Eaters of Meat

alexanderjames

alexanderjames

Puritan Board Sophomore
(A search of the Board has returned a few past results around the subject but not a great deal.)

I have eaten meat all my life, and yet only began to think about it in any depth a couple of years ago, and have since become more conscious of the way animals (especially those for slaughter) are treated.

The Genesis account suggests that mankind was created as eaters of the plants that God gave us - Genesis 1:29
And that following the Fall, death and the curse entered the world, we became carnivorous - c.f. Genesis 4:4, Genesis 9:2

What are your thoughts on this? Why did we become meat and fish eaters?
 
Last edited:
Okay, well I am going to make an assumption here, but I would say that the descendants of Adam who remained faithful to God probably only did eat plants as God had not given them the okay to eat meat until Genesis 9. Just an assumption, don't rail me on it.

"A Regulative Principle of Diet"

But in the meantime, others who did what they wanted probably smelled the good aroma from the sacrifices and wanted to eat meat for themselves. But other animals were also doing it, so why not?
 
Whatever the reasons post fall, I don't think we should question eating meat.
Acts 10:13
Luke 24:42
 
Last edited:
I once questioned this, too (now I am a beef farmer) - I don't have answers so much as I have comments (numbered for sake of reference, nothing else):
  1. You first have to start with the old question of whether or not animals died before sin entered the world - for those who hold that they did, their death cannot then be part of the curse.
  2. Genesis 4.4 may not be referring to killing animals for food as I believe the Hebrew translated for "fat" could mean "best of" - but there are Hebrew scholars on PB who could speak more authoritatively on that. Abel could have been keeping sheep (v.2) for fiber and milk.
  3. It seems there is no allowance for killing animals for food until Genesis 9.3: "Everything that moveth and liveth, shall be meat for you: as the green herb, have I given you all things."
  4. Sin and the curse of sin created many imbalances in the created world, and one aspect of Genesis 9.3, coupled with the dominion mandate in Genesis 1, seems to be to try to rebalance things - hunting and domestication of animals for food would fit that mandate.
  5. It would seem from Genesis 1.30 that all animals were herbivores prior to the Fall: "Likewise to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heaven, and to everything that moveth upon the earth, which hath life in itself, every green herb shall be for meat, and it was so."
  6. That there was a command to kill and eat animals under the Mosaic law must prove that killing and eating animals is morally acceptable as God cannot command or approve of sin. But there is no longer any such command in force (such as the eating of the Passover lamb).
  7. How we raise animals for food affects both their health and ours. Their health and ours is still a moral obligation going back to Genesis 1.
  8. If you are going to object to killing and eating animals on the basis of taking a life, where do you draw the line? What's an animal? What's a plant? Aren't both living before we kill them and eat them? The only consistent (extrabilblically) moral way to eat without killing life is to be a fruitarian (eating only what is not living - dropped fruits and nuts, for example) - but even this is truly impossible under a microscope.
 
I may be weird, though I will, in thanksgiving, eat just about everything; I will not eat foods made directly from blood; like blood sausage. Of what I understand with rare meat, it isnt blood that is consumed.
 
Last edited:
There are all sorts of diets and these days. I tell people I follow the Abraham diet: meat and bread.
 
I've been thinking about this a bit as I've cut down on the amount of meat that I eat for health reasons. When I do eat meat, it is primarily fish.

Certainly we do see the pre-fall condition of not eating meat, and it being sufficient. I don't think it's a coincidence that the originator of modern young earth creationism also advocated for a vegetarian diet (Ellen G. White and her followers) because of the seriousness of seeing the literalness of that portion of Scripture. But of course we see that meat was permitted at least by Noah's day if not earlier, regulated in the Law of Moses, and now we know that all meats are lawful in the new covenant. Jesus even ate fish post-resurrection.

I do think in many ways we eat too much meat today. The Law of Moses regulated the way in which animals were treated, and many of our practices today show very little regard for the health of the animal. In turning meat into a cheap, everyday commodity the health of the animals suffers, and the end product is less healthy for us. Furthermore, in many cultures (and to some extent, in the Bible), meat is something primarily consumed around festive times, and other times is not eaten as much or is made to last longer.

Now of course there is the question of how to define meat. Roman Catholics don't count fish as meat, and certainly for civilizations near plentiful fishing spots fish was more commonly eaten than other animals. I haven't actually studied this topic biblically but I would like to spend more time here. There is certainly I Corinthians 15:39.

Another thought I have is that we have the wealth of the whole world of plants available to us today, especially in the West. While we may not be in the Garden of Eden, we have a variety of nutritious plants available that give us a much more complete nutrition. By God's providence, I can eat a rich variety of plants which make it easier than in many times and places in human history to get the nutrients we need from plants.

I think ultimately what we eat is a matter of Christian liberty, but I think it's worth considering.
 
