animal rights – La Vista Church of Christ

Kill and Eat

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 16 Dec 2021 03:58:34 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Peter's Vision Acts 10:9-12

In Acts 10 Peter was told by God in a vision to kill and eat the animals, and there was a wide assortment, some of which God had forbidden to the Jews under the Old covenant. God explained that those unclean animals (off-limits to the Jews before) were now clean. For example, pork was forbidden under the Old Law, but now it was allowed under the New Testament. "What God has cleansed you must not call common" (Acts 10:9). Peter, a Jew, could now eat pork and anything else. God had changed the covenant law. Peter needed to bring his conscience up to date. He was now free to kill and eat all kinds of new foods. He was not under the former law anymore. He was free in Christ under the perfect law of liberty.

Lessons:

PETA is a misguided organization that tries to make eating meat "animal cruelty." God said to "kill and eat." God made the animals for man to eat (Genesis 9:3). God did not always insist that people be vegetarians. When people "forbid foods" (I Timothy 4:1-4), they are teaching a "doctrine of demons." God must be allowed to be true while man is a liar (Romans 3:4). God's word is true. Truth must triumph over error every time, not just when we want it to.
Neither Peter nor anyone else was under two laws at once. Peter was either bound by the Law of Moses totally or he was totally under the law of Christ. There was no such thing as "phasing out the old law and phasing in the new" as our AD 70 brethren contend. God was not telling Peter to sin. If Peter was under the Law of Moses, he would have to be under all of it including the unclean meat laws, the circumcision laws, and the animal sacrifice laws. There was no pick and choose what you want out of the Law. It was all or none (Galatians 5:1-6). He was either obligated to Jesus as now having all authority (Matthew 28:18-20), or Jesus only had some authority and Moses still had some. When God told Peter to "kill and eat" and Peter saw those unclean animals, Peter was being challenged to bring his conscience up to date with the full authority of Jesus and realize he was now "dead to the Law" of Moses (Romans 7:4,6). Jesus has brought in the new covenant at His death on the cross (Hebrews 9:15-17). Acts 10 will always confirm that the law had changed by means of Jesus' death on the cross (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:13-16; Hebrews 7:11-12).

Do not let people shackle you with a yoke of bondage that is not true to the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Feel free to kill and eat!

Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:24:13 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WasJesusAVegetarian.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Text: Genesis 9:1-7

I. Back in 1999, the Omaha World-Herald had a hilarious article on a then new advertising campaign by PETA. [Bill Broadway, “Jesus Used in Latest PETA Ads,” Omaha World-Herald, 17 March 1999]

A. They claimed that Jesus was a vegetarian.

B. Their “evidence”?

1. A belief that Jesus was an Essene and some of that sect were believed to be against the killing and eating of animals.

2. There is no mention in the Bible of Jesus eating meat.

a. This is qualified to beef, pork, or poultry. They admitted that Jesus ate fish.

b. What the difference between a land animal and a sea animal is beyond me.

3. Jesus’ throwing out of the money changers is supposedly his protest over the selling and sacrifices of animals

4. A claim that the world started as vegetarian and remains that way.

II. Examining the Claims

A. Jesus was Jew who perfectly kept the Law of Moses

1. Jesus lived a sinless life - II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15

2. Therefore, Jesus, as a Jew, must have kept the Law perfectly

3. All Jews were required to keep the Passover celebration - Exodus 12:47

a. The Gospels specifically mention Jesus keeping three Passover feasts in Jerusalem.

b. Everyone was required to eat a lamb - Exodus 12:3-4

c. The entire lamb had to be eaten or burned - Exodus 12:10

d. If Jesus did not eat the lamb, then he would have been violating the Law - Numbers 9:12

4. The Bible records that Jesus ate the Passover feast, which would have included the roasted lamb - Luke 22:14-15

a. He instructed the disciples to prepare the lamb for the purpose of eating it - Luke 22:7-8

5. There is no mention of Essenes in the New Testament, though other sects are mentioned.

a. Therefore, to claim Jesus was an Essene is simple wishful thinking on PETA’s part

