Eating animal is wrong - be vegetarian is right:

[JP Cusick]

The constantly misrepresented Bible text is that humans have dominion over animals and thereby dominion means we can kill and eat animals as we wish, and that is not what the scripture declares, see here below:

Genesis 1:
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

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.

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.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
-----------

So from this we can see that directly in the next verse after saying that humanity had "dominion" over the animals - then it tells us to only eat fruits and grains.

As such dominion over the animals never meant to kill or to eat the animals.

When Jesus was asked about divorce He said = "... but from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:8, because it matters as to what was in the beginning, and in the beginning people were not to eat animals.

Later after people became sinful (full of sin), after Noah's ark, then people ate animals and people demanded meat to eat, so God compromised by letting sinners eat the animals but God told them how to clean and cook the meat - which was an improvement for ignorant barbaric humanity, but this was not the original plan.

As such if any person wants to really get closer to God then they need to stop living off of the violence and butchery of animal sacrifices.

[Divine Insight]

QUOTE this thread title = Eating animal is wrong - be vegetarian is right:

My view is that both Jesus and the Buddha were vegetarians, even full vegans, and that is one of the important principles which those two great leaders aligned.

Jesus fed the multitudes with bread and fish but it does not say that Jesus ate along with the multitudes, because God allows sinners to eat animals, and at the famous "Last Supper" Jesus stopped the Passover sacrifice of eating a lamb or sheep as Jesus changed that ritual into bread and wine, so Jesus stopped the eating of the animal.

When people put violence into their mouth and stomach - then the violence comes out of their heart and soul.

Where does it say in the Gospels that Jesus was a strick vegan?

Do you get to just make things up about Jesus and claim that this trumps the Gospels?

If eating fish was a sin why would Jesus give people fish to eat? Wouldn't he have known that he was contributing to and condoning their sinning?

The problem with making up your own theology about Jesus is that you leave yourself open to creating your own contradictory theology.

As far as eating animals I'm not convinced that this is necessarily all that bad. The only part about it that might be wrong would be if the animals are being grossly mistreated during the animal husbandry process.

Nature (or God) allows animals to be brutally killed and tortured daily in perfectly natural settings. Sometimes due to predators, but often times just due to the harshness of nature and natural disasters.

I eat chicken quite a bit. And I confess that it sometimes bothers me to think of how the chickens might be mistreated during their lives. However, there are reasons to believe that chickens raised in captivity might actually be better off than birds in he wild.

The chickens in captivity are clearly well-fed. The chicken farmer would have no need for malnourished chickens, they wouldn't be very competitive on the food market. Neither would sick or unhealthy chickens. So it's in the farmer's interest to make sure the chickens are well-fed, healthy, and protected from predators and natural disasters to the best of the farmers ability.

So I'm not convinced that well-fed chickens raised in a protected environment is all that "wrong". The only place where it may be wrong is at slaughter time, but all living things are going to die eventually anyway. Chickens that are raised for food are at least given a short life. If it wasn't for the chicken food industry just think of how many chickens would have never lived at all.

Besides chickens don't think like humans, nor do they even realize that other options might have been available. Chickens aren't thinking, "Darn it, I was born into captivity where I am well-fed and protected from the elements when I could have been born in the wild where I would be free to have to compete for food and constantly evade predators.

I'm not even certain which life would be more desirable. We, as humans, would prefer the more dangerous life of having to fend for ourselves. But that's only because we aren't as smart as chickens.

We value freedom above all else. "Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry, one of my favorite quotes from early childhood.

So the chickens are ultimately getting Patrick Henry's wish. They are granted death when they are plump enough to bring a good buck on the food market.

Actually JP, I agree with you, a totally vegan world would seem to be a far better reality. But let's face it, that's not the reality we live in. And if there is a God, then there can be no one to blame for that but the God himself for having designed a dog-eat-dog world.

If we lived in a world where only humans ate other animals, I might be inclined to believe that humans are guilty of doing something "unnatural". But that's not the world we live in.

And keep in mind that your "personal theology" requires that animals "fell from grace" as well.

In other words, all you are basically doing is just saying, "Hey, let's blame everything on anyone OTHER than an invisible imagined creator God!"

An entity that we don't even have any compelling reason to believe exists at all.

[JP Cusick]

Where does it say in the Gospels that Jesus was a strick vegan?

I already said - but fortunately I love to repeat doctrines and stuff.

When Jesus was asked about divorce He said = "... but from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:8, because it matters as to what was in the beginning, and in the beginning people were not to eat animals, as said in Genesis 1:28-31 - to eat only fruit and herb bearing seed as our meat.

The words "vegan or vegetarian" were unknown in the 1st century.

If eating fish was a sin why would Jesus give people fish to eat? Wouldn't he have known that he was contributing to and condoning their sinning?

The Father permitted sinners to eat meat just as sinners go onward in their many other sins.

As Jesus declared = "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

Jesus was also disparaged because He associated with drunks and gluttons and reprobates and tax collectors (local police), and got crucified alongside of bandits, so none of that is condoning sin.

To stop eating animals is not to be a commandment - as God wants people to find mercy.

As far as eating animals I'm not convinced that this is necessarily all that bad. The only part about it that might be wrong would be if the animals are being grossly mistreated during the animal husbandry process.

You and I and all of us people are types of God because we are each sons and daughters of God and thereby types of demi-Gods.

As such you are making your own God-like decision above for your own doctrine of right from wrong for the helpless innocent animals.

As such all those people who judgmentally condemn the lower animals to butchery and death to serve human appetite are thereby just being evil monsters of a God.

The Father in Heaven is not the monster God - we are.

Nature (or God) allows animals to be brutally killed and tortured daily in perfectly natural settings. Sometimes due to predators, but often times just due to the harshness of nature and natural disasters.