Northern Crofter said:
  1. If you are going to object to killing and eating animals on the basis of taking a life, where do you draw the line? What's an animal? What's a plant? Aren't both living before we kill them and eat them? The only consistent (extrabilblically) moral way to eat without killing life is to be a fruitarian (eating only what is not living - dropped fruits and nuts, for example) - but even this is truly impossible under a microscope.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the Biblical definition of life includes plants, even that is how modern biology classifies life. Looking at Genesis 1 for example, plants are created on day three and (broadly) animals on days five and six. I do not think using biblical categories we would say that harvesting a potato is taking life for example.

The only moral system I know of that tries to do something somewhat similar to what you're describing is Jainism, which as I understand it tries to distinguish between ways of harvesting plants which kill the plant versus do not kill the plant.
 
I agree it seems humans were originally vegetarians. I also agree that animals we eat are generally treated very poorly. I was a vegetarian for 3 years.

I got pretty sick and changed my diet in hopes that eating meat again would contribute to me getting better. After that I never really looked back. I guess it's kind of "out of sight, out of mind." But I do think animals deserve far better treatment.
 
davejonescue said:
I may be weird... I will not eat foods... like blood sausage.
Click to expand...
That is weird :) - I cannot imagine living a fulfilled life without the occasional black pudding. Hard to find in the US but I have found a butcher en route (kinda) to my daughter's residence who makes a fine one!
davejonescue said:
Of what I understand with rare meat, it isnt blood that is consumed.
Click to expand...
This is true - there is barely a trace of blood in red meat. The animal is bled out immediately and completely after it is killed. The watery red stuff you associate with raw meat is mostly water mixed with myoglobin (a protein from muscle tissue breaking down as meat ages).
Jake said:
as I've cut down on the amount of meat that I eat for health reasons. When I do eat meat, it is primarily fish.
Click to expand...
Beware the high mercury content of fish, and consider what farmed fish are being fed.
Jake said:
Another thought I have is that we have the wealth of the whole world of plants available to us today, especially in the West. While we may not be in the Garden of Eden, we have a variety of nutritious plants available that give us a much more complete nutrition. By God's providence, I can eat a rich variety of plants which make it easier than in many times and places in human history to get the nutrients we need from plants.
Click to expand...
True. But there are many plants that humans cannot consume that animals can. Animals do an incredible job converting plants we cannot make use of for food into protein that we can. There are certain vitamins and minerals abundant in the flesh of animals that are found scarcely in few plants. I question whether there would be enough proteins and minerals available if all of humanity switched to an exclusively vegetarian diet
Jake said:
I'm not sure that the Biblical definition of life includes plants,
Click to expand...
What is the Biblical definition of "life"? :worms:
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
But I do think animals deserve far better treatment.
Click to expand...
As a farmer, I appreciate hearing many of you say this. My farm reflects my faith and customers notice. They may not agree with my faith, but they seem to appreciate that there is a morality behind their meat. My concern is that most everyone agrees that animals should be treated better, but most (certainly in the US) are addicted (financially, if not in other ways) to cheap food and aren't willing to seek out conscientious farmers and/or pay the higher price of "slow food." My beef and poultry aren't cheap, but I know I could get a lot more for them. But I genuinely enjoy producing food that is healthy for the animal, the land, and the consumer, and I consider it a privilege to be able to do so, so I don't need to get rich from what I do. All that glitters is not gold.
 
alexanderjames said:
and have since become more conscious of the way animals (especially those for slaughter) are treated.
Click to expand...
Maybe eat raw oysters for your protein? No one has slaughtered them before you eat them. They are alive and happy when they get to your plate.
 
Northern Crofter said:
As a farmer, I appreciate hearing many of you say this. My farm reflects my faith and customers notice. They may not agree with my faith, but they seem to appreciate that there is a morality behind their meat. My concern is that most everyone agrees that animals should be treated better, but most (certainly in the US) are addicted (financially, if not in other ways) to cheap food and aren't willing to seek out conscientious farmers and/or pay the higher price of "slow food." My beef and poultry aren't cheap, but I know I could get a lot more for them. But I genuinely enjoy producing food that is healthy for the animal, the land, and the consumer, and I consider it a privilege to be able to do so, so I don't need to get rich from what I do. All that glitters is not gold.
Click to expand...

I have heard this reasoning before and I do appreciate the merits of it. I think it's helpful to put in a reminder that "cheap food" is a historically unprecedented blessing and many people don't have the financial luxury of intentionally seeking to raise the cost of their food. Modern mass-produced food is not an evil; it's an amazing good that (like everything else in a fallen world) has downsides and trade-offs. There's a term for a society that's not "addicted to cheap food": subsistence economy.
 
