Veganism

[Aunty Jane]

Compare to Counsels of Diet and Foods, Chapter 23....

What foods did Noah take onto the ark? And what animals were considered “clean” and “unclean”, if all humans were vegetarians before the flood?

These were the animals considered “clean” and “unclean” for sacrifice, hence there were seven of the “clean” animals chosen, and only two of the “unclean” ones. God had already designated to Adam what were domestic animals and what were wild. Sacrificial animals were the domestic ones….and no fear of man existed before God gave permission to eat flesh.

“Seven” meant that on exiting the ark and offering sacrifices of thanksgiving to God, Noah had one animal for sacrifice and six for breeding, to re-establish animal populations on earth again.

 

[Hobie]

What foods did Noah take onto the ark? And what animals were considered “clean” and “unclean”, if all humans were vegetarians before the flood?

These were the animals considered “clean” and “unclean” for sacrifice, hence there were seven of the “clean” animals chosen, and only two of the “unclean” ones. God had already designated to Adam what were domestic animals and what were wild. Sacrificial animals were the domestic ones….and no fear of man existed before God gave permission to eat flesh.

“Seven” meant that on exiting the ark and offering sacrifices of thanksgiving to God, Noah had one animal for sacrifice and six for breeding, to re-establish animal populations on earth again.

Here is the part I was referring to...
"Flesh Diet—An Aftermath of Sin 639.
God gave our first parents the food He designed that the race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was to be no death in Eden. The fruit of the trees in the garden, was the food man’s wants required. God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. Everything had been destroyed upon which man could subsist, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But animal food was not the most healthful article of food for man. The people who lived before the flood ate animal food and grati f ied their lusts until their cup of iniquity was full, and God cleansed the earth of its moral pollution by a flood. Then the third dreadful curse rested upon the earth. The first curse was pronounced upon the posterity of Adam and upon the earth, because of disobedience. The second curse came upon the ground after Cain slew his brother Abel. The third most dreadful curse from God came upon the earth at the flood. After the flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years.—Spiritual Gifts 4a:120, 121, 1864

Antediluvian Depravity [371] [372] [373] 640.
The inhabitants of the Old World were intemperate in eating and drinking. They would have flesh meats, although God had given them no permission to eat animal food. They ate and drank to excess, and their depraved appetites knew no bounds. They gave themselves [374] up to abominable idolatry. They became violent and ferocious, and 295 296 Counsels on Diet and Foods so corrupt that God could bear with them no longer. Their cup of iniquity was full, and God cleansed the earth of its moral pollution by a flood. As men multiplied upon the face of the earth after the flood, they forgot God, and corrupted their ways before Him. Intemperance in every form increased to a great extent.—How to Live 1:52, 1865.

Israel’s Failure and Spiritual Loss 641.
The diet appointed man in the beginning did not include animal food. Not till after the flood, when every green thing on the earth had been destroyed, did man receive permission to eat flesh. In choosing man’s food in Eden, the Lord showed what was the best diet; in the choice made for Israel, He taught the same lesson. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and undertook their training, that they might be a people for His own possession. Through them He desired to bless and teach the world. He provided them with the food best adapted for this purpose, not flesh, but manna, “the bread of heaven.” It was only because of their discontent and their murmurings for the fleshpots of Egypt that animal food was granted them, and this only for a short time. Its use brought disease and death to thousands. Yet the restriction to a nonflesh diet was never heartily accepted. It continued to be the cause of discontent and murmuring, open or secret, and it was not made permanent. Upon their settlement in Canaan, the Israelites were permitted the use of animal food, but under careful restrictions, which tended to lessen the evil results. The use of swine’s flesh was prohibited, as also of other animals and of birds and fish whose flesh was pro nounced unclean. Of the meats permitted, the eating of the fat and the blood was strictly forbidden. [375] Only such animals could be used for food as were in good condi tion. No creature that was torn, that had died of itself or from which the blood had not been carefully drained, could be used as food. By departing from the plan divinely appointed for their diet, the Israelites suffered great loss. They desired a flesh diet, and they reaped its results. They did not reach God’s ideal of character or fulfill His purpose. The Lord “gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul.” They valued the earthly above the spiritual, and the sacred preeminence which was His purpose for them they did not attain.—The Ministry of Healing, 311, 312, 190