All God ask for us to do is just see and recognize the evil violence and brutality of it - and then find the mercy in our own heart.

We each and all need to stop behaving as if we too are just brute beast.

I eat chicken quite a bit. And I confess that it sometimes bothers me to think of how the chickens might be mistreated during their lives. However, there are reasons to believe that chickens raised in captivity might actually be better off than birds in he wild.

That is a horrible sentence you pass on chickens, and they are thereby sacrificed at your bidding.

My understanding is that there is that-of-God in all life including the animals, and thereby every animal killed is a self sacrifice by God for the sins of those who kill and of those who eat.

As it was in the beginning (after the fall) then all animal sacrifice was done as payment for the human sins, and self sacrifice by animals is nobility as like Jesus on the cross.

It also seems relevant that I stopped eating meat when I was 40 years old, and the very last piece was fried chicken and I finally saw the outstretched wing with its veins visible and that picture remains in my mind ever after as I will never feed off any animal meat ever again. I thought about becoming vegetarian for a long time and it was a fried chicken wing which finally got to me.

I am still not perfect as some times I still eat a cheese pizza or eat eggs at a restaurant, and I just can not make it to full vegan.

Besides chickens don't think like humans, nor do they even realize that other options might have been available. Chickens aren't thinking,...

I see this as more damning and not less.

The fact that the animals are less intelligent makes our guilt greater because we are more intelligent.

When people or animals are less intelligent then it makes their pain far more intense by not comprehending.

So the chickens are ultimately getting Patrick Henry's wish.

Patrick Henry meant death while fighting the enemy.

He did not mean for death by a lightning bolt, and he did not mean a senseless death by cruel barbarians who wanted to eat his dead carcass.

The animals really do fight as hard as they can, as like a fish on a fishing pole because the fish fights for its life while the humans sees it as their sport.

Actually JP, I agree with you, a totally vegan world would seem to be a far better reality.

.............................. The lion shall lie down with the sheep, and the lion will eat straw like the Ox, and a young child shall lead them. Isaiah 11:6-9

But let's face it, that's not the reality we live in. And if there is a God, then there can be no one to blame for that but the God himself for having designed a dog-eat-dog world.

I do not accept that God designed this world to be violent as it is.

This world is corrupt and brutal because of resisting the Creator Father God, and the Bible tells that God does not want humans to eat animals, Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

We can blame God for giving us our only hope of salvation.

And keep in mind that your "personal theology" requires that animals "fell from grace" as well.

I did not intend to say that, as I thought that it was well known that Angels and Demons were the others who fell from grace.

But my Theology does still require that some how the animals must get salvation from their own ignorance too.

In other words, all you are basically doing is just saying, "Hey, let's blame everything on anyone OTHER than an invisible imagined creator God!"

An entity that we don't even have any compelling reason to believe exists at all.

I truly declare with all sincerity that when I stopped eating animals then I put the entire blame onto myself, and I put the solution onto myself too.

I could start eating animals again and I would still get saved and would not burn in a Hell, and I would be equal with the other people, but then I would betray myself, and I would miss the mark, and I would condemn myself.

[Divine Insight]

But my Theology does still require that some how the animals must get salvation from their own ignorance too.

Exactly. In other words, all you are doing is trying to create a perfect theology that contains no inconsistencies, or behaviors that you personally would deem to be immoral. Men have been striving to construct such a flawless paradigm since they first began to philosophize. Thus far the pantheists have managed to create the most logically consistent paradigm. Of course that doesn't mean that it's then true.

I could start eating animals again and I would still get saved and would not burn in a Hell, and I would be equal with the other people, but then I would betray myself, and I would miss the mark, and I would condemn myself.

That's fine. But all you are doing here is placing your own moral values above those that might be attributed to any God. In other words, if God says its ok to eat animals, apparently you would disagree with God and place your own personal moral values above those of God.

That's an admirable ideology, but it hardly helps any existing theology.

I too see myself as having far higher moral ideals than the Biblical God. So I figure only one of the following things can be true:

1. I actually do have higher moral values than God.

Or

2. The Biblical fables don't truly describe the real God.

Or

3. There is no real God at all.

I'm leaning toward #3 as being the most likely situation.

[JP Cusick]

[ Him commenting as a sensible and reasonable person! ]

I like your attitude in this thread, so it makes me to reconsider about those other threads where we seem to be rather hostile to each other.

As such I will now need to return to those other threads and reevaluate.

Exactly. In other words, all you are doing is trying to create a perfect theology that contains no inconsistencies, or behaviors that you personally would deem to be immoral. Men have been striving to construct such a flawless paradigm since they first began to philosophize. Thus far the pantheists have managed to create the most logically consistent paradigm. Of course that doesn't mean that it's then true.

Not trying to create - no - trying to find, trying to discover - yes.

And yes other people have searched for the same and my own effort has always included that I study all the great ones from history and build upon their work and avoid their mistakes.

I have studied all of the greatest and many of the minor examples from all of humanity and there are some common threads, as like non violence and nobility in death and "the Truth" is an entity and that God is real, and more.

That's fine. But all you are doing here is placing your own moral values above those that might be attributed to any God. In other words, if God says its ok to eat animals, apparently you would disagree with God and place your own personal moral values above those of God.

It really is more complicated then that - but you are on the right track.

I am just placing my own morals much higher than other people, but not higher than God.

God has given lower values to humanity because most of humanity is low standard, as like children instead of being adults.

As like a parent tells a young child to stay out of the kitchen, but for an adult-child the parent tells them to go into the kitchen and fix us some chow.

Humanity is immature and so God treats humanity as immature children, so when some of us grow some maturity then God expects more from us, and our maturity requires more from our self.

