Were humans originally intended to eat animals?

[Josh]

Elsewhere, Moritz wrote:

The question of whether it really is immoral to kill or eat animals comes first. Biblically we have an open and shut case: Not only does God require the killing of animals to his honor, but the Bible also instructs us in detail which animals we are allowed to eat and kill and which not. It is explicit in saying who is made in the image of God and hence of bigger value. So where does this moral notion come from?


To which I responded:

This one you're gonna hate me for, but please bear with me:

Actually, according to the Bible, mankind was originally not intended to eat meat:

Genesis 1: 28-29

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

It was only later, after the Fall of Man, that God allowed humans to eat meat:

Genesis 9:1-4
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.


This appears to have been a concession for pragmatic reasons- a lesser evil for the survival of man in a fallen state. But notice the emphasis in verse 4 on the blood, which is most likely a reference to the preciousness of life- even animal life.

And though man alone is said to be created in the image of God, the higher animals are spoken of a "soulish creatures" in Hebrew, indicating a progressive gradation from the lowest animals to the highest in terms of their likeness to their Creator. (higher animals/ soulish creatures have emotions, for instance)

There is something about the killing of animal that doesn't sit right with humans- especially children who kill an animal for the first time because God never intended humans to kill animals. However, at many times in our history the killing of animals has been necessary for survival, so it has been chosen/ allowed as a lesser evil. Cultures who are dependent on animal meat have done a thorough job inculcating to each generation the necessity of an animal diet so there is minimal (though lingering) moral resistence to the practice. Cultures who are not dependent on animal meat are slowly but increasingly re-awakening to their original intended sense that they were not originally created to kill animals.

To which he responded:

Of course I don’t hate you for this (as you know, I believe one can get everything one likes out of the Bible). But I have to say that your argument here reads a lot like a shoot from the hip. I’m wondering if you mean what you are saying or if you are just throwing a thought out there for discussion. Either way, there is good theology and there is bad theology (as Steve informed me ): your proposition 6 has to be dismissed for various reasons (I don’t even know where to start):

Let’s begin chronologically:

1. The moral issue here is first and foremost the killing of animals. Your proposition 6 is incoherent in this regard: You are making a point about consumption and then all of a sudden you jump to killing which is a different story. So before we discuss the eating, we have to discuss the killing.

I hold on to my declaration that we are having a biblically open and shut case: God explicitly demands the sacrifice of animals to his honor. He even prefers Abel’s sacrifice of cattle over Cain’s sacrifice of fruits. What has this to do with the Fall? What does God gain? If it really was his original intention to spare animals, he would have rejected the blood sacrifice. And this is only one example of dozens. In any event, if God’s moral rules were universal, the Fall wouldn’t have changed the deal: What was evil before the Fall remains evil after the Fall. Conditions changed for humans but not for God.

2. God put humans over animals from the beginning and he authorized humans to reign over animals (he did so before and after the fall), which gives humans some sort of carte blanche when it comes to the killing of animals (this argument is of lesser force). What follows is…

3. If God had intended animals not to be killed by humans, he would have said so explicitly - just like he explicitly said that humans may not kill other humans (Gen 9:5-6).

Now on to the eating of animals:

4. You pulled Genesis 9:1-4 out of context: The flood is over. After having destroyed all breathing creatures apart from his chosen ones, God starts a new covenant with Noah, who was faithful. In this light, the permission to eat meat is rather a reward, a bonus, than a concession. God almighty has no need to resort into pragmatic concessions. The Sermon on the Mount teaches us that ends don’t justify means.

5. If he had wanted men to be vegetarians, he would have built us with a digestive system that is unable to cope with meat, like he supposedly did with all the ruminants (and furthermore he would have given us a digestive system that tolerates more plants than we can actually eat) .

6. If God miraculously floods the earth, he is also able to miraculously provide enough plants for humans to survive. After all, there are numerous creatures that made it from the beginning as far as today relying solely on plants (among them even many kinds of monkeys). Our close evolutionary relatives, the gorillas, are almost entirely vegetarians (unlike chimps).

7. If the permission to eat animals had had anything to do with the Fall and the pragmatic necessity to deal with death, then God would have given the permission to Cain and Abel, the first born mortals (after all, God considered Abel to be righteous, Heb 11:4).

8. Proposition 6 rests entirely on mere speculation. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the Fall. The fallacy of circular reasoning applies.

Side comment: The entire story of the Fall is incoherent. But that’s not to be discussed now.