B. Jesus did eat fish as well as lamb - Matthew 15:34

1. Jesus promoted the catching of fish for food - John 21:5-6, 9-14

a. Notice that he ate with them

2. Jesus ate broiled fish after his resurrection - Luke 24:41-43

C. The history of killing animals

1. Sacrifices of animals started after the departure from the Garden - Genesis 4:4

2. By the way, did you realize God killed the first animals to make fur skin clothing for Adam and Eve? - Genesis 3:21

3. The eating of meat was allowed starting from the departure from the ark. -Genesis 9:3

4. The Old Law allowed for the eating of various kinds of meat - Leviticus 11:3,9,46-47; Deuteronomy 14:4-6,9,11

a. The eating of beef, lamb, various poultry and fish were allowed under the Law.

b. Jesus’ eating of these things would not violate the Law.

D. The Law require numerous animal sacrifices

1. If Jesus protested against animal sacrifices, then he would have been protesting against the teachings of the Law of Moses – a sin.

2. Mark 11:17 - Jesus protested the profiteering being made off of an ordinance of God - also John 2:14-16

III. Christ’s new law allows any meat to be eaten except for blood and strangled animals (because the blood remains in the meat) - Acts 15:28-29

A. Peter was commanded by God to kill and eat meat - Acts 10:9-16

B. I Corinthians 10:25-26 - Eat anything sold in the meat market without question

C. The forbidding of certain foods is an indication of departing from the faith - I Timothy 4:1-5

Is everything in the Bible applicable today?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:29:49 +0000

Question:

Would Jesus have advocated the disgusting torture that animals endure throughout their lives in present-day slaughterhouses? While you clearly say eating dead animals is okay by God and the Bible, the Bible also says slavery is fine and selling one's daughter is okay. So, is absolutely everything in the Bible truly applicable to present-day life?

Answer:

For a very good question, you ruined its presentation with inconsistencies and poorly framed reasoning. I wonder what it is with animal-rights activists that make so many of them sound like mindless hate mongers? I will happily accept the backhanded compliment that I was clear in proving that the Bible does allow men to eat meat.

You ask if Jesus would approve of modern slaughterhouses, but then question whether the Bible is useful. So what does it matter to you what Jesus would do if you doubt the book that tells us of Jesus?

Then there is the problem of your baseless assumptions. You assume that animals are tortured in slaughterhouses -- not just in the butchering, but you state the torture goes on their entire lives. A very blatant lie and an obviously false statement. Cows, chickens, hogs, and similar beasts are not raised in slaughterhouses, so, therefore, they could not be tortured in slaughterhouses their whole lives.

You question the practice of eating dead animals, does that mean you prefer people eating live animals? Yes, I'm being very sarcastic, but I'm dealing with thick-skulled people here.

The Bible does not say that all slavery is fine. The slave system described in the Bible has little to do when the slave system used in the United States in its early history. See articles on Slavery for a more accurate portrayal of what God did to regulate man's desires for slaves.

Similarly, the Bible doesn't give blanket approval to the selling of a person's children -- let alone his daughters. There was a debtor system where a man could place his family and himself into temporary indentureship to pay off his debts. But notice that the person did it to himself by placing his family into debt. Second, the term of service was clearly limited. Third, the person sold for debts was strongly protected by laws in regards to what could happen to him or her. And fourth, there were laws requiring near kinsmen to buy relatives out of their debt bondage if it was within their ability.

Thus, the presentation of your questions misrepresents the Bible's position. The comparison doesn't hold.

But let's skip all the silliness and address the one good question that you asked: "Is absolutely everything in the Bible applicable to today's life?" The answer is no. The Bible tells us what wicked people did and said. Just because these were recorded in the Bible, it doesn't mean they are there to follow. Quite the opposite. They are there as warnings. "Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted" (I Corinthians 10:6). The Bible also contains the advice of people who were not well informed. For example, the book of Job contains the ill-thought-out advice of three of Job's friends. They are recorded so that we can see why men often reason poorly, but they are not meant to be followed.