" When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. " 1 Corinthians 13:11

I too see myself as having far higher moral ideals than the Biblical God. So I figure only one of the following things can be true:

1. I actually do have higher moral values than God.

Or

2. The Biblical fables don't truly describe the real God.

Or

3. There is no real God at all.

I'm leaning toward #3 as being the most likely situation.

I go with your #2 above.

The Bible is instruction mostly for ignorant humanity, and so we must dig deep and hard to find the very highest of morality which can apply to the Father.

The Bible repeats several times this same message that people refuse to see and refuse to hear and refuse to understand, see Matthew 13:14-17, so most of humanity is excluded, and if we want better then we have to fight to get above the scum of the earth.

There is also this that humanity has been shut out because of our defects and so if any of us want to see into the other side then we have to get past the flaming swords, per Genesis 3:22-24, and I know how people want to reject this message too, but they also want to keep shoveling violence into their stomachs by eating animals too.

The Father God obeys His own commandments, and so even the Father does not cast pearls before swine who will then trample the pearls under their nasty feet.

[Divine Insight]

I like your attitude in this thread, so it makes me to reconsider about those other threads where we seem to be rather hostile to each other.

I'm glad you are seeing things from a new perspective. I have never intended any apparent hostility toward you. But I do confess to be quite hostile to excuses made especially for the Biblical paradigm.

Not trying to create - no - trying to find, trying to discover - yes.

And yes other people have searched for the same and my own effort has always included that I study all the great ones from history and build upon their work and avoid their mistakes.

I have studied all of the greatest and many of the minor examples from all of humanity and there are some common threads, as like non violence and nobility in death and "the Truth" is an entity and that God is real, and more.

I understand this. And in a sense this has also been my pathway regarding research into the possible existence of a "God".

Allow me to just give a brief summary of my life's experience on this journey and where it has led me.


1. Born and raised into Free Methodist Christian Protestantism.
2. Accepted that it was true because my parents, pastors and other said so.
3. "Felt" the calling to teach the word of God.
4. Studied the Bible so that I could be knowledgeable of the word of God.
5. Quickly discovered that the Bible is filled with absurdly immoral self-contradictions.
6. Gave it more than reasonable chances from Judaism and Christianity to Islam.
7. Everything was highly flawed and contradictory.
8. I concluded that the Abrahamic (i.e. Biblical) picture of God cannot be true.
9. I DID NOT become an atheist, or secular materialist with this revelation.
10. I continued to believe that a God exists and the Bible was simply not of God.
11. I didn't feel a need for religion at that point in my life.
12. I felt that the "Real God" was totally cool with who I am.
13. I looked into other religions anyway just to see if anything made any sense.
14. I discovered that pantheism makes the most sense of all theologies.
15. I found that "Buddhism" in general offers the most logically sound picture of God.
16. I realized also that this doesn't automatically mean that Buddhism is true.
17. Whilst being non-self-contradictory, it still requires some pretty silly beliefs, IHMO.
18. I agree creating your own theology is cool, even the Buddha himself suggested as much.
19. Having said this, I'm not convinced that trying to create the perfect spiritual paradigm has any practical value.
20. No matter what spiritual paradigm we create, we can never know if there is any truth to it, neither will it change the way the world truly is.
21. I finally came to realized that the secular atheists might actually be onto the truth of reality as well.
22. Just because I like the idea of an imaginary all-loving God caring about me doesn't mean that this has to be true.

This is why today I prefer to profess to be "Agnostic". I simply don't know whether any sort of "God" exists, and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

Finally, if there truly is a genuinely good God who values goodness, truth, and honesty, then I can't imagine that God having a bone to pick with me since I value all those same things as well. The idea that some God is out to damn me if I don't discover the truth of reality without even having a sufficient means of doing so is nothing short of utterly absurd. And that would clearly go far beyond valuing morality in any case.

So in the end, trying to search for (or create) the ultimate theology seems rather ridiculous to me. As I keep pointing out, the world is not perfect and therefore any perfect theology we end up creating can be nothing more than a theology that proclaims all manner of excuses for why the creator of this world allowed this world to be so imperfect.

So theology ultimately equates to "Making excuses for the Creator". That's all it can ever be since we can't change the truth of reality.

So a perfect theology is nothing more than a perfect excuse for God.

It really is more complicated then that - but you are on the right track.

I am just placing my own morals much higher than other people, but not higher than God.

God has given lower values to humanity because most of humanity is low standard, as like children instead of being adults.

As like a parent tells a young child to stay out of the kitchen, but for an adult-child the parent tells them to go into the kitchen and fix us some chow.

Humanity is immature and so God treats humanity as immature children, so when some of us grow some maturity then God expects more from us, and our maturity requires more from our self.

" When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. " 1 Corinthians 13:11

These are just more excuses for God.

Also, I think my summary list from 1 thru 22 above shows clearly that I have put away childish things many decades ago and have ultimately matured to the point where I have come to realize that there may in fact be no "God" at all.

This idea that we need to "Grow up" and start believing that some invisible imaginary God has a "higher plan" for us that will ultimately be realized after we die, is pretty far-fetched, and without evidence.

I just don't buy it. I think the secular atheists have a better point when they suggest that people should "Grow up", and start accepting that there is no more evidence for the existence of a God than there is for the existence of Santa Claus. Truly.

The Bible is instruction mostly for ignorant humanity, and so we must dig deep and hard to find the very highest of morality which can apply to the Father.

So why did an omnipotent Creator create such ignorant humans in the first place? Why didn't this creator design a decent intelligent and healthy brain for everyone?

Again, this is nothing more than a lame "excuse" for a God who supposedly created ignorant humans. It just doesn't hold water.

The Bible repeats several times this same message that people refuse to see and refuse to hear and refuse to understand, see Matthew 13:14-17, so most of humanity is excluded, and if we want better then we have to fight to get above the scum of the earth.

And this is typical of religious cults in general. They are always going to accuse the "non-believers" of being to ignorant to understand they absurd theological doctrines.

