"Perhaps, if you think that man was given dominion over the animals, you should think eating animals is permissible."
This interpretation of dominion is actually not compatible with the Bible, since in the verse after humans are given dominion, they are ordered to be vegan.
Yes, but the humans have dominion for a long time before that happens. So dominion cannot entail the permissibility of eating animals.
Why they get permission later is not entirely clear, as the rationale isn't explained. But it happens after the Fall and Flood, and presumably is some sort of response to non-ideal conditions now that everything has gone off the rails. But of course, this raises the question whether whatever the rationale was still applies for people in, e.g., wealthy industrialized nations. Anyway, it seems to be understood that the original plan and best option is to avoid killing animals.
In a Paradise where the wolf lies with the lamb, and humans don't have to earn a living, sure, but after the Fall, humans had to live in the real world, where the wolf eats the lamb, and we humans are part of the chain of creation, and the food chain.
What is the argument here supposed to be? You--writing this post on Substack--don't have to eat animals to earn a living. You have to live in the real world, but you--writing this post on Substack--don't have to eat animals to live in the real world. Wolves eat lambs, but wolves will also eat you if given the chance, and you don't think that means I can eat you. You are part of the "chain of creation, and the food chain," but you don't have to eat animals to be part of the chain of creation and the food chain. What does what you've written have to do with anything under discussion?
What does the fact wolves can eat me have to do with whether you can eat me? That would be cannibalism, another issue entirely.
And "you don't have to eat animals to be part of the chain of creation and the food chain."?? Of course not, you are reversing the causality here. I am not part of the food chain BECAUSE I eat animals, I can eat animals BECAUSE I am part of the food chain.
Wolves, cats, lions, etc., don't have a choice about being carnivores, and cows, etc. don't have a choice about being herbivores.
We humans, like many other animals, are omnivores. I don't think other omnivores can consciously choose not to eat other animals.
Because we do, you are suggesting we should consciously choose not to do so for ethical reasons, but your ethical reasons are not universally shared, obviously.
They seem to assume some kind of "noblesse oblige", in that being at the apex of creation and having the ability to make ethical choices, this is one we should make, which is a bit paradoxical.
Again, what is the *argument* here? Of course humans are omnivores, in the sense that they naturally can eat other animals. This does not tell us whether we *should* eat them when we don't have to--thinking so is just an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.
And of course my ethical perspective is not universally shared. But neither is the ethical perspective that says cannibalism is wrong. What matters is not what is universally shared, but what is correct.
As for your final sentence--the idea that those with power, prestige, authority, etc. should use it for the benefit of those beneath them rather than as an excuse to mistreat is and has always been central to Christian thought.
It doesn't explain anything because you haven't given any argument or provided any reasoning. You've just made disconnected statements. How is the stuff you say supposed to support your conclusion?
To add to Reilly's list of Christian moral advancements, let's remember that Christ replaces the Temple sacrifice of animals. The Temple was a busy slaughterhouse, at least during Passover Week. Maybe Christ dies for our sins, but he also dies so millions of calves, lambs, pigeons et cet aren't bled out on an altar.
In fact, he is executed for disrupting the Temple Sacrifice. [or that disruptive act is the last straw for local authorities, let's say.] We remember the incident with "the Temple money changers" but overlook that the money-changers were at the Temple to convert diaspora currency into local kosher currency, is my understanding - currency to pay for an animal & its sacrifice.
I find it eerie that Jesus enters our world thru an animal portal, so to speak - a manger, surrounded by animals - and he exits thru a slaughterhouse, sort of.
Christianity declared most of Judaic rules and rituals null and void, but saying replacing animal sacrifice was deliberate is really a stretch. More of a side-effect.
A side effect at minimum. Some intentionality seems to enter in when the idea of Jesus being the final sacrifice takes hold in the early tradition. e.g. in Hebrews 7:27: "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
I don't suppose Jesus himself explicitly targeted the animal sacrifice, but do like to think he was complexly bothered by the comingling of political corruption, commerce, and bloodshed he found at the Temple, and kinda snapped that fateful Wednesday or whatever it was.
But the Lamb need not fully comprehend why it is sacrificed!
I am a Christian on a personal and intellectual journey to veganism. I have recently become aware of the profound cruelty of factory farming, and it seems to be one of the most horrific things man has ever produced. I'm not in a position to help the poor right now, but as I work my way out of poverty, I'm convinced that Christ calls us to be effective altruists. I cannot agree with you, of course Christians should be effective altruists and vegans.
(Just to clarify -- my response was to Dustin's original comment, not Talismouse's.) Let's take a step back. BTW, one can think of Genesis as an allegory, or parable, or as philosophy, as well as a literal account. As such, it is saying something important, even if one does not literally believe in a 6-day creation.
On the 5rh day, "God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Gen. 1:26; see also Gen 1:28.) So the original conception of things had people ruling over -- or having dominion over -- animals.
