by jimwalton » Thu May 02, 2019 8:54 pm
Wow, the conversation has taken a sudden turn from killing gays to veganism. I'll say off the top that the Bible neither teaches (requires) veganism nor says there's anything wrong with it. It's a choice we all get to make.
> Gen. 1.30
Thomas Aquinas, along with many believers through the millennia, have thought it unreasonable to assume that this verse means there were no carnivores. There would not have been any changes in the nature of animals pre- and post-fall. Nor are there any biblical texts indicating such a change in nature (that would have involved sudden significant biological and physiological changes). The doctrine of creation emphasizes continuity rather than change in creation’s functional integrity. This text does not rule out carnivorous behavior among animals. Genesis 1 draws a distinction between domesticated and undomesticated animals, with Gn. 1.24 distinguishing between livestock, crawling things, and wild beasts. Furthermore, when God calls the sea and soil to bring forth living creatures (Gn. 1.20-25), there are no dietary restrictions mentioned. To say that this verse restricts the diets of all creatures to herbivory goes beyond what Genesis 1 claims. In addition, God’s great creation discourse in Job describes predatory behavior by animals as if it has always been part of the normal workings of God’s creation and that God is involved in this.
> Dan. 1
In Dan. 1.5, the term used is *patbag*. It refers to food portions sent by the king to friends of the crown. There is no reason to think of it as a meat dish. When later Greeks refer to descriptions of this fare in the Persian literature they have available to them, it is identified as a baked bread product made of barley and wheat, accompanied by wine. Daniel was not insisting on veganism, or even vegetarianism.
There have been extensive discussions and a variety of suggestions regarding the reasons why Daniel and his friends refused the king’s food. Most work on the assumption that the contrast is between meat and vegetables, as you have assumed. It is true that sharing the king’s food implied some level of allegiance to the king, but that would hold no matter what the young men ate. Jewish dietary laws (kosher) would likely have rendered food unclean, but improper storage or preparation could render other food unclean as well. Furthermore, the Jewish dietary laws did not prohibit wine. The finest meats were undoubtedly supplied to the palace from the temples where they had been offered before idols (and the wine poured out in libations before the gods), but any food could easily have come through the same route. The decision certainly has nothing to do with vegetarianism or avoidance of rich foods for nutritional purposes (see Dan. 10:3). There are numerous examples in intertestamental literature of Jews seeing the necessity of refraining from the food served by Gentiles (Tobit, Judith, Jubilees). It is not so much something in the food that defiles as much as it is the total program of assimilation. At this point the Babylonian government is exercising control over every aspect of their lives. They have little means to resist the forces of assimilation that are controlling them. They seize on one of the few areas where they can still exercise choice, as an opportunity to preserve their distinct identity.
> Isa. 65.25
This verse describes the pacification of harmful nature, not that they will become herbivores. It's symbolic language. These predators symbolize all the devouring, ravening, poisonous aspects or our world, inside and outside human nature.
> Job 12.7
The verse has nothing to do with diet. It rather has to do with how obvious the hand of God is (Job 12.9-10).
> Prov. 12.10
This verse pertains to our responsibility to care for animals. God did not create the world and other creatures strictly for human use. The concept of dominion implies responsibility and caretaking. God has given us animals for food (Gn. 9.3). But we are restricted from being cruel.
> Ps. 147.9
This verse has nothing to do with any particular diet, but instead with God's providential care over creation.
> Hosea 2.18
The verse pertains to God's covenant with his people that expands to include creation. It doesn't have anything to do with dietary requirements. In the Day of the Lord (the end time), God's covenant of peace will extend to all of creation. It's a picture of restoration and peace, not what people will eat.
> Jer. 12.4
This verse is a description of judgment and the cynical thinking that will ensue. If God judges the people by restraining His hand of protection, they will find themselves subject to all sorts of problems. Here in Jeremiah, God has hidden his face (evident from the drought and famine), but the evildoers are convinced that God will not “see their end” (same phrase as in Deuteronomy), because they are determined to survive on their own.
> Luke 12.6
Again, this is a verse about God's providential care, not anything dietary. While sparrows may be "worthless" to humans in the grand scheme of things, to God they are as important as anything else. But Jesus uses the saying to show how important we are to God.
> Ps. 36.6
Another verse showing God's sovereign care over creation. This has nothing to do with diet.
> Matthew 5.7
Mercy is an attitude and action toward those who suffer—those who renounce their own dignity to take on the distress, humiliation, and sin of others.
In other words, veganism is neither forbidden nor required, neither encouraged nor discouraged. We can eat what we want as long as we are not cruel, we are being responsible in our oversight over and care of nature, and we treat animals with dignity instead of apathy.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu May 02, 2019 8:54 pm.