God’s Purpose for Israel 644.
When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt, it was His purpose to establish them in the land of Canaan a pure, happy, [378] healthy people. Let us look at the means by which He would ac complish this. He subjected them to a course of discipline, which, had it been cheerfully followed, would have resulted in good, both to themselves and to their posterity. He removed flesh food from them in a great measure. He had granted them flesh in answer to their clamors, just before reaching Sinai, but it was furnished for only one day. God might have provided flesh as easily as manna, but a restriction was placed upon the people for their good. It was His purpose to supply them with food better suited to their wants than the feverish diet to which many of them had been accustomed in Egypt. The perverted appetite was to be brought into a more healthy state, that they might enjoy the food originally provided for man,—the fruits of the earth, which God gave to Adam and Eve in Eden.

Had they been willing to deny appetite in obedience to His re strictions, feebleness and disease would have been unknown among them. Their descendants would have possessed physical and mental strength. They would have had clear perceptions of truth and duty, keen discrimination, and sound judgment. But they were unwilling to submit to God’s requirements, and they failed to reach the stan dard He had set for them, and to receive the blessings that might have been theirs. They murmured at God’s restrictions, and lusted after the fleshpots of Egypt. God let them have flesh, but it proved a curse to them.—Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, 118, 119, 1890".... Counsels on Diet and Foods

 

[GracePeace]

A good argument (I think--at least from one perspective) against the inevitability of our return to our original diet has come into my mind : the original order was also incest ("Be fruitful and multiply"), and there is no expectation that we will return to that.

1. On the other hand, the principle of "do no harm" could be utilized to establish that the two differ fundamentally (incest inflicts harm--both physically and on the conscience--whereas instances of not eating raw vegan inflict harm).

2a. Also, animals will return to their diets, so wouldn't that sort of infer that we should too?
2b. The problem being that it would seem resurrected people wouldn't necessarily rely on food ("God will do away with both of them), and are, at that point, a completed completely new race of people.
They don't get married, either.
So Christ's rulings about marriage fall away, aren't brought to mind, at that time... but then someone might argue similarly that since the ruling about food wouldn't apply in the future it would apply now.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A good argument (I think--at least from one perspective) against the inevitability of our return to our original diet has come into my mind : the original order was also incest ("Be fruitful and multiply"), and there is no expectation that we will return to that.

Since the diet originally intended for mankind was perfect, why would God not go back to the original?
From creation to the flood, there was no flesh eaten by humans, so I do not know where Hobie got that idea. Not from the Bible.
The pre-flood inhabitants of the earth were violent and immoral but nowhere does it say that they ate flesh.

As far as incest is concerned, when there is no law, you cannot break a law that does not exist. Being close to their original perfection back then, incest was not a problem genetically speaking. And there was no moral law forbidding it. Only when God’s people were given the Law in Moses day, was incest forbidden as the gene pool by then was completely contaminated with faulty genes, and incest would produce humans with damaged DNA.

Those servants of God before Moses day, often married their own siblings or cousins. There was no law against it. (Gen 12:10-16) Abraham didn’t lie when he told his wife Sarai to say she was his sister.
Abraham was married to his half sister. Same father, different mothers. But no law to prevent it.

 

[GracePeace]

As far as incest is concerned, when there is no law, you cannot break a law that does not exist. Being close to their original perfection back then, incest was not a problem genetically speaking. And there was no moral law forbidding it. Only when God’s people were given the Law in Moses day, was incest forbidden as the gene pool by then was completely contaminated with faulty genes, and incest would produce humans with damaged DNA. Those servants of God before Moses day, often married their own siblings or cousins. There was no law against it. (Gen 12:10-16)

1. Just spitballing, examining possible believable arguments that could be raised against what I've proposed/asked about.
2. More than there not being a moral law forbidding incest, the law, at least at the very start, was that they commit incest ("Be fruitful and multiply"). This, to me, is an example of the fact that a holy command can become an abomination at another time (justifying Jesus's calling the Torah command to take and keep vows "9f the evil one").