But they were not allowed to eat them. "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. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." (Gen 1:29.) So plants were for food, not animals.
Ruling over creatures implies an obligation of care, not general permission for harm.
But then Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. (The "fall" is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.) Then Cain killed Abel. Then the earth was wicked and God destroyed it (apart from Noah, etc., in the ark). Things certainly were not going well.
After the Flood, Noah offers an (unsolicited!) sacrifice. " The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Gen 8:20.) Immediately after noting people's evil inclination, he then allows people to eat meat. "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." (Gen 9:1-3.) But then says people may not eat meat with "lifeblood" still in it, and murder is forbidden.
Is the permission to eat meat (1) connected to the preceding verses about man being evil, (2) the subsequent verses prohibiting murder, (3) both, or (4) neither. The text does not answer the question, and one could reasonably argue all 4 positions. But if (1) or (3) is right, then eating meat is a concession to people's evil inclinations, and there's a reasonable argument that we should try to rise above that.
So yes, I think there's reasonable argument that the Biblical conception of things is that the ideal "Edenic" conditions involve eating plants but not meat.
The counter-argument here is that concessions to one's nature are just that. In some ideal and different world we might not eat meat, but that's not the world we live in or the type of beings we are. So we justifiably eat meat based on who we are -- partially evil by nature.
We can have a related discussion that weighs the other way about animal sacrifices. Noah offered an animal sacrifice without being asked. Perhaps God saw this an realized that people needed to do various things -- eat, offer thank -- and were willing to kill animals to do so. So God imposed 2 restrictions: no eating from live animals (with the "life blood" in them), and no murder of people. Later God commands animal sacrifices.
But even earlier, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices without being asked, and Abel's sacrifice was an animal sacrifice and was favored. " In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. " (Gen 4:3-5.) So that suggests that even before the flood (but after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden) animal sacrifices to God were permitted, even though not mandated.
“If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long."
This does not make sense to me.
Surely "taking the young for yourself" means taking them so you can let them grow and then eat them, why else would you take them?
But if you are going to eat the young, why let the mother go, it's bigger with more meat to eat right now?
Surely it would make more sense, both ethically and ecologically, to eat the mother and let the young go, except that they probably would not survive?
"Perhaps, if you think that man was given dominion over the animals, you should think eating animals is permissible."
This interpretation of dominion is actually not compatible with the Bible, since in the verse after humans are given dominion, they are ordered to be vegan.
Doesn’t god later say it’s okay to eat animals?
Yes, but the humans have dominion for a long time before that happens. So dominion cannot entail the permissibility of eating animals.
Why they get permission later is not entirely clear, as the rationale isn't explained. But it happens after the Fall and Flood, and presumably is some sort of response to non-ideal conditions now that everything has gone off the rails. But of course, this raises the question whether whatever the rationale was still applies for people in, e.g., wealthy industrialized nations. Anyway, it seems to be understood that the original plan and best option is to avoid killing animals.
In a Paradise where the wolf lies with the lamb, and humans don't have to earn a living, sure, but after the Fall, humans had to live in the real world, where the wolf eats the lamb, and we humans are part of the chain of creation, and the food chain.
What is the argument here supposed to be? You--writing this post on Substack--don't have to eat animals to earn a living. You have to live in the real world, but you--writing this post on Substack--don't have to eat animals to live in the real world. Wolves eat lambs, but wolves will also eat you if given the chance, and you don't think that means I can eat you. You are part of the "chain of creation, and the food chain," but you don't have to eat animals to be part of the chain of creation and the food chain. What does what you've written have to do with anything under discussion?
What does the fact wolves can eat me have to do with whether you can eat me? That would be cannibalism, another issue entirely.
And "you don't have to eat animals to be part of the chain of creation and the food chain."?? Of course not, you are reversing the causality here. I am not part of the food chain BECAUSE I eat animals, I can eat animals BECAUSE I am part of the food chain.
Wolves, cats, lions, etc., don't have a choice about being carnivores, and cows, etc. don't have a choice about being herbivores.
We humans, like many other animals, are omnivores. I don't think other omnivores can consciously choose not to eat other animals.
Because we do, you are suggesting we should consciously choose not to do so for ethical reasons, but your ethical reasons are not universally shared, obviously.
They seem to assume some kind of "noblesse oblige", in that being at the apex of creation and having the ability to make ethical choices, this is one we should make, which is a bit paradoxical.
Again, what is the *argument* here? Of course humans are omnivores, in the sense that they naturally can eat other animals. This does not tell us whether we *should* eat them when we don't have to--thinking so is just an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.
And of course my ethical perspective is not universally shared. But neither is the ethical perspective that says cannibalism is wrong. What matters is not what is universally shared, but what is correct.
As for your final sentence--the idea that those with power, prestige, authority, etc. should use it for the benefit of those beneath them rather than as an excuse to mistreat is and has always been central to Christian thought.
It explains why the Bible does not say humans can't eat animals.