Then there is a need to understand the nature of the Bible. The Old Testament records the history of God's dealing with mankind. While we can learn principles and applications (Romans 15:4), it is not the law we live under. For example, Paul argues strongly that circumcision (a practice required by Israelites under the Old Law) is not applicable to Christians under the Law of Christ (Galatians 5:1-4). See "Why We Do Not Follow the Old Testament" for more details.

Peter states that the Bible contains everything we need to live righteously. "As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue" (II Peter 1:3). But it doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is directly applicable to us. You have to use your head to "understand what the will of the Lord is" (Ephesians 5:17). It requires study. "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15). Not that it is impossibly difficult. The Bible is understandable. But people who approach it as a means of justifying their preconceived notations are strongly motivated to distort the clear teaching to promote their false ideas. "Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen" (II Peter 3:14-18).

Question:

I find it odd that you chose to attack my question rather than focusing on answering what I clearly meant to ask. Also, I was shocked at how hateful you were toward me for a pretty basic question. I never said that I didn't believe in God, Christ, or the Bible's teachings, nor that you were wrong in your interpretations. I simply wanted the opinion of someone more learned in the field of theology than I am. After reading your email, please don't sarcastically mock me, my eyes welled up with tears because I don't understand why you were so mean when all you know about me comes from a three-sentence email. I realize I was a little worked up and sarcastic in my email, and I apologize for that. But to imply that I'm unintelligent, or a "hate monger", is just wrong. I have a 4.2 GPA at the second toughest high school in _______ - I'm not completely dumb.

You may have had some unpleasant encounters with vegans in the past, but please keep in mind that not all vegans are crazy people who run around naked and throw red paint on fur. I've never been to a protest in my life and wouldn't think of telling a meat-eater how stupid or ignorant they are. In my email, I wasn't questioning the Bible's teachings - I simply wanted to know the church's argument for the consumption of meat.

Answer:

I'm glad to see that the strong approach opened your eyes to the wording of your prior message. Yes, I was well aware that you were "a little worked up and sarcastic." I answered as I did because Proverbs says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5). It is interesting that you enjoy dishing out sarcasm, but well up with tears when you are responded to in kind.

Despite your protest, you did not ask about arguments concerning the consumption of meat. You stated in your first note, "you clearly say eating dead animals is okay by God and the Bible," which implies you have read the arguments presented on this website. After scolding you for the framing of your question, I did answer your question about whether everything in the Bible is applicable today. As I said it was a good question even though it was presented poorly in your original note. If you are interested in what the Bible says about the eating of meat, please see the articles on vegetarianism.

The article on animal rights is pitiable

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:22:00 +0000

Question:

[This note was left unedited since it offers critique of this website.]

I'm shaking my head in pity because I feel such sorrow for the author of this sadly poorly unjust literature. Cognitive rehab is available. I just want to let the author know Killing wildlife as a means of cultural survival ( clothing, food, medical aide etc) is God's Blessing thus more than justified. Killing God's wonderful creation for game, self lust and trophies IS NOTHING BUT A SIN! We know that our Great I Am keeps his eye on the sparrows...so Beware you Scoffers who love giving counsel..Making more "Title Christians such as yourselves " Beware!! The path into heaven is narrow!! It's not only your Creed that Counts but your Deed will hold you accountable!!!

Answer:

I've heard that there are good classes in reading comprehension, which might help you. The author talks about hunting for food. He specifically talks about why abuse in hunting is wrong at the end of the article, but I must assume you dashed off your response before you got past the first few paragraphs. While brother Treat gives a well-thought-out piece and carefully documented his position from the Scriptures, you give us a rant where you throw some biblical phrases in as if that makes your note authoritative.

The definition of a scoffer is "someone who jeers or mocks or treats something with contempt or calls out in derision." I'm sorry to be the one pointing this out, but that defines your letter and not brother Treat's article. As Jesus said, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5).

If you are seeking someone to persuade to your point of view, perhaps you should first formulate some reasoned arguments.

You misused verses in “Did Jesus Eat Meat?”