Even with Passover, it's for a specific time of year, and if you practice it at some different time, it is not accepted--I guess that's "similar", in a way.

Abraham didn’t lie when he told his wife Sarai to say she was his sister.
Abraham was married to his half sister. Same father, different mothers. But no law to prevent it.

1. Idk if you've heard the Jews think Sarai was Abraham's half neice. How does that strike ya? They have a lot of "odd" views... yet, some of them end up panning out! I haven't looked in to it myself (busy with other questions).
2. Jews marry first cousins to this day. Einstein married his first cousin (as his 2nd wife).

 

[Aunty Jane]

2. More than there not being a moral law forbidding incest, the law, at least at the very start, was that they commit incest ("Be fruitful and multiply"). This, to me, is an e ample of the fact that a holy command can become an abomination at another time. Even with Passover, it's for a specific time of year, and if you practice it at some different time, it is not accepted--I guess that's "similar", in a way.

Yes, what was not forbidden, became forbidden because circumstances changed. The mandate to fill the earth could not have been carried out any other way……Cain would have married his sister and produced a race of people isolated from their relatives as he was a fugitive in another land for his crime of murder.

The children of Adam and Eve (“sons and daughters” not named in the early record) would have produced children who married each other, and came to fill what was the known earth at that time. (Gen 5:4-5)
Only after the flood was the human race sent to other parts of the earth, as a result of God confusing their language. (Gen 11: 1-9)

Idk if you've heard the Jews think Sarai was Abraham's half neice. How does that strike ya? They have a lot of "odd" views... yet, some of them end up panning out!

It matters little, only that there was no law forbidding incest until the law given to Israel.

Jews marry first cousins to this day. Einstein married his first cousin (as his wnd wife).

Jacob married his first cousins Leah and Rachel.

 

[quietthinker]

Only after the flood was the human race sent to other parts of the earth, as a result of God confusing their language. (Gen 11: 1-9)

Why do you think 'God' confused the languages?....or should I say, why do you think Moses who wrote the record attributed the fact that the many languages which existed at his time was the responsibility of God?

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, what was not forbidden, became forbidden because circumstances changed. The mandate to fill the earth could not have been carried out any other way……Cain would have married his sister and produced a race of people isolated from their relatives as he was a fugitive in another land for his crime of murder.

The children of Adam and Eve (“sons and daughters” not named in the early record) would have produced children who married each other, and came to fill what was the known earth at that time. (Gen 5:4-5)
Only after the flood was the human race sent to other parts of the earth, as a result of God confusing their language. (Gen 11: 1-9)

It matters little, only that there was no law forbidding incest until the law given to Israel.

Jacob married his first cousins Leah and Rachel.

Thanks for interacting!

 

[Aunty Jane]

Why do you think 'God' confused the languages?....

Genesis 11:1-9….
”Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 2 As they traveled eastward, they discovered a valley plain in the land of Shiʹnar, and they began dwelling there. 3 Then they said to one another: “Come! Let us make bricks and bake them with fire.” So they used bricks instead of stone, and bitumen as mortar. 4 They now said: “Come! Let us build a city for ourselves and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, so that we will not be scattered over the entire face of the earth.”

5 Then Jehovah went down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. 6 Jehovah then said: “Look! They are one people with one language, and this is what they have started to do. Now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be impossible for them. 7 Come! Let us go down there and confuse their language in order that they may not understand one another’s language.” 8 So Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why it was named Baʹbel, because there Jehovah confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth.”

Perhaps that will answer your question….? I don’t “think”….because the Bible plainly tells the story. I just convey what the Bible says….you want to argue with that…..I can only ask why?

or should I say, why do you think Moses who wrote the record attributed the fact that the many languages which existed at his time was the responsibility of God?

