Saturday, 18 July 2009
-
Why "God put animals on the earth in order for us to eat them" doesn't make sense
So, I had a camper say this the other day at our campout. I didn't really say much, because obviously she is just a nice little kid who wouldn't want someone in charge of her challenging her beliefs.
But I can pretty much assure you that such a blanket statement is definitely false. First of all:
-Did God put your dog or cat on this planet because you are supposed to eat him? If so, what are you waiting for, already? Or is it just "You CAN eat the animal, or you can not."
-Second: God placed animals on the planet for us to eat... just as he placed guns on earth so that we could blow each other up. Well, no, not really. Just because he plants the tree with the serpent that is specifically designed to tempt us, does not necessary follow that we are, indeed, supposed to eat the forbidden apple, or that he intends for us two.
-Third: the entire argument presupposes God. Which is not definite. And as far as I know, from a Christian perspective, there is no part of the bible that claims this exactly. In fact, at some points it specifically says NOT to eat certain foods (and by foods I mean, meats) indicating that God really did not intend all animals for consumption.
-Fourth: Okay, need it really be said? I shall say it, then: POISON DART FROGS. PORTUGUESE MAN OF WAR. The HUNDREDS of animals on earth where consumption would prove painful, if not lethal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't placed here for us to eat them. Unless God has some rather sinister plans in store for us...
-Fifth: It is a very hominicentric point of view, and I know there's a nicer word for that, but I forget. Humans are no more the center or crowning glory of the living world any more than the universe revolves around the earth (it doesn't). In terms of survival, adaptation and population, bacteria and insects are the rightful "rulers" of earth's biosphere.
-Sixth: The only way this works, in the end, if you specifically say "God put CERTAIN animals on earth for us to eat them." And then ignore that God probably did not place said animals in factory farms where they pick up loads of hormones and antibiotics to load up your receiving body with... well, anyhow.
So the point of this is:
Vegetarians... are awesome because they would never use this fail logic.
Tofu even LOOKS happy. How often do you think slaughtered cows smile? Yeah, exactly. Never.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 1
- like
Comments (19)
Tofu yuck! I guess it's an acquired taste.
@trunthepaige - it depends on how you cook it. I've had tofu that tastes real bland and blah, and I've had tofu that is incredibly delicious amazingness.
Eating is part of an energy exchange. In the natural world humans mostly resemble omnivorous animals and herbivores, true. Humans are definitely not strict carnivores, based on dental structure and digestive system analogies. Humans basically eat what they can and mostly whatever makes them feel the best – apparently humans really like meat a lot, like most omnivores. Our energy-exchange system, however, is all corrupted and out of balance. This is why people eat enough meat to give them various cancers.
Tofu, and soy products in general, are very controversial in terms of health. Studies have linked soy to cancer and other health problems. You can still be a vegetarian without soy.
@dirtbubble - We are omnivores, eating one thing only is not the best and too much of one plant is totally unnatural to us. Vegetation is seasonal. And that includes wheat.
@trunthepaige - Gorillas, whom we resemble a great deal, are strict herbivores. But generally I agree with you – if you read my whole comment you'll see that. We're mostly like omnivorous chimps. Wheat and many other agriculturally popularized products are a source of calories but our bodies are not meant to subsist on them alone.
@dirtbubble - Strict herbivores to not die from an animal product free diet like we do. Their digestive system makes its own B-12, ours does not. We are about as pure an omnivore as there is, we also die without fresh vegetation. We can live pretty much on anything but require everything if we are to be healthy.
I agree that the claim that animals were put here to be eaten is an amazingly humancentric, savage way of looking at things.
I don't think of it that way, but I still eat meat. I eat vegetables too and I love tofu as well. But you can think of anything that is being eaten wouldn't be smiling. . . *shrugs* unless it's a cannibalistic Gummi bear or something . . .
I don't think I agree with you on this. Looking from a biblical standpoint, God commanded people to kill animals and offer them as sacrifices for their sins. He allowed the priests to eat part of the sacrifices. The israelites ate the lambs they killed for passover, and the Jewish people still celebrate the passover by eating lambs. It's true that God commanded His people not to eat certain animals because they were "unclean."
I'm not sure if it was God's intention originally for humans to eat animals or not. I don't think that's in the Bible. It does say in Genesis (I forget the passage now bc I copy pasted and I already closed the window):
26 Then God
said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule
over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God did put man in charge of the animals, but I don't really know about eating them.