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:58:00 +0000

Question:

I was just reading Was Jesus a Vegetarian? Did Jesus Eat Meat? on your website, and I came across this passage:

"It is true that in the beginning, mankind only ate vegetables (Genesis 1:29-30). However, this was changed when Noah departed the ark. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." (Genesis 9:3)."

I usually reference the actual book when faced with one-liners like this because I feel that I need more context, so I did, and it reads:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man" (Genesis 9:3-5).

It basically says that you will pay for eating animals with your life! I then did a search through an online Bible and this notion comes up again in both Leviticus and Ezekiel. Are you aware of this?

And then Acts 10. Some starving hungry guy heard a voice telling him to kill and eat an animal and he refused because he had never eaten it before. Further proving that he, a man of God, was a vegetarian! And how do we know it was the voice of God he heard anyway? And even if it was, it was only because he was starving. Eating flesh is forgivable but not ideal. And eating it regularly, saying to yourself "Oh, He will forgive me" does not cut it. Actually, such a willful sin against the Spirit is blasphemy!

And I Corinthians 10. It just says if you are at the home of a non-believer and they offer you food, eat it, whatever it is unless it's a sacrifice to a false god, then do not eat it. It doesn't say, eat whatever you want at the market.

Are you intentionally trying to be misleading?

Answer:

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man" (Genesis 9:3-5).

People do have difficulty reading the older English of the King James Version. Something that is clearly stated can be misconstrued, especially by those so inclined. Genesis 9:3-4 states that animals were given to mankind as food, just as vegetables were given to man prior to the Flood. The only requirement is that the blood had to be drained from the meat.

Genesis 9:5 changes the topic slightly. The spilling of man's blood (i.e. murder) had to be avenged, whether it was an animal that killed a man or another man. Your application of this passage to animals does not match what it states.

Leviticus 17:10-16 and Leviticus 19:26 also state that blood was not to be eaten. Neither forbids the eating of meat. In fact, hunting for meat is specifically mentioned: "Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust" (Leviticus 17:13).

I'm not certain which passage in Ezekiel you found interesting. I do know that there is nothing in Ezekiel that commands a vegetarian diet for the general population.

Regarding Peter, you twisted what he said. "And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common" " (Acts 10:13-15). The command is identified as being from God, by the way (Acts 10:28). Peter did not say he did not eat meat. He stated he had not violated the Old Law's requirement not to eat unclean (or common) animals. Deuteronomy 14:2-21 gives a list of what may and what may not be eaten by an Israelite under the Old Law.

For someone checking the verses, you didn't do an adequate job with I Corinthians 10. The passage cited states, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD'S, and all its fullness" " (I Corinthians 10:25-26).

I hope this helps your reading comprehension a bit.

Is it wrong to feed my reptiles live insects?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 23:41:00 +0000

Question:

I was happy to find your answer: "God used bugs to annoy the Egyptians." This eased my conscience a bit but, my question is this:

I am feeding my reptiles and frogs live crickets and meal worms specifically bred as reptile food. Recently when I watch the crickets run and scramble as if they know that they will be a lizard's meal. I feel a bit guilty. Are there any biblical, Christian scriptures that urge us not to do this?

Answer:

God made the animals you are keeping to eat live prey. What the lizards and frogs are doing is as God designed them. You are taking care of your animals by feeding them.

Yes, the insects are designed to avoid harm so they can continue to populate the earth, but they were also meant to be used as food for some of God's larger creatures, and in the case of some insects, they could also be used by man for food. "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (I Timothy 4:4-5).

Sustainable Agriculture Opposed

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:01:00 +0000

Source: "Amid uproar, college euthanizes farm ox," Omaha World-Herald, 12 November 2012.

"Sustainable agriculture is a way of raising food that is healthy for consumers and animals, does not harm the environment, is humane for workers, respects animals, provides a fair wage to the farmer, and supports and enhances rural communities" ["What Is Sustainable Agriculture?"]. Sounds good, right? Not to animal rights activists. Despite their claims that they are only opposed to "factory farms," the truth is that they oppose all use of animals as food.