I have absolutely no moral itching when it comes to eating a steak or buying meat in the supermarket. In fact, I eat more meat than is supposedly healthy, according to the latest data. My mother, who is against hunting and tried her best to talk me out of getting that license, consumes just as much meat. She is probably responsible for my high consumption of meat as she provided meat-meals pretty much on a daily basis. That’s the paradox I described earlier. And it is also evidence for my points as it illustrates that the bad conscience depends very much on the way you have been conditioned. If you are used to eating meat, you don’t question it. If you are used to killing animals (hunters, farmers, maybe butchers) you don’t question that either. It’s when you are not used to do one of these things that you start thinking about it. And it’s when you are being accused and rejected by other social beings that you start feeling bad about it.

[Josh]

This is going to be a great thread and probably one a lot of Christians might be interested in. I hope to respond soon.

[Josh]

Of course I don’t hate you for this (as you know, I believe one can get everything one likes out of the Bible). But I have to say that your argument here reads a lot like a shoot from the hip. I’m wondering if you mean what you are saying or if you are just throwing a thought out there for discussion. Either way, there is good theology and there is bad theology (as Steve informed me ): your proposition 6 has to be dismissed for various reasons (I don’t even know where to start):

The fact that you're going to attempt to give me a rational rebuttal undermines your "one can get everything one likes out the bible". It is reason and hermeneutics that helps us compare the good theology from the bad. I'm glad Steve is rubbing off on you a little even if I'm not

The moral issue here is first and foremost the killing of animals. Your proposition 6 is incoherent in this regard: You are making a point about consumption and then all of a sudden you jump to killing which is a different story. So before we discuss the eating, we have to discuss the killing.

I hold on to my declaration that we are having a biblically open and shut case: God explicitly demands the sacrifice of animals to his honor. He even prefers Abel’s sacrifice of cattle over Cain’s sacrifice of fruits. What has this to do with the Fall? What does God gain? If it really was his original intention to spare animals, he would have rejected the blood sacrifice. And this is only one example of dozens. In any event, if God’s moral rules were universal, the Fall wouldn’t have changed the deal: What was evil before the Fall remains evil after the Fall. Conditions changed for humans but not for God.

Let me explain how the killing of animals and the eating of animals are related, and also what the killing of animals by humans has to do with the fall.

I believe the bible strongly insinuates that man was not to eat animals at first based on the verses I cited above (what else would you make of them?)

After the Fall, mankind's sin broke the perfect relationship between man and God and man and God's creation. The penalty for this was death (we've discussed the ins and outs of this elsewhere, but for the sake of the argument, you can assent that at least this is a biblical doctrine, that the "wages of sin is death"). God all along knew that He Himself would take on these wages on behalf of man- an innocent victim. So he set up the sacrificial system- in which something innocent and without blemish dies for the sins and failures of mankind- to point to God's own eventual self-sacrifice. From the start, right after the Fall of man, humans would know that sin was costly- that it not only marred us, but innocent things around us.

Mankind's sin now reached beyond himself and cost something of the good creation around him.

As an important aside, it's almost certain that God himself created animals to be mortal and many to be carnivorous originally, so it's not their death itself that is a problem (although I think in the end God will do away with all death). I just think that God originally created humans to be above carnivorous activity.

But when God granted us to act as carnivores (omnivores), it wasn't a sin, it was a less than ideal concession fit for the circumstances.

2. God put humans over animals from the beginning and he authorized humans to reign over animals (he did so before and after the fall), which gives humans some sort of carte blanche when it comes to the killing of animals (this argument is of lesser force). What follows is…

Why do you suppose that God's authorization of man to reign over the world was a carte blanche delegation of power? There is no reason to suppose it was anything but an assignment to be caretakers for the betterment of the world.

3. If God had intended animals not to be killed by humans, he would have said so explicitly - just like he explicitly said that humans may not kill other humans (Gen 9:5-6

Then why does he say in Genesis 9 that they may now eat animals?

9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4. You pulled Genesis 9:1-4 out of context: The flood is over. After having destroyed all breathing creatures apart from his chosen ones, God starts a new covenant with Noah, who was faithful. In this light, the permission to eat meat is rather a reward, a bonus, than a concession.

No doubt Noah thought it was a bonus! It would make life a lot more simpler- it would be easier to survive. But I think from God's perspective it was a concession, or else he would have originally allowed humans to eat animals.

God almighty has no need to resort into pragmatic concessions.

I completely disagree. God works within his own self- limitations all the time.

The Sermon on the Mount teaches us that ends don’t justify means.

Again, I don't think the killing of animals by humans for sustenance is an evil, morally culpable act*, it is just a negative result of the Fall. So it is a justifiable but less than ideal means.