Although we do know that before the "fall of man" (aka Adam and Eve sinning against God) they were eating fruit from trees, not animals. But once they sinned, alot of things changed. They were banished from the garden, and wore clothes, and sacrifices were needed for sin. Anyway, my final point is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that it's a sin for people to eat animals and there are many instances where God's people did. So at least from a biblical standpoint, I disagree with you. But hey if you don't want to eat meat, I don't think that's a wrong decision either. To each his own I suppose.
@trunthepaige - If your intent in continuing is to strike home that humans are defintely not herbivores, I think that's understood, although our host here will likely disagree no matter what. I also think it's a stretch for you to assert that vegetarians will die from a lack of meat. We will all die of something, and many vegetarians have been known to live long, healthy and productive lives, and many non-vegetarians die early from an infinte variety of causes that include systemic failures. But vegetarians must realize that to stick to their convictions will take a great effort and constant maintenance. And soy, in particular, is possibly a very poor choice of staple.
@dirtbubble - Well no that was not my intent I was just speaking the the truth. Most vegetarians know about it and take supplements because of it. But a truly vegetarian diet with no animal products at all is fatal in a natural state. That is not debatable at all, other than out of ignorance. But being the clever beasts we are, we have become proficient at culturing replacements for animal produced b-12. So really this is all mute. Except when talking to some fools from PETA who wound try to say that humans are natural vegetarians. That is lie and a very unhealthy one.
Honestly I mention tofu only because I don't like it. I find efforts to make a meaty replacement fail horribly. In my opinion vegetables, grains, nuts, fruit, all taste far better, wonderful even, when they have their natural flavor and texture left intact.
The same argument can be made about plants though, that god put them here for us to eat.
Then again, I don't believe in god.
:)
Dear Magical Whale,
Abstract: I agree that a blanket statement is false, and while you can say absolutely that animals are not on Earth solely to be eaten, animals are may be in part on Earth to be eaten as part of the food chain that supports the existance of all life. That is to say, that animals consuming other animals may be part of the intended mode of propagation of energy. At the very least, according to the Bible and supposing God, consumption of meat in itself doesn't seem to offend God. Furthermore, the intuitive distinction humans draw between plant and animal life has some good groundings, but in terms of life and living things, it is not trivial to say that consuming microscopic or macroscopic animals is morally different than consuming a plant. It is just that we tend to feel empathy for animals and not plants. If there is no moral difference between consuiming plants and animals, then other life exists on earth in a significant part to be consumed by other creatures and by us.
In addition to the other points about us not be herbivores, if you suppose that the human body was designed by God, then it does seem that we are evolved to be herbivores. Science suggests that our ancestors would oppurtunistically scavenge meat and later hunt meat as a large source of energy for our early societies and ultimately for our evolving brains. Furthermore, we lack the digistive machinery such as a large cecum (appendix) to solely handle vegitation. Thus, we are evolved to crave meat. If God planned this, eating only plants seems unnatural; thus, some meat is intended to be eaten, so God intended us to eat some animals.
Point by point:
1: It seems to be that the intention is to create a food web and not that humans have to be at the top of every food chain.
2: I agree that we may have been given the ability to eat things that we are not supposed to, but we seem meant to eat meat, and to eat plants. In doing so, we are meant to consume other life.
3: God does command the Isralites to eat part of the sacrifical lambs, but that might be thought of as more of a rejection of the lambs as gods (Egyptian cultural influence on the Isralites) than actual nourishment for humans or God. (although it demonstrates that eating meat does not offend God)
4: I agree.
5: Well, I think its more fair to say that everything exists in balance. You can't really create an objectively true standard for who is the ruler of a food web. Is it the most biomass? The most organisms? The highest on the chain? What philosophically would this mean?
6. I agree, but I think this should have been the first point.
-Andrew
P.S. Meh.
God originally created animals to be companions for men. Adam didn't find any that he liked too much so God created woman.
Animals were not created for food but they can be used for food.
Normal
0
7.8 磅
0
2
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:普通表格;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
I really like these links of London, Are so attractive, look of London necklaec, Wishing you a happy
@rectangularprism - It is in the Bible:
Genesis 1:29: Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Adam and Eve were vegetarians. It wasn't until after Noah's flood that people started eating meat.
Post a Comment