

Good slavery don't buy it.

And if you are going to base things on the bible then every section is relevent.....

Not to mention their are vegetarian Christian groups....

Never said any were good. There is a middle ground.

Good slavery don't buy it.
Prisoners are slaves to the state. Slavery still exists in America, just not in its disgusting 1800's form.

And if you are going to base things on the bible then every section is relevent.....
Relevant to life yes, to the vegetarian debate, no.

Not to mention their are vegetarian Christian groups....
Yes, and there are Christian groups who say Christ was just a mortal man, that Paul was a woman, or that we're in the Second Kingdom. There are Jews for Jesus. There are Satanists. There's a lot of beliefs, but what does that have to do with VEGETARIANISM IN THE BIBLE.

No matter how much you try to whitewash things the bible did support slavery and was pretty brutal including beating a slave up to the point of death. Not to mention other things. As for the Christian groups if one wants to use the compassion of Jesus to promote compassion to animals good for them. Calling anyone who disagrees with you satanists is absurd.

Prisoners are slaves to the state. Slavery still exists in America, just not in its disgusting 1800's form.


Relevant to life yes, to the vegetarian debate, no.


Yes, and there are Christian groups who say Christ was just a mortal man, that Paul was a woman, or that we're in the Second Kingdom. There are Jews for Jesus. There are Satanists. There's a lot of beliefs, but what does that have to do with VEGETARIANISM IN THE BIBLE.

No matter how much you try to whitewash things the bible did support slavery and was pretty brutal including beating a slave up to the point of death. Not to mention other things. As for the Christian groups if one wants to use the compassion of Jesus to promote compassion to animals good for them. Calling anyone who disagrees with you satanists is absurd.
1) Slavery has nothing to do with vegetarianism in the Bible, spammer
2) It doesn't matter what group X believes if -X is true, same for any and everything
3) I'm saying Satanists exist, just as Christians who use wrong doctrine exist. The difference is that one group is willfully wrong and the other is ignorant.

How often does the Bible contradict itself?

13,472 times.

Now ask me how often a Christian contradicts their Bible.

It does say humans have dominion over all the earth.

No it doesn't. You've mistranslated.

How often does the Bible contradict itself?
In some parts of the Bible it says that people were made to be vegetarians and in others it says that God gave animals to us for food?
Which part are we supposed to believe?

True that origionally we were supposed to be vegetarians:

Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, ... (Gen. 2:16)

After the Flood things change a little

You may eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Gen. 9:3)

but there was a restriction

But you must not eat flesh with its life (that is, its blood) in it.

Therefore, Noah and his sons were given the right to eat both plants and animals (assuming the animal is dead first) while those before were only given the right to plants.

No it doesn't. You've mistranslated.
How so?

Does a plant feel the scyth taking its life, does it scream in pain as we murder it? NO. An animal does.

An animal does not scream, nor does it feel anything, if it is properly butchered in accordance with Kashrut law. Animal cruelty is one of the worst sins again God in Torah and, therefore, laws were enacted to make sure animals that could be eaten were humanely butchered.


Read Leviticus.

How so?

It doesn't give us "dominion" ... the passage you're referring to appoints us as caregivers. We are to live here and take care of the place, but never forget that we didn't create it, we don't own it, we can't take it with us when we die, and we damn well better do a good job of taking care of it.

"Dominion" is used to imply that we can go off willy nilly killing anything we like, eating anything we like, poisoning the water, polluting the air, clear-cutting rain forests, and every other horrible thing we do to the place.

If we had "dominion", there wouldn't then be set up 613 laws in Torah on how we're supposed to live, breathe, eat, sleep, dream, treat each other, treat the soil, treat the water, treat the plants, treat the animals .... "dominion" means control ... which we do not have and never will.

It doesn't give us "dominion" ... the passage you're referring to appoints us as caregivers. We are to live here and take care of the place, but never forget that we didn't create it, we don't own it, we can't take it with us when we die, and we damn well better do a good job of taking care of it.

"Dominion" is used to imply that we can go off willy nilly killing anything we like, eating anything we like, poisoning the water, polluting the air, clear-cutting rain forests, and every other horrible thing we do to the place.

If we had "dominion", there wouldn't then be set up 613 laws in Torah on how we're supposed to live, breathe, eat, sleep, dream, treat each other, treat the soil, treat the water, treat the plants, treat the animals .... "dominion" means control ... which we do not have and never will.

I'm just curious how this all applies to vegeterianism in the Bible ... and what the possible arguments could be. I mean, it /does/ say pretty plainly that after Noah we are given the animals to eat ... I don't remember that law being rescinded.

I'm just curious how this all applies to vegeterianism in the Bible ...

It does and it doesn't.

It does because using the "dominion" argument to justify eating meat Biblically shows a lack of understanding of the Hebrew text of Torah.

It doesn't because the first three chapters of Genesis, which covers Creation to Banishment, do not cover dietary laws.

Mostly I was clarifying a point.

Does a plant feel the scyth taking its life, does it scream in pain as we murder it? NO. An animal does.

Actually... yes it does.... plants do react.... their reaction is generally chemical.... but it does react to threats to itself and its kind.

Eating meat is allowed by the Bible, if it is slaughtered properly: that is, if the animal is killed in such a way as to minimise the pain caused to it.
By the way, all you Christians that eat meat, is it kosher? I know that most of the 613 mitzvot in the Torah were rescinded by Jesus (the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath etc), but the early church said to the Gentile believers that "the Holy Spirit and we have decided not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood (kosher slaughtering and preparation drains as much blood from an animal as possible); eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality." Acts 15: 28-9.
Equally, it says nowhere in the Bible that believers must eat meat. Christians can choose to make a moral decision not to eat meat (as I do). Life is, after all, sacred. Although animal life is not seen to be of equal value to human life and animals are not created in the image of God, humans are responsible for them as stewards of God's creation, and so to kill them unnecessarily and subject them to undue suffering is certainly of questionable morality. As beings created in the image of God, we have the capacity to think for ourselves and make our own ethical decisions.