5. If he had wanted men to be vegetarians, he would have built us with a digestive system that is unable to cope with meat, like he supposedly did with all the ruminants (and furthermore he would have given us a digestive system that tolerates more plants than we can actually eat)

Perhaps Adam and Eve had access to the right kinds of plants for a healthy vegetarian diet? Perhaps there was a change in our constitution? Admittedly, this is a difficultly.

6. If God miraculously floods the earth, he is also able to miraculously provide enough plants for humans to survive. After all, there are numerous creatures that made it from the beginning as far as today relying solely on plants (among them even many kinds of monkeys). Our close evolutionary relatives, the gorillas, are almost entirely vegetarians (unlike chimps

First off, I'm pretty firmly in the camp that the Flood was an amazingly timed naturally explainable event. But in any case, yes, God could have done so, but I think you're failing to see the spiritual, symbolic significance of the death of animals due to sin. God willed that we would see the cost and consequences of our sin in pointing toward His ultimate sacrfice for us.

7. If the permission to eat animals had had anything to do with the Fall and the pragmatic necessity to deal with death, then God would have given the permission to Cain and Abel, the first born mortals (after all, God considered Abel to be righteous, Heb 11:4).

In other words this could be posed as the question of why God would wait until after the Flood, rather than immediately after the Fall, to allow the consumption of animals?

Here's my take. Before the Flood, mankind still seems to have enjoyed certain benefits. Though they had been kicked out of the garden, it seems to have been a golden age of artistry, creative activity, longer life spans (though I have some differences of opinion on that subject than most Christians), and closer interactions with the spirit world*. That period ended with mankind falling more and more into debauchery to the point where God brought the Flood, in effect, starting over. And the world after the Flood seems to have been a much harsher place for the explicit purpose of limiting evil (shorter life spans, humanity more spread out, less contact with spiritual realities). So the concession of eating meat for survival at that times seems reasonable.

However, the connection between the Fall and the death of animals for sacrifices was inaugurated immediately at the Fall of Man, with God himself performing the first "sacrifice" (Gen. 3:21).

*This is also found in many pagan mythologies, most notably the Greek ideas of the descending ages of man.

Proposition 6 rests entirely on mere speculation. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the Fall. The fallacy of circular reasoning applies.

Are you kidding? Almost every ancient origin myth documents it in suprising similarity.

I have absolutely no moral itching when it comes to eating a steak or buying meat in the supermarket. In fact, I eat more meat than is supposedly healthy, according to the latest data. My mother, who is against hunting and tried her best to talk me out of getting that license, consumes just as much meat. She is probably responsible for my high consumption of meat as she provided meat-meals pretty much on a daily basis. That’s the paradox I described earlier. And it is also evidence for my points as it illustrates that the bad conscience depends very much on the way you have been conditioned. If you are used to eating meat, you don’t question it. If you are used to killing animals (hunters, farmers, maybe butchers) you don’t question that either. It’s when you are not used to do one of these things that you start thinking about it. And it’s when you are being accused and rejected by other social beings that you start feeling bad about i

A personal reaction:

Feeling bad about something merely because of social opposition is really something to be fought against. If that's the only reason you feel bad about eating meat, then I'd say go right ahead! And hunt too!

It is far better to do something based on your own thought-out moral convictions than on a feeling you get from the pressure of the zeitgeist.

I'm curious- do you have moral qualms about cruel treatment of animals in the meat industry?











*though I believe the manner in which an animal is killed may very well be.

[moritz]

I’m not interested in debating the question of whether humans were intended to eat meat before the Fall or not. Mainly because it doesn’t answer the question of whether eating meat is immoral or sub-optimal or whatever. If you buy a Christmas present for your son, he is not intended to see or receive it before Christmas day, right? Can we conclude that the present is a concession? No. In other words: not being intended to do something or get something is not necessarily a permanent state. The reasons for God’s decision to allow vegetarian food first and to add meat later, are totally in the dark.

This is the only thing I will write on this thread. I will reply to your last post in the other thread, where it belongs.

[moritz]

bump

[Josh]

Nov 15, 2010 8:30:34 GMT -8 moritz said:

I’m not interested in debating the question of whether humans were intended to eat meat before the Fall or not. Mainly because it doesn’t answer the question of whether eating meat is immoral or sub-optimal or whatever. If you buy a Christmas present for your son, he is not intended to see or receive it before Christmas day, right? Can we conclude that the present is a concession? No. In other words: not being intended to do something or get something is not necessarily a permanent state. The reasons for God’s decision to allow vegetarian food first and to add meat later, are totally in the dark.

This is the only thing I will write on this thread. I will reply to your last post in the other thread, where it belongs.

