"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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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!