That's just a lame excuse again, for why their theological doctrines make absolutely no sense at all.

And why are you pointing to the Bible when you just got done saying that you agree with me that the Bible doesn't correctly describe God anyway?

If it doesn't correctly describe God why point to parts of it as though you think they might apply to how God thinks?

There is also this that humanity has been shut out because of our defects and so if any of us want to see into the other side then we have to get past the flaming swords, per Genesis 3:22-24, and I know how people want to reject this message too, but they also want to keep shoveling violence into their stomachs by eating animals too.

So are you suggesting then that vegans are the ultimate saints?

I was a vegan at one time in my life. I had a huge garden and pretty much ate exclusively from my own garden. For reasons to complicated to get into I no longer keep a garden and have found that eating meat is simply more practical at this point in my life, especially considering what the stores offer for sale. I would still be a vegan if stores offered decent vegan foods at reasonable prices, but they don't. It's actually cheaper and easier to eat meat.

The Father God obeys His own commandments, and so even the Father does not cast pearls before swine who will then trample the pearls under their nasty feet.

Are you attempting to make excuses for the Biblical God here again?

Why would this Father God have "swine" for children anyway? If he is the creator God then why does he create "swine"?

This excuse makes no sense to me. If there exists a responsible "Father God" he should create decent children. He shouldn't be like a mortal human father who has no control over genetics, etc.

Also, if the "Father God" has children who aren't in pristine mental health, then why doesn't he simply heal them? He can supposedly heal the sick.

Now we need to argue that a criminal mind is actually a "Healthy Mind". So you see how we are already creating a self-contradictory doctrine.

These endless "excuses" for why a supposedly responsible "Father God" allows the children he creates to become immoral "swine" simply doesn't hold water.

Not only this JP, then this type of theology then also becomes one where every single human being must then ultimately be placed in one of two camps. They are either mentally healthy children of God or they are criminally sick "swine". And once again, this doesn't match up with reality.

Atheists who don't believe in God, would then need to be placed into the criminally sick swine camp. Religious people who believe in the "wrong religion" or the "wrong God" would also then need to be "God's Swine" instead of "God's Children".

It's just not going to work.

Again, this is just text from a nasty religious cult that tries to proclaim that anyone who doesn't cower down to its theology and commandments is "swine". It's just a way to belittle and degrade anyone who doesn't serve the cult.

That's the only way this make any sense at all.

[JP Cusick]

So theology ultimately equates to "Making excuses for the Creator". That's all it can ever be since we can't change the truth of reality.

So a perfect theology is nothing more than a perfect excuse for God.

I just do not see the idea of "excuses" to be so wrong.

Why did the USA get into the 2nd World War, because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war against us = so that is a perfectly fine excuse.

We have to make excuses for God because there are so many horrible lies and distortions being projected onto God that we must tell the truth as the rightful excuse.

It is absurd to blame God for what people do - and as such we have to give excuses for why the accusations against God are not true.

In my view we need to cheer having the perfect excuse for God - instead of criticizing it.

These are just more excuses for God.

I believe that I have found all of the excuses for God.

And rightly so.

Also, I think my summary list from 1 thru 22 above shows clearly that I have put away childish things many decades ago and have ultimately matured to the point where I have come to realize that there may in fact be no "God" at all.

I say that yes you are much more mature spiritually than many others and I regret that I implied otherwise.

I was really intending to just say that humanity as a whole and most people are spiritually immature, and that is why both God and the Bible treats humanity as being way below the line.

I even view the idea that there is no God as being superior to believing the childish nonsense and superstition of mainstream Christianity - but there needs to be more - much more.

This idea that we need to "Grow up" and start believing that some invisible imaginary God has a "higher plan" for us that will ultimately be realized after we die, is pretty far-fetched, and without evidence.

I really agree with this - and we need to deal with this life here and now instead of worrying about after death.

This thread topic is about life here and now = "Eating animal is wrong - be vegetarian is right:"

That is not a reference for after death - as it is about living better here and now.

And it means being non violent and having compassion for the innocent animals and it means removing the stick from our own eyes so that then we can see better of how to be of service to other people.

We do not need God to do this, and this is really our own homework.

So why did an omnipotent Creator create such ignorant humans in the first place? Why didn't this creator design a decent intelligent and healthy brain for everyone?

I can only speculate at this time so my excuse may be inadequate, but I do base mine on my own years of research and experiments and conclusions.

It is my understanding that creating life is a gigantic task even for God, and as such it is very difficult and risky to create life, and so humanity is what that messy process looks like in reality of God performing the impossible.

Compare humans to the future mission to Mars, in that the creators build the best space ships possible, and select the best people to go to Mars, and they plan for every kind of problem or disaster, and then they take the big risk and launch the mission.

So that is how life is created from earth to Mars and it is very dangerous and risky and expensive and it includes a lot of both effort and of trouble.

So too when God created humanity it had never been done before and it took the maximum wisdom from God and it took the maximum risk from God too, and this experiment of creating human life is God extending His self to the super maximum and this is a BIG huge job even for God.

When the Space Shuttle blew up then all of humanity groaned, the entire USA was harmed by it, and the scientist and engineers and the workers all cried sorrow for the great loss and disaster, and rightly so.

So too when humanity fails or blunders or screws up = then our Father in Heaven is hurt and in pain from it.

Again, this is nothing more than a lame "excuse" for a God who supposedly created ignorant humans. It just doesn't hold water.

I agree to reject any lame excuse, but I say to judge the excuse for its merits whether the excuse is correct or in error.

We all need to give our own excuses some times.

And this is typical of religious cults in general. They are always going to accuse the "non-believers" of being to ignorant to understand they absurd theological doctrines.

I do not like the word "cult" because it is just degrading people who seek other ways.