"Lou and another ox were retired this summer from the [Vermont Green Mountain] college's working farm. The school planned to turn them into meat products to be served in the college dining hall as it has done with other livestock and in keeping with the school's emphasis on sustainable agriculture." But animal rights activists interfered and protested. The result was that Lou, who was retired because of injuries, had to be put down because his injuries worsened.

No animal was saved and no savings were gained by using what was produced. Animal rights activists hide behind a concern for the environment, but they don't support environmental-friendly operations if it isn't done exactly their way.

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (I Timothy 4:1-5).

Jesus is a vegan!

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:19:00 +0000

Question:

I'M SURE WHEN THE THREE WISE MEN CAME TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS THEY SALUGHTER AND ATE THE ANIMALS IN THE MANGER, JESUS NEVER FED THE NULTITUDES FISH IT WAS A HERB "FISHWEED" JESUS CLEANSED THE TEMPLE WITH A WHIP THEY WERE SELLING HIS CREATION TO EAT, AND HE WILL CLEANSE YOU "OUT" OF THE BOOK OF LIFE IF YOU DON'T STOP EATING FLESH I GAURENTEE YOU THAT JESUS KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" IN THE HEBREW "LO TIRKZACK" NO ANY KIND OF KILLING JEREMIAH 7:22 I NEVER GAVE YOUR FATHERS PERMISSION THE SACRAFICES ANIMALS, YOU [people] BETTER START OBEYING GENESIS 1:29 OR YOUR LUST FOR FLESH WILL DRIVE YOU TO HELL "REPENT" NO MURDERS GO TO HEAVEN! GO-VEGAN

Answer:

Except for replacing one curse word, I left the note as originally written. This serves as an illustration of how poorly people can behave who follow a cause without thought.

The first argument is from the absurd. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him" (Proverbs 26:4).

The second argument that Jesus didn't feed the multitudes fish demonstrates a willingness to ignore the text and insert anything a person desires. He is basically arguing that all translators in all languages didn't realize that the Greek word ichthudion doesn't really mean "little fishes." "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers" (II Timothy 2:14).

The third argument shows a continued trend of someone who loosely has heard about the stories in the Bible but has not read them for himself.

"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"" (John 2:13-16).

Notice how he picked up on Jesus driving out the sellers of animals but ignores the moneychangers. Worse, he thinks that the animals being sold in the Temple were for food when the truth is that they were being sold for sacrifices. Of course, he ignores the reason Jesus gives for driving out both the moneychangers and animal dealers -- they were using the need for sacrificing to God as a means of making money.

But this brings up an interesting point. Sacrifices of animals went on constantly in the Temple, even while Jesus was teaching in the Temple, but Jesus never says anything against those sacrifices. Instead, one of the illustrations shows acceptance of animal sacrifices. "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:23-24). The altar he is referring to is the altar of sacrifice. When Jesus healed the leper, "And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them" (Matthew 8:4). What did Moses command? "Now on the eighth day he is to take two male lambs without defect, and a yearling ewe lamb without defect, and three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, and one log of oil; Then the priest who makes him clean shall present the man who is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. And the priest shall take one male lamb and offer it as a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them as a wave offering before the LORD. Then he shall kill the lamb in the place where he kills the sin offering and the burnt offering, in a holy place; for as the sin offering is the priest's, so is the trespass offering. It is most holy" (Leviticus 14:10-13). Yes, Jesus kept the law of Moses and told others to keep it as well -- which included the killing of sacrifices.

This, by the way, brings us to the fourth point and demonstrates the writer doesn't understand Hebrew. See: Is the commandment "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder"? for a correct discussion of the word's meaning. "You shall not kill" was never applied to animals.

You know a person doesn't understand the Bible when they find a statement to pull out of context to contradict what is clearly stated repeatedly throughout the rest of the Scriptures.

Regarding Jeremiah 7:22, consider:

"For thus says the LORD: 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually'" (Jeremiah 33:17-18).