Its reasoning is not yours, obviously, you are a very modern human seeing things in a very different way.
It doesn't explain anything because you haven't given any argument or provided any reasoning. You've just made disconnected statements. How is the stuff you say supposed to support your conclusion?
I think about this quite often it’s very sad (coming from a religious person)
To add to Reilly's list of Christian moral advancements, let's remember that Christ replaces the Temple sacrifice of animals. The Temple was a busy slaughterhouse, at least during Passover Week. Maybe Christ dies for our sins, but he also dies so millions of calves, lambs, pigeons et cet aren't bled out on an altar.
In fact, he is executed for disrupting the Temple Sacrifice. [or that disruptive act is the last straw for local authorities, let's say.] We remember the incident with "the Temple money changers" but overlook that the money-changers were at the Temple to convert diaspora currency into local kosher currency, is my understanding - currency to pay for an animal & its sacrifice.
I find it eerie that Jesus enters our world thru an animal portal, so to speak - a manger, surrounded by animals - and he exits thru a slaughterhouse, sort of.
That's a stretch.
Christianity declared most of Judaic rules and rituals null and void, but saying replacing animal sacrifice was deliberate is really a stretch. More of a side-effect.
A side effect at minimum. Some intentionality seems to enter in when the idea of Jesus being the final sacrifice takes hold in the early tradition. e.g. in Hebrews 7:27: "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
I don't suppose Jesus himself explicitly targeted the animal sacrifice, but do like to think he was complexly bothered by the comingling of political corruption, commerce, and bloodshed he found at the Temple, and kinda snapped that fateful Wednesday or whatever it was.
But the Lamb need not fully comprehend why it is sacrificed!
I am a Christian on a personal and intellectual journey to veganism. I have recently become aware of the profound cruelty of factory farming, and it seems to be one of the most horrific things man has ever produced. I'm not in a position to help the poor right now, but as I work my way out of poverty, I'm convinced that Christ calls us to be effective altruists. I cannot agree with you, of course Christians should be effective altruists and vegans.
I wonder if it would be feasible to argue that since it’s in fact wrong to eat animals, that Christianity is false.
Yes. After the flood, Noah is given permission to eat meat. Gen 9.
Sure, but see my response to Matthew above.
(Just to clarify -- my response was to Dustin's original comment, not Talismouse's.) Let's take a step back. BTW, one can think of Genesis as an allegory, or parable, or as philosophy, as well as a literal account. As such, it is saying something important, even if one does not literally believe in a 6-day creation.
On the 5rh day, "God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Gen. 1:26; see also Gen 1:28.) So the original conception of things had people ruling over -- or having dominion over -- animals.
But they were not allowed to eat them. "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. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." (Gen 1:29.) So plants were for food, not animals.
Ruling over creatures implies an obligation of care, not general permission for harm.
But then Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. (The "fall" is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.) Then Cain killed Abel. Then the earth was wicked and God destroyed it (apart from Noah, etc., in the ark). Things certainly were not going well.
After the Flood, Noah offers an (unsolicited!) sacrifice. " The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Gen 8:20.) Immediately after noting people's evil inclination, he then allows people to eat meat. "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." (Gen 9:1-3.) But then says people may not eat meat with "lifeblood" still in it, and murder is forbidden.
Is the permission to eat meat (1) connected to the preceding verses about man being evil, (2) the subsequent verses prohibiting murder, (3) both, or (4) neither. The text does not answer the question, and one could reasonably argue all 4 positions. But if (1) or (3) is right, then eating meat is a concession to people's evil inclinations, and there's a reasonable argument that we should try to rise above that.
So yes, I think there's reasonable argument that the Biblical conception of things is that the ideal "Edenic" conditions involve eating plants but not meat.
The counter-argument here is that concessions to one's nature are just that. In some ideal and different world we might not eat meat, but that's not the world we live in or the type of beings we are. So we justifiably eat meat based on who we are -- partially evil by nature.
We can have a related discussion that weighs the other way about animal sacrifices. Noah offered an animal sacrifice without being asked. Perhaps God saw this an realized that people needed to do various things -- eat, offer thank -- and were willing to kill animals to do so. So God imposed 2 restrictions: no eating from live animals (with the "life blood" in them), and no murder of people. Later God commands animal sacrifices.
But even earlier, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices without being asked, and Abel's sacrifice was an animal sacrifice and was favored. " In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. " (Gen 4:3-5.) So that suggests that even before the flood (but after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden) animal sacrifices to God were permitted, even though not mandated.
“If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long."
This does not make sense to me.
Surely "taking the young for yourself" means taking them so you can let them grow and then eat them, why else would you take them?
But if you are going to eat the young, why let the mother go, it's bigger with more meat to eat right now?
Surely it would make more sense, both ethically and ecologically, to eat the mother and let the young go, except that they probably would not survive?
Bizarre.
Would something like this meet your standard?
https://www.cell.com/matter/pdfExtended/S2590-2385(24)00016-X
This is a great article!