The entire Roman Catholic Church itself fits a definition of a cult, because its leader is said to talk directly to God and its leader makes all of the rules, and every member is subordinate to the leader, so even the billion members of Catholicism can be called as a cult. The same is true of the Baptist Church, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Evangelicals, and the word "cult" is only meant to insult and degrade other people.

I just do not see it as a true affront against non-believers, but against the people who do wrong and who live hateful or trashy lives.

Believers do not go to other Churches to make converts, they go minister to the jails and to the streets to convert the lost.

And why are you pointing to the Bible when you just got done saying that you agree with me that the Bible doesn't correctly describe God anyway?

If it doesn't correctly describe God why point to parts of it as though you think they might apply to how God thinks?

Because the Bible is written to us, to humanity, and it tells us what to do, and it is not here to teach us about God.

In order to find out about God we have to really dig deep into the scriptures and even then we must apply real life things to get a better picture.

It is like going to an auto-manual for a car in order to find out about the manufacturer, and yes it helps but it is not enough.

The Bible is far more about humanity and very little about God.

So are you suggesting then that vegans are the ultimate saints?

Yes, I guess I am saying that, but just being vegan is not the only criteria.

The Bible declares that humanity was originally intended to be vegan, and the Bible declares in the future Kingdom of God then the Lion will eat straw like the ox and there will be no more hurting, so it starts out vegan and it is to end up vegan, so everything in between includes violence and sin.

I was a vegan at one time in my life. I had a huge garden and pretty much ate exclusively from my own garden. For reasons to complicated to get into I no longer keep a garden and have found that eating meat is simply more practical at this point in my life, especially considering what the stores offer for sale. I would still be a vegan if stores offered decent vegan foods at reasonable prices, but they don't. It's actually cheaper and easier to eat meat.

I understand, and I agree that being vegan is very hard to do in this world.

I myself still eat cheese and egg (at times) so that makes me as a Lacto-Ovo vegetarian, and I do not like vegetables very much so I tend to eat lots of breads and beans and noodles and rice which takes a lot of self discipline, but I would rather die then to ever again feed on animal meat.

The Father God obeys His own commandments, and so even the Father does not cast pearls before swine who will then trample the pearls under their nasty feet.

Are you attempting to make excuses for the Biblical God here again?

Why would this Father God have "swine" for children anyway? If he is the creator God then why does he create "swine"?

I do not see this one as an excuse, but lets view it as an excuse anyway.

My point is that most people do not comprehend that God has very real limitations as in His own commandments and principles, but also that God is not the fool of humanity who can not see a despicable person (a swine) for what they truly are.

It is a mistake to blame God for what people do.

This excuse makes no sense to me. If there exists a responsible "Father God" he should create decent children. He shouldn't be like a mortal human father who has no control over genetics, etc.

God is in control, and there is harsh proof of that, as like the link here = The US & Britain in Prophesy

Even as repulsive as it seems to be to humans - the Father God has us all under control, and in due time every person will get saved, and we all will be changed into mature Gods with our own lives and duties.

For now we are in a peculiar kind of incubator while we grow into our destiny.

Also, if the "Father God" has children who aren't in pristine mental health, then why doesn't he simply heal them? He can supposedly heal the sick.

Now we need to argue that a criminal mind is actually a "Healthy Mind". So you see how we are already creating a self-contradictory doctrine.

It is not contradictory, and you obviously know that a criminal mind and or a mentally ill mind is not necessarily against the bigger plan of universal salvation.

My own belief, and I mean very determined belief, is that the science of multiple universes and parrallel universe, LINK, is correct and true because that explains the missing pieces about God, in that a person who dies in this life simply lives onward in another dimension, and so a sick person here is not sick in the other life, and thereby God does give justice to every person.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Not only this JP, then this type of theology then also becomes one where every single human being must then ultimately be placed in one of two camps. They are either mentally healthy children of God or they are criminally sick "swine". And once again, this doesn't match up with reality.

Atheists who don't believe in God, would then need to be placed into the criminally sick swine camp. Religious people who believe in the "wrong religion" or the "wrong God" would also then need to be "God's Swine" instead of "God's Children".

It's just not going to work.

There are other options / other camps.

As in the people are just lost souls who have not yet seen the light and who still wait for their maturity and wait for their destiny.

[bluethread]

Jesus stopped the Passover sacrifice of eating a lamb or sheep as Jesus changed that ritual into bread and wine, so Jesus stopped the eating of the animal.

This is not true, the bread and wine were already part of the ritual. He just added greater significance to them. The reason the lamb is not eaten on Pesach is because there is no Temple. In fact, when he referred to "this bread" and "this cup", he was referring to the afikoman and the third cup of the Seder. It does not refer to changing the Seder or doing away with any part of it, especially not those parts that are directly commanded.

[Divine Insight]

We have to make excuses for God because there are so many horrible lies and distortions being projected onto God that we must tell the truth as the rightful excuse.

This excuse itself won't work with the Biblical God. Why? Because the Biblical God is said to have decreed all manner of commandments and directives that men must follow lest he will do horrible things to us.

This being the case, there is no room for this God to leave it up to humans whether or not they believe these convoluted and self-contradictory tales. Especially when even this God himself would know that there are many other (supposedly false) religions that are also proclaiming to know what our invisible creator is supposedly like.

It is absurd to blame God for what people do - and as such we have to give excuses for why the accusations against God are not true.

It's not absurd at all. Especially concerning anything written in the Bible that is supposed to be the "Word of God". And keep in mind that in Christianity even Jesus is said to have decreed that every jot and tittle shall not pass from law.

I mean, if Jesus would have decreed the Old Testament to be totally corrupt and unreliable, that would surely help your position here. But let's face it, that's not what the New Testament has to say about Jesus.

In my view we need to cheer having the perfect excuse for God - instead of criticizing it.