The people of Israel had convinced themselves that it didn't matter how they lived their lives, so long as they did their sacrifices. They went so far as to offer sacrifices to multiple gods to cover all their bases. "Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? he children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger" (Jeremiah 7:17-18). Somehow offering sacrifices to God was supposed to make this better. What God reminded them was that the first thing He told them was not to offer Him sacrifices, but to give Him obedience. "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you'" (Jeremiah 7:21-23). Sacrifices don't make up for disobedience. This is not saying that God did not command sacrifices. The entire book of Leviticus gives directions for numerous sacrifices. To claim as this person does just demonstrates that he doesn't know the Bible. He takes a sentence out of context only as "proof text" but once the context is restored everyone sees that he is dishonest in his handling of the text.

Genesis 1:29, "And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food," is followed by "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so" (Genesis 1:30). Yes, mankind did not eat meat in the beginning and neither did the animals! But that changed after the flood. "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs" (Genesis 9:3). The writer violates the commands of God by ignoring all that God has said on a matter. Some animals began eating meat after the flood, and so did men.

Clearly, this person's note was not designed to be persuasive. Instead, he tried to use threats. But here again, he shows that he doesn't know Christianity well. Threats don't work against Christians. "But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you are blessed. "And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled" " (I Peter 3:14). As a Christian, I teach the truth.

"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (II Thessalonians 2:11-12).

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II Timothy 4:3-4).

Question:

ARE YOU ALMIGHTY GOD SAYING THAT IT NEVER APPLIED TO ANIMALS, WHO [do you] (THATS WHERE YOUR GOING IF YOU DON'T REPENT)THINK YOU ARE SAYING IT NEVER APPLIED TO ANIMALS GOD CREATED THEM AND NOBODY NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM, YOU "LUST" AFTER MEAT!

Answer:

Profanity removed once again.

Notice the lack of clarity in thought and the blind assertion without evidence. If he really thought I was wrong, it would have been a simple matter of finding a contradictory case. Of course, he doesn't have that option in this case because I have done my research. Notice also there is no attempt to answer all the other points made. Like so many, truth doesn't matter. He can't conceive of rethinking his position, so he is merely left with empty threats.

You can’t claim that men can eat meat because Adam and Eve did not exist!

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:38:00 +0000

Question:

I am not going to spend the time on pointing out the contradictions and major flaws in your 'bible-based' theories about why animals may be hunted,slaughtered and consumed at our peril, for the entire article and your reasoning is so deraged that it would probably be a waste of time.

Just for the record: Adam and Eve did not excist.It is a fable therefore God most certainly did not dress them in animal skins! If you accept Adam and Eve as real then you reject the Darwin theories about evolution I suppose.Only recently the Church of England apologised for rejecting these theories all these years! They had NO option for the evidence of evolution is just too overwhelming and made them look like fools rejecting it.

Accepting,like the Christian churches have,that man is an evolved animal ,then ,based on your arguments, humans are free for the taking aswell: to be murdered,consumed and skins used as clothing !

The only message that can be derived from your rediculous arguments is that you have no knowledge how man and other species have developed and are still developing.Evolution is a constant.

Did you know that the chimpanzees DNA is almost identical to that of human animals...96% the same as humans. You would argue it is fine to kill these beings for God gave you permission.

Your article is ill informed,irresponsible and promotes the murder of innocent souls.

If there is a God of love,he most certainly would not support you! Love is not selective.

PS: ACCORDING TO YOUR BIBLE,ADAM AND EVE COVERED THEMSELVES WITH LEAVES...NOT ANIMAL SKINS!!!

Answer:

Note: I left this note unedited.

An assertion is mere emptiness without evidence. Since you didn't back up your assertions, you made no point.

Evolution is an unproven theory that has been losing ground over the years. See: Science's Rejection of Evolution and The Evolutionist's Creation Story, Inspired by Naturalism. That a dying religion is trying to be accepted by the secular world wants to accept evolution does not mean evolution is true, it only means another group has been duped into believing a lie.

You are correct. Accepting the Bible as truth, including the account of Adam and Eve does mean a rejection of Evolution. You assert that it is a myth, but again offer no evidence that your assertion is true.