Apparently there were not many languages at the time of the flood…..there was just one….and it was the language of Noah and his progeny after him. Only when a new rebel appeared in the person of his grandson, Nimrod, did this situation change. God confused the language of men to stop them in their disobedience. The reason is also plainly stated…..”Now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be impossible for them”.

Haven’t we reached that stage again now???

Who is it that invented language, so that human beings could communicate with God, with angels and with each other?
I do wonder about your grasp of scriptural knowledge, as it bears little resemblance to the Bible that I read.

 

[quietthinker]

Perhaps that will answer your question….? I don’t “think”….because the Bible plainly tells the story. I just convey what the Bible says….you want to argue with that…..I can only ask why?

It is clear that you don't think, as you say AJ. I am not saying this to insult you, just bouncing back your own words.
I would suggest that thinking is critical if one wants answers that don't just repeat the familiar narrative.

Apparently there were not many languages at the time of the flood…..there was just one….and it was the language of Noah and his progeny after him. Only when a new rebel appeared in the person of his grandson, Nimrod, did this situation change. God confused the language of men to stop them in their disobedience. The reason is also plainly stated…..”Now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be impossible for them”.

It was Moses who wrote the account AJ...not Noah. By the time Moses came along the were many languages.
Moses assumes God is responsible for the confusion.
What do you do with that information when the following is stated in the NT.
1 Corinthians 14:33 'For God is not the author of confusion, for God is the God, not of confusion, but of peace....'

I do wonder about your grasp of scriptural knowledge, as it bears little resemblance to the Bible that I read.

Wondering is a good thing AJ, but don't forget about thinking as well. Could it be that my proposals bear little resemblance to the Bible you read because your thinking is sidelined? (not encouraged)

 

[TheHC]

Wondering is a good thing AJ, but don't forget about thinking as well.

What are you going on about? Why do you try so hard to belittle?

You must realize your statement ^above^ is moot…
The verb “to wonder” actually means “to think about; to meditate on”!
So wondering is thinking.

Could it be that my proposals bear little resemblance to the Bible you read….?

Yes.
Enough said.

 

[quietthinker]

What are you going on about? Why do you try so hard to belittle?

You must realize your statement ^above^ is moot…
The verb “to wonder” actually means “to think about; to meditate on”!
So wondering is thinking.



Yes.
Enough said.

Your selective quoting HC, ensures context is violated and you indict yourself!

 

[Aunty Jane]

It is clear that you don't think, as you say AJ. I am not saying this to insult you, just bouncing back your own words.

You have this knack of twisting words to suit your own meaning….and then you respond to what you imagine was said….I said nothing like you imagined…..I don’t need to “think” of ways to make the Scriptures say what they don’t...which was clearly my meaning. Do you have a comprehension problem or are you just geared to insult people for no good reason? Yes…it was insulting.

I would suggest that thinking is critical if one wants answers that don't just repeat the familiar narrative.

What familiar narrative is that? Yours? It’s not a narrative that remotely resonates with me.
You are someone who spends way too much time in your own head….and in your own company…

It was Moses who wrote the account AJ...not Noah. By the time Moses came along the were many languages.
Moses assumes God is responsible for the confusion.
What do you do with that information when the following is stated in the NT.
1 Corinthians 14:33 'For God is not the author of confusion, for God is the God, not of confusion, but of peace....'

You think Moses wrote all that stuff in Genesis out of his own imagination? Does the scripture in 2 Tim 3:16-17 ring any bells for you?

As for 1 Cor 14:33….in context, this is about the procedure of those in the congregation with some gift of the Holy Spirit to share back then when tongues and prophesy and revelations were common….these had to take place in an orderly fashion….it has nothing to do with God confusing the language at Babel. But if you were a true Bible student you would know that.

Wondering is a good thing AJ, but don't forget about thinking as well.