It was a concession in the sense that in man's original condition in the Garden (which was his optimal condition) it was best to not eat meat. It apparently was even the optimal condition from the Fall to the Flood. But due to the deterioration of humanity, by the time of the Flood our vegetarianism was no longer the greater of two negatives.

Here's a crude analogy:

Let's say I require my son to finish his vegetables at the dinner table because I know they are good for him. But later I find out that my son is allergic to carrots. This is a less than ideal/ sub-optimal state that requires me to make a concession to the original rule- now my son will not have to eat carrots if they are served.

Not eating carrots is not the best possible situation. Carrots are healthy- ideally he should be able to benefit from them, but because of his condition it's not a viable option anymore.

That's fine if you don't want to tease out the details of this subject. I realize it's about fine points of biblical interpretation and theology which aren't really your main interests here. Maybe others who are into this sort of thing you want to chime in on this topic.

[asaph]

I was raised on a flesh-food diet. I now eat a plant-based diet. I have done so for thirty-six years now. The reasons are fairly simple.

The first diet given to man, actually all animals, when everything was "good," was a plant-based diet, as Josh points out;

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat [food]. Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Humans, in fact, having 26 feet of intestines for a digestive system, do not handle flesh anywhere near as well as plants for food. So much research and many books have been written on that subject it is basically uncontested in medical science. Carnivores have shorter, faster systems, as well as teeth designed for tearing flesh; something God, in His ultimate wisdom of knowing the end from the beginning, gave to creatures He knew would be subject to change as a result of man's sin (which can never really be removed from any discussion on any subject). The carnivore takes flesh in and moves flesh out quickly. Not humans. Rarely will any vegetarian eating a balanced, plant-based diet, drinking proper amounts of water, suffer from constipation. Flesh eaters, not so much. What an animal is, inside, in its its blood system, is what humans take in for nutrition. The possibility, if not probability today, of disease, is fairly rampant. The human's body systems function so much better on plant protein than animal it is testimony to God's creative wisdom.

Aside from Scripture the medical science behind all this is so profuse it becomes obnoxious to our beings not to eat a plant-based diet.

Add to that the knowledge that in heaven there is no killing, no eating animals, no fast food burgers, etc. The tree of life sustains the redeemed forever. I believe I should just get with the program now and stay clear of the problems associated with a flesh-food diet.

The purpose of food, nutrition, is to make good blood for body systems to function optimally. After six thousand years of sin there are certainly cases where man has fewer choices, or has defects in their systems which may require consumption of animal flesh for food.

It is without logic to question the obvious nature of the Creator's concession to allow humans to eat animals for food after the flood, with vegetation wiped out, yet even then the prohibition against eating "unclean" animals went into effect. Noah knew what an unclean creature was. Unclean creatures are not called "food" in the Bible. man may call it food. God never does. Unclean creatures are unfit for food, for all kinds of reasons. And no blood could be consumed, for life is in the blood. As Josh points out there is the obvious spiritual implication but, also the physical, nutritional implications, as well, in understanding the nature of blood, what it is and what it does. God said, plainly, no blood. So intrinsic was that positive command an Israelite could be banished for consuming it. How serious does God have to get to convince people He means what He says? How many professed believers who are flesh eaters consider this prohibition? Not many. Have mercy, the food channels propagate the eating of beef which looks like it barely felt the heat of a match, let alone an oven.

Life is in the blood but, so is disease. Eat blood, risk disease, at the very least, and risk the penalty of God, ultimately, where ignorance is no excuse.

I confess I am not totally certain what the specific nature of this thread is about, based on the OP. Is it immoral to kill and eat animals for food? Where does that notion arise from?

"The reasons for God’s decision to allow vegetarian food first and to add meat later, are totally in the dark." Moritz

I believe that is untrue. First, God did not allow a plant based diet. He created and commanded it. Secondly, logic decrees that after the flood issues of re-establishing daily life and a planting season and harvest were unrealistic so God allowed for animal flesh to be eaten as food, which logically established the reason so many clean creatures were taken aboard the ark. Seven allowed for a sacrifice and three pairs left to propagate the species.

It may also be noticed the lifespans of man shortened exponentially after the flood. Did the new diet contribute to that; that God allowed something which would keep men from perpetuating sin for centuries of lifetime? You cannot live for 900 years eating things which weaken body systems, as a flesh-food regimen will.

Some would say, But look at weight lifters, body builders who eat tons of meat for more protein." The fact is the largest and strongest creatures on earth are vegetarian. All beasts of burden are vegetarian. And nobody seems interested in the health problems body builders may have when they stop competing and age. Kidneys especially, take a beating but, other issues arise, as well. Besides, today's body builders are closer to being freaks of nature than naturally proportioned, owing to substances they take in besides normal food to enhance muscle development.