You do show repeatedly that you do not know what the Bible says. Acceptance of animals as food does not lead to acceptance of men as food because the Scriptures teach that man is not an animal. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Genesis 9:3-6).

The DNA argument between men and chimpanzees was disproven quite a while ago. There are people who claim that having similar chromosomes makes two creatures closely related to each other. But that is assuming that one thing evolves from another -- an assumption that has never been proven. Yet, what if two creatures came from the same designer, would you not expect things with similar functions to contain similar genetic codes? Here are some articles to consider:

Since you do not accept the Scriptures, your argument that using animals for food is a murder of innocent souls holds no water. You can't prove that animals have souls. You don't believe in souls. You don't believe in a prohibition against murder, since that comes from God's laws. And your argument condemns all the meat-eating animals in nature. Why do you attempt to impose a rule on men that you refuse to impose on all other animals if men are nothing more than animals as you wish to claim?

Finally, you reject the concept of God by wanting to claim that God supports your line of reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21).

Do we fail terribly if we consume animals?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:24:08 +0000

Question:

When we are in heaven all is perfect.

Isaiah 65:25 says, "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

In heaven, no one will run slaughter yards or feast on animals bodies. Obviously this is a very important
part about dwelling in God's land thus why it is stated in the Bible.

Why not start now by eating as God wants us to in Heaven. We work towards living a wholesome life by doing what is God's will and to serve him as our master. Yet we eat his animals which in heaven he keeps protected and loved.

After the great flood, he gave the option to eat animals (as vegetation would have been destroyed) but we do not live in the times after a great flood now. Most people buy their meat packaged without giving a second thought to what suffering the animal endured.

I believe when we strive to live on earth as in it is Heaven we fail terribly if we consume animals and those who do (without even trying to refrain from such greed) will not be of the blessed to enter heaven's gates.

Answer:

Here is yet another classic case where a person has decided what is right or wrong on their own and then runs to the Bible to find something to support their notion.

Isaiah 65:25 refers to the time of God's holy mountain. This is a reference to the church, not heaven. The answer to the question "Is God's kingdom vegetarian?" shows this in greater detail. What you did was take a prophetic statement filled with symbolic meaning and assigned a meaning to one part without consideration as to what God said the symbol meant. Then you took the remaining parts and gave it a literal meaning. God's holy mountain is symbolic, but so are the animals and their behavior. It is a reference to the peace in God's kingdom, the church, when Jews and Gentiles would be united. "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16).

It is also strange to apply rules for a state of being for which we have no experience (living in heaven) and attempt to apply them to life here on earth. What is life like in the spiritual realm? Who even stated that spirits eat? If you wish to apply imaginary rules to people on earth, then why not apply one of the few things we do know about the spiritual realm? "Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven"" (Matthew 22:29-30). The concept of male and female is something from this physical realm. There is no gender, no sex, and thus no marriage in heaven. So are you willing to tell people that they must give up sex now so that they won't "fail miserably?" But then we know that the heavenly state doesn't apply to the earthly state. "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (I Timothy 4:1-3). Yes, God foresaw the time when people like you would make up false rules for people.

In regards to the covenant with Noah, Noah and his family did not exit the ark until vegetation has started to grow once again. That is why Noah waited for the sign of the dove carrying the olive leaf. "Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth" (Genesis 8:11). Even then, Noah waited another two months before leaving the ark. Therefore, your contention that God gave permission to eat animals solely because there was a temporary absence of vegetation is false. Secondly, there is no indication that God's covenant was temporary. Terms of that covenant remain in effect today, as the rainbow is witness to that covenant. "So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs"" (Genesis 9:1-3). Nor has there ever been a statement that the terms were rescinded. In fact, that opposite exists. As we saw in I Timothy 4, God warns about people who would forbid certain foods, meat in particular, because of their belief in false doctrine.

Finally, I see you added a rule for entering heaven that God never gave:

"we fail terribly if we consume animals and those who do ... will not be of the blessed to enter heaven's gates."

You have added to God's words your own mistaken opinions. "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6-9).