Insults again…what the heck is wrong with you mate…? Do you derive some kind of pleasure in alienating yourself from others? Your inability to read people is astounding. Do you need to put others down to elevate yourself? Perhaps you are the one who needs to put your brain into gear before putting your typing fingers into motion….? Think about how your words on a personal level are taken by the one you are claiming not to intentionally insult. Your interpersonal skills are non existent.

Could it be that my proposals bear little resemblance to the Bible you read because your thinking is sidelined? (not encouraged)

Or could it be that your own thinking is so far out of left field, that it isn’t even in the field anymore?
What does that mean “not encouraged”? I am not alone in my thinking…..because Christians must have a brotherhood who all believe the same truth (1 Cor 1:10)….who are your brotherhood QT? Do you meet with real people at all….do you ever agree with anyone other than yourself? I have to wonder….

I have to put you on “ignore” again…..it is enough now.

 

[TheHC]

Your selective quoting HC, ensures context is violated and you indict yourself!

Yeah, you didn’t like it, did you? Get the point?

 

[quietthinker]

You have this knack of twisting words to suit your own meaning….and then you respond to what you imagine was said….I said nothing like you imagined…..I don’t need to “think” of ways to make the Scriptures say what they don’t...which was clearly my meaning. Do you have a comprehension problem or are you just geared to insult people for no good reason? Yes…it was insulting.

What familiar narrative is that? Yours? It’s not a narrative that remotely resonates with me.
You are someone who spends way too much time in your own head….and in your own company…


You think Moses wrote all that stuff in Genesis out of his own imagination? Does the scripture in 2 Tim 3:16-17 ring any bells for you?

As for 1 Cor 14:33….in context, this is about the procedure of those in the congregation with some gift of the Holy Spirit to share back then when tongues and prophesy and revelations were common….these had to take place in an orderly fashion….it has nothing to do with God confusing the language at Babel. But if you were a true Bible student you would know that.

Insults again…what the heck is wrong with you mate…? Do you derive some kind of pleasure in alienating yourself from others? Your inability to read people is astounding. Do you need to put others down to elevate yourself? Perhaps you are the one who needs to put your brain into gear before putting your typing fingers into motion….? Think about how your words on a personal level are taken by the one you are claiming not to intentionally insult. Your interpersonal skills are non existent.

Or could it be that your own thinking is so far out of left field, that it isn’t even in the field anymore?
What does that mean “not encouraged”? I am not alone in my thinking…..because Christians must have a brotherhood who all believe the same truth (1 Cor 1:10)….who are your brotherhood QT? Do you meet with real people at all….do you ever agree with anyone other than yourself? I have to wonder….

I have to put you on “ignore” again…..it is enough now.

Peter entered the open door even when Jesus said 'get behind me Satan'

 

[GracePeace]

Idk why we can't have a simple discussion. Not many are capable of it. Why? Auntie Jane, you were able. Idk why others can't. There has to be drama. Half of the thread is drama , not substantive. Think of what we're missing out on. Sad.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Idk why we can't have a simple discussion. Not many are capable of it. Why? Auntie Jane, you were able. Idk why others can't. There has to be drama. Half of the thread is drama , not substantive. Think of what we're missing out on. Sad.

So true…it doesn’t have to be all that complicated….it only gets that way when people try to add things that don’t belong….the truth is simple.

 

[BarneyFife]

Which tells us those that tell others to abstain from eating meat.... are teaching doctrines of devils.

1 Timothy 4:1-5
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.






Hast thou seen 1 Timothy 4:1-5 View attachment 59708

I've seen it.

I've also noticed that the word translated "meat" is actually a Greek word that means "food," or "certain food"—not animal flesh.

So what Paul is actually condemning is the religious coercion or enforcement of meaningless abstinence from food, or certain types of food.

:

 

[BarneyFife]

I see so your deal is you are the one in the know and everyone else should sit down and shut up, right?

And if they do say anything they had better speak in agreement with you if they know what's good for them!

You really have no sense of self-awareness at all, do you?

:

 

[BarneyFife]

Compare to Counsels of Diet and Foods, Chapter 23....

Why would she do that?

:)