LittleFaith said:
I have heard this reasoning before and I do appreciate the merits of it. I think it's helpful to put in a reminder that "cheap food" is a historically unprecedented blessing and many people don't have the financial luxury of intentionally seeking to raise the cost of their food. Modern mass-produced food is not an evil; it's an amazing good that (like everything else in a fallen world) has downsides and trade-offs. There's a term for a society that's not "addicted to cheap food": subsistence economy.
Click to expand...
One word. McChicken.
 
davejonescue said:
I may be weird, though I will, in thanksgiving, eat just about everything; I will not eat foods made directly from blood; like blood sausage. Of what I understand with rare meat, it isnt blood that is consumed.
Click to expand...
So this is what I have considered not so long ago. Is there, for us, a NT prohibition to the eating of blood? Acts 15:20.
Is it on account of the fact that the life is in the blood? Lev 17:11. Obviously not being under Levitical law, and that God pronounced all foods clean, but is Paul’s prohibition here for us to follow? For this consideration I have not eaten of the black pudd. However it is very good.
 
LittleFaith said:
I think it's helpful to put in a reminder that "cheap food" is a historically unprecedented blessing and many people don't have the financial luxury of intentionally seeking to raise the cost of their food. Modern mass-produced food is not an evil; it's an amazing good that (like everything else in a fallen world) has downsides and trade-offs.
Click to expand...
I don't want to derail the thread, but such statements do not take into consideration the true cost of cheap/fast food (by cheap/fast I am referring to production) - especially on health and the environment.
 
Northern Crofter said:
I don't want to derail the thread, but such statements do not take into consideration the true cost of cheap/fast food (by cheap/fast I am referring to production) - especially on health and the environment.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. I don't deny that there are downsides and trade-offs, just as with all the other advances of modernity. I believe it's a net good and I believe global population figures and lifespans bear out that assertion.
 
Mankind needs meat. The protein from one single 8 oz steak is far greater than bushels of veggies. The Lord designed man for meat eating. Are we "true carnivores"? No. Why? Because we will not hunt down animals and devour them raw with our mouths then and there.
 
Shadow Forge said:
Mankind needs meat. The protein from one single 8 oz steak is far greater than bushels of veggies. The Lord designed man for meat eating. Are we "true carnivores"? No. Why? Because we will not hunt down animals and devour them raw with our mouths then and there.
Click to expand...
So my question (actually the initial intention of the thread) is why might God have made us this way?
 
LittleFaith said:
Yes they do. I don't deny that there are downsides and trade-offs, just as with all the other advances of modernity. I believe it's a net good and I believe global population figures and lifespans bear out that assertion.
Click to expand...
Life spans in the U.S. are falling: "U.S. life expectancy has declined to 76.4 years, the shortest it’s been in nearly two decades." And it is not attributed to Covid: "...much of the problem stems from the way the U.S. health care system is structured" and "...not everyone has access to the “upstream factors” that keep people healthy, including things like clean air, clean water, a place to live, a good education, and good food...." (my emphasis).

See also: “The scale of the problem is bigger than we ever thought ... older than we thought, (and) the number of countries outperforming the United States is much larger than we thought.”

Advances in and access to medical information and technology was, I think, a bigger factor in the rise of life expectancies in the past 150 years or so (for example, we didn't really understand germs until the late 1800s, simple fever reducers like aspirin weren't in proper use until after WWI, and vaccines weren't in common use until after WWII).
alexanderjames said:
So my question (actually the initial intention of the thread) is why might God have made us this way?
Click to expand...
Are you asking, in other words, did God design us with canine teeth because He foreknew the Fall and its effects?
 
Northern Crofter said:
Life spans in the U.S. are falling: "U.S. life expectancy has declined to 76.4 years, the shortest it’s been in nearly two decades." And it is not attributed to Covid: "...much of the problem stems from the way the U.S. health care system is structured" and "...not everyone has access to the “upstream factors” that keep people healthy, including things like clean air, clean water, a place to live, a good education, and good food...." (my emphasis).

See also: “The scale of the problem is bigger than we ever thought ... older than we thought, (and) the number of countries outperforming the United States is much larger than we thought.”

Advances in and access to medical information and technology was, I think, a bigger factor in the rise of life expectancies in the past 150 years or so (for example, we didn't really understand germs until the late 1800s, simple fever reducers like aspirin weren't in proper use until after WWI, and vaccines weren't in common use until after WWII).
Click to expand...
America's poor use of the capabilities at our disposal does not negate the overall good of modern techniques for growing and producing food on a large scale. Yes, we are not taking proper care of ourselves. I still maintain that without the ability to grow and produce food on the scale enabled by technology, a few billion of the world's current inhabitants would simply not be here regardless of what medical treatments we have at our disposal. I'm not arguing that this is an unmixed good, but America's innovations in agriculture and food production and storage, coupled with other developments such as the green revolution in parts of Asia, have led to historically unprecedented advances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top