As I have already made clear (or at least thought I did) we can never make excuses for the Bible to create a "perfect God" who is compatible with what the Bible actually has to say.

If you want to start making excuses for an imaginary invisible God, you'll need to move over to an entirely different theological paradigm. I've already given Buddhism as a potential candidate for this. Buddhism doesn't proclaim that God has given men any commandments, directives, or ultimatums. They simply offer a "philosophy" of what such a "God" might be like based on a collection of "excuses" that don't appear to have any logical contradictions associated with them.

In some sense this is reasonable to some extent. After all, if we imagine "God" to be perfect, then if we strive to come up with a perfectly flawless spiritual philosophy it has a very good change of describing a "perfect God".

Of course, whilst such a hobby might be interesting, even coming up with a perfect philosophy is no guarantee that it then needs to be true.

I think we can find "flaws" even in the philosophy of Buddhism. But those flaws might be difficult to prove in terms of actual logical contradictions.

These are just more excuses for God.

I believe that I have found all of the excuses for God.

And rightly so.[/quote]

In that case you should write a book entitled, "The Perfectly Flawless Excuses for God".

Seriously. And be sure in the introduction that you define what you mean by the term "God".

And if you are planning on using any Biblical scriptures to support your views I would suggest that you are going to find yourself in deep trouble if you then attempt to toss out any parts of the Bible that you might not like or find to be troublesome.

I say that yes you are much more mature spiritually than many others and I regret that I implied otherwise.

I prefer to think of it as being "rationally mature" rather than "spiritually mature".

If you read my signature line you'll see that spiritual maturity can only be meaningful when compared with the expectations of some imaginary invisible God.

I was really intending to just say that humanity as a whole and most people are spiritually immature, and that is why both God and the Bible treats humanity as being way below the line.

I personally don't find this to be a legitimate excuse for a God who is demanding obedience to his commandments and directives lest he'll hurt someone. The idea that people are simply too ignorant to understand that this God is real is an extremely poor excuse for such a God. Such a God should have taken care to make sure that all humans he creates are at least intelligent and mature enough to understand what's going on.

In fact, your excuse above is akin to excusing a mortal parent for spanking a new born baby for pooping in their diaper instead of using a toilet proper.

I mean, seriously, you can't use the excuse that humans are too immature to understand this God's demands. That doesn't let this God off the hook.

I even view the idea that there is no God as being superior to believing the childish nonsense and superstition of mainstream Christianity - but there needs to be more - much more.

Why does there need to be more?

I hold that a purely secular atheistic society would actually expose the true nature of all humans. In other words, only the humans who are truly good in their hearts would behave in a good manner. Those who aren't good would expose their evil intent.

Not only that, but any religious person who would rather being doing evil things but only refrains from doing so because he or she thinks a God is going to be judging them, is actually evil in their heart anyway. Take away the invisible God watching them and they would obviously to the horrible things that they would rather be doing.

So being a good person who doesn't even believe in a God at all is the ultimate moral position. No need for anything "more".

This idea that we need to "Grow up" and start believing that some invisible imaginary God has a "higher plan" for us that will ultimately be realized after we die, is pretty far-fetched, and without evidence.

I really agree with this - and we need to deal with this life here and now instead of worrying about after death.

This thread topic is about life here and now = "Eating animal is wrong - be vegetarian is right:"

That is not a reference for after death - as it is about living better here and now.

And it means being non violent and having compassion for the innocent animals and it means removing the stick from our own eyes so that then we can see better of how to be of service to other people.

We do not need God to do this, and this is really our own homework.[/quote]

I agree with this entirely. I'm certainly not against vegetarianism, in fact if a vote were held I would vote that we all become vegetarians. The only reason I eat a lot of chicken right now is because it's cheap and readily available. It's also more troublesome and expensive to try to be a vegan considering today's markets.

So if vegetarianism was the law then I could just go to the supermarket and buy anything they have on stock and I'll be just fine.

So for me, the whole thing is nothing more than a matter of practicality in today's world.

But on the topic of theology, I still hold that a God who created a dog-eat-dog world where animals naturally prey on each other has already violated the ideal that only vegetables should be eaten.

I can't buy into your "excuse" that animals also "fell from grace". That's just ridiculous IMHO.

Buddhism has a far better excuse for why animals eat each other, but it's rather complicated and I don't want to go into it here.

So why did an omnipotent Creator create such ignorant humans in the first place? Why didn't this creator design a decent intelligent and healthy brain for everyone?

I can only speculate at this time so my excuse may be inadequate, but I do base mine on my own years of research and experiments and conclusions.

It is my understanding that creating life is a gigantic task even for God, and as such it is very difficult and risky to create life, and so humanity is what that messy process looks like in reality of God performing the impossible.

Buddhism already has a sound "excuse" for this. However, in Buddhism God isn't an "outside designer". Keep in mind that Buddhism is also Pantheism so entirely different kinds of "excuses" can be made to work.

Compare humans to the future mission to Mars, in that the creators build the best space ships possible, and select the best people to go to Mars, and they plan for every kind of problem or disaster, and then they take the big risk and launch the mission.

So that is how life is created from earth to Mars and it is very dangerous and risky and expensive and it includes a lot of both effort and of trouble.

So too when God created humanity it had never been done before and it took the maximum wisdom from God and it took the maximum risk from God too, and this experiment of creating human life is God extending His self to the super maximum and this is a BIG huge job even for God.

But this excuse requires that God is as incompetent as humans. He has to take risks and there are many factors that he cannot know and will be "surprised by" when they come up.

That's not going to fly in the Abrahamic model of God. The Biblical God can't be making mistakes or be surprised by things going wrong that he could anticipate.

And again, Buddhism solves this problem by simply observing that there are no mistakes. What appear to be "mistakes" to us (such as a dog-eat-dog world for example), simply aren't mistakes at all. They were "permitted" to happen naturally due to the way that God became the universe.

Buddhism has all these bases already covered. I'm just saying.

You are trying to reinvent a wheel that Buddhism already has rolling down the road.

When the Space Shuttle blew up then all of humanity groaned, the entire USA was harmed by it, and the scientist and engineers and the workers all cried sorrow for the great loss and disaster, and rightly so.

So too when humanity fails or blunders or screws up = then our Father in Heaven is hurt and in pain from it.

So, once again, this excuse reduces this God to being just as inept as mortal men.

Anytime we try to make excuses for God by pointing to the frailty of mortal men, that apology necessarily fails, unless we want to proclaim that God is just a inept as men.

Again, this is nothing more than a lame "excuse" for a God who supposedly created ignorant humans. It just doesn't hold water.

I agree to reject any lame excuse, but I say to judge the excuse for its merits whether the excuse is correct or in error.

We all need to give our own excuses some times.

Yes, but to make the excuse that God is just as inept as humans isn't a very impressive excuse.

In your effort to come up with a "Perfect Theology" (i.e. the Perfect Excuses for God) you end up reducing God to a bumbling idiot. So you end up with a "Perfect Theology" and an "Imperfect God".

And again, Buddhism has already built this wheel and has it running on their cart down the road. And their "excuse" for God does not require that God is inept in any way. So they already have this problem covered.

And this is typical of religious cults in general. They are always going to accuse the "non-believers" of being to ignorant to understand they absurd theological doctrines.

I do not like the word "cult" because it is just degrading people who seek other ways.

But the cult doesn't refer to the "followers". The cult is actually original dogma. People falling for a cult doesn't make them responsible for the cult anymore than a person who contracts cancer is responsible for the cancer.

The entire Roman Catholic Church itself fits a definition of a cult, because its leader is said to talk directly to God and its leader makes all of the rules, and every member is subordinate to the leader, so even the billion members of Catholicism can be called as a cult. The same is true of the Baptist Church, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Evangelicals, and the word "cult" is only meant to insult and degrade other people.

I don't use the term "cult" as a means of degradation. I simply use it as a technical term referring to the originators of dogma who create scriptures that condemn anyone who doesn't join, support, and follow the cult.

Ironically people who have joined the cult and who have taken on high places within the cult doesn't even make them responsible for the existence of the cult.

For example, I don't view Pope Francis as being a knowingly deceitful leader of a cult. To the contrary, I see Pope Francis as a victim of the cult. In fact, I would even say that he's a victim who is trying his best to cure the cult from the inside out. You might think of him as being a cancer patient who is doing his best to fight off the disease even though he himself is suffering from it.

I just do not see it as a true affront against non-believers, but against the people who do wrong and who live hateful or trashy lives.

Well, both Christianity and Islam make pretty nasty claims about non-believers. John 3:18 in the NT has all non-believers in the name of the Son of God condemned. And supposedly rightfully so.

I have to say that I think the Jews haven't gone down this path. At least not to the same degree that Christianity and Islam have. Jews (at least most Jews I've conversed with) seem to believe that only the Jews need to worship YHVH and other people may have a different relationship with "God".

But Christianity and Islam have both become "cults" the condemn non-believers, and especially "unbelievers" (i.e. those who once did believe but have since rejected the religion).

And this behavior of condemning non-believers, and unbelievers, is actually a hallmark of being a "cult".

So I just use the term in a technical sense, not intended to be derogatory, especially to the victims of these cults.

Believers do not go to other Churches to make converts, they go minister to the jails and to the streets to convert the lost.

Does it matter what "believers" do? Isn't the ultimate question what the dogma teaches? See John 3:18 again.

And why are you pointing to the Bible when you just got done saying that you agree with me that the Bible doesn't correctly describe God anyway?

If it doesn't correctly describe God why point to parts of it as though you think they might apply to how God thinks?

Because the Bible is written to us, to humanity, and it tells us what to do, and it is not here to teach us about God.

What?

So who was it written by then? Who is it that is telling us what we need to do?

If the Bible is not the "Word of God" then why should anyone care what the authors of the Bible have to say?

In order to find out about God we have to really dig deep into the scriptures and even then we must apply real life things to get a better picture.

And all for why? To avoid the supposed wrath of this God? What's the purpose of doing this? To avoid death? To avoid damnation? To win eternal life?

If your main goal is just to be the best person you can be can't you do that without reading the Bible?

Do you really need an ancient barbaric society to be telling you what's right or wrong?

It is like going to an auto-manual for a car in order to find out about the manufacturer, and yes it helps but it is not enough.

The Bible is far more about humanity and very little about God.

The problem is that humanity is made up of many individuals. Some good, some not so good, and some apparently extremely bad.

What good is it doing me to know that there are bad people in the world? I already don't condone their behavior. What do I need the Bible for?

In fact, to this very point, when I read the Bible and come to the New Testament to the stories of Jesus I let out a sigh of relief, "FINALLY! A character in this saga who thinks like me in terms of moral values!"

I mean, really. I can't say that I have "learned" any moral values from reading about Jesus. If anything I finally found a character in the Bible who AGREES with me!

I give Jesus my seal of approval (at least on many moral issues). I will be quick to add that there are some things attributed to Jesus that I don't agree with. But I don't see Jesus as being the Son of God anyway, so it makes no difference to me.

But still, when I read the Bible I don't learn morality from the Bible, I simply agree with parts I agree with and disagree with parts I don't agree with.

My life would not be changed at all if the Bible had never been written. At least in terms of my moral values. So I certainly don't need to read the Bible for moral or spiritual insight.

So are you suggesting then that vegans are the ultimate saints?

Yes, I guess I am saying that, but just being vegan is not the only criteria.

The Bible declares that humanity was originally intended to be vegan, and the Bible declares in the future Kingdom of God then the Lion will eat straw like the ox and there will be no more hurting, so it starts out vegan and it is to end up vegan, so everything in between includes violence and sin.

When I see the lion happy eating straw next to lamb I'll believe it. Until then you may as well be reciting claims made in Jack in the Beanstalk.

I mean seriously, just because it's written in the Bible doesn't make it so.

I understand, and I agree that being vegan is very hard to do in this world.

I myself still eat cheese and egg (at times) so that makes me as a Lacto-Ovo vegetarian, and I do not like vegetables very much so I tend to eat lots of breads and beans and noodles and rice which takes a lot of self discipline, but I would rather die then to ever again feed on animal meat.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I do feel guilty for eating the chicken meat that I eat. But then again, I feel guilty when I step on an ant, kill a spider, or kill a mouse in a mouse trap. I even feel bad for the chipmunks and birds my cats kill.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, because this is just a part of life as far as I can see. Besides if this was important to the Biblical God why isn't it included in the Ten Commandments? Thou shalt not eat any flesh from any animal.

Also, if eating animals is bad then shame on Jesus for giving people fish to eat.

And by the way, even in a purely secular world, we as humans should work toward becoming vegetarians anyway. I AGREE with that. I truly do.

But let's face it. This isn't high on the agenda for humans in general to be sure. So it's just not a practical goal at this time. Perhaps it will become the standard in the far future should humans survive that long.

The Father God obeys His own commandments, and so even the Father does not cast pearls before swine who will then trample the pearls under their nasty feet.

Are you attempting to make excuses for the Biblical God here again?

Why would this Father God have "swine" for children anyway? If he is the creator God then why does he create "swine"?

I do not see this one as an excuse, but lets view it as an excuse anyway.

My point is that most people do not comprehend that God has very real limitations as in His own commandments and principles, but also that God is not the fool of humanity who can not see a despicable person (a swine) for what they truly are.

It is a mistake to blame God for what people do.

But again, having a God who expects people to obey him yet has created humans who are incapable of comprehending his expectations is a pretty weak excuse.

This excuse makes no sense to me. If there exists a responsible "Father God" he should create decent children. He shouldn't be like a mortal human father who has no control over genetics, etc.

God is in control, and there is harsh proof of that, as like the link here = The US & Britain in Prophesy

Even as repulsive as it seems to be to humans - the Father God has us all under control, and in due time every person will get saved, and we all will be changed into mature Gods with our own lives and duties.

For now we are in a peculiar kind of incubator while we grow into our destiny.

If this is true then it seems like there isn't much we can do about it other than get out the lawn chair and enjoy the fireworks when the nuclear war breaks out.

Also, if the "Father God" has children who aren't in pristine mental health, then why doesn't he simply heal them? He can supposedly heal the sick.

Now we need to argue that a criminal mind is actually a "Healthy Mind". So you see how we are already creating a self-contradictory doctrine.

It is not contradictory, and you obviously know that a criminal mind and or a mentally ill mind is not necessarily against the bigger plan of universal salvation.

My own belief, and I mean very determined belief, is that the science of multiple universes and parrallel universe, LINK, is correct and true because that explains the missing pieces about God, in that a person who dies in this life simply lives onward in another dimension, and so a sick person here is not sick in the other life, and thereby God does give justice to every person.

Well, once again, you are reinventing the wheel of reincarnation.

And keep in mind that this is not compatible with the Christian New Testament. Remember John 3:18. You'll be condemned if you don't believe in the name of Jesus. How is that going to fit in with the idea of reincarnation where everyone is ultimately saved.

Who gets "condemned"?

Not only this JP, then this type of theology then also becomes one where every single human being must then ultimately be placed in one of two camps. They are either mentally healthy children of God or they are criminally sick "swine". And once again, this doesn't match up with reality.

Atheists who don't believe in God, would then need to be placed into the criminally sick swine camp. Religious people who believe in the "wrong religion" or the "wrong God" would also then need to be "God's Swine" instead of "God's Children".

It's just not going to work.

There are other options / other camps.

As in the people are just lost souls who have not yet seen the light and who still wait for their maturity and wait for their destiny.

If that's the case, and all will be saved in the end through multiple reincarnation of lives, then apparently all we can do is WAIT for the inevitable to happen.

The only problem I have with all of this is that there simply is no compelling evidence that any of these theological guesses have any reality at all. It's just a guess.

Not only that, but if you are right, then everyone is destined to become a "God", the only question left is to ask how many reincarnations they will need to live out first.

[JP Cusick]

Human teeth have never been equipped to tear raw flesh from a bone.

I just want to follow up by correcting this quoted above:

Ancient humans could still have eaten small animals as like insects and roaches, baby birds or baby rabbits, eat frogs and lizards and other such small animals without having any true carnivore teeth.

Then after humans discovered rock tools and created rock spears then they would become able to eat large animals, and I am certain that they did.

It does not change the overarching point that eating animals is still barbaric and that we need to rise above our past of being brute beast.


------------------------------------------------

[ Excessively long preaching which included nothing of value for this topic. ]

Tao 23

"To be sparing of speech is natural.
A whirlwind does not last the whole morning,
A downpour does not last the whole day.
Who causes them?
If even heaven and earth cannot cause them to persist, how much less can human beings?"

[JP Cusick]

This is not true, the bread and wine were already part of the ritual. He just added greater significance to them. The reason the lamb is not eaten on Pesach is because there is no Temple. In fact, when he referred to "this bread" and "this cup", he was referring to the afikoman and the third cup of the Seder. It does not refer to changing the Seder or doing away with any part of it, especially not those parts that are directly commanded.

I would suggest that if destroying the temple helped to stop the animal sacrifices - then the Roman army was serving Yahweh.

Praise be to God.