Is vegetarianism or veganism against Christianity?
- Thread starter Padre Pio
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Well, I did ask you a question first.
But I will answer anyhow.
God abolished O.T. dietary restrictions.
Act 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider defiled.
Plus the fact we have liberty in Christ.
I didn't answer you because you made a straw man argument, a logical fallacy.
No he didn't. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, Until heaven and earth pass away, not a jot or tittle in the law shall pass away. The context of that dream of Peter's was to teach him a lesson that Gentiles are welcomed and accepted into God's church, the angel used kosher and non-kosher animals as an ANALOGY, kosher law itself was never abolished.
These were your exact words as I copied and pasted
Mark 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and goes to the sewer?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
God abolished O.T. dietary restrictions.
Act 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider defiled.
Veganism isn't just a diet, but a philosophy and way of life. Since vegans don't believe in the abuse/use animals for most purposes then they may also be environmentalists or political activists. So it quickly becomes something bigger than being anti eating meat, but also the why and how behind it. Since other issues are connected to what happens to the animals, then yes it's possible veganism is against Christianity.
You were asked to provide Scripture to support your assertion. Since the Christian faith is grounded in Scripture, that would seem to be the place to look for answers. Here's some I found that may be helpful.
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being. 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.” If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
1 Corinthians 10:23-33 NKJV
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Romans 14:1-9 NKJV
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Romans 12:9-18 NKJV
While it may be perfectly okay to eat meat, if doing so is placing a stumbling block before another, is it not loving to temporarily set aside one's own desire for the sake of another rather than blatantly go on knowing it will be a problem?
Greetings again, IS, and blessings in Christ.
For starters it wouldn't be the first time on the forums someone took objection to a post, so I wouldn't worry too much about taking things down just for that. Not the end of the world, you were just sharing your thoughts.
As for the post, the first thing that came to mind for me was that there was a sect in NT times that was forbidding Christians from eating meats altogether, and those people most certainly would have been offended at more orthodox Christians doing so. But the response Paul gave was to condemn anyone who taught that doctrine, so it depends upon the context.
And in keeping with that thought, the specific context in Paul's writings was that some found eating meats offensive because they had been sacrificed to demonic idols. I'm not sure we have the same concerns today, so allowing for concerns based simply on a healthier diet doesn't seem to equate very well for me. Seems like not so serious an issue that I should bow "to the conscience of another." It's not a salvation issue here, just a health one, so I'm not sure you could apply the teaching quite as well.
Blessings in Christ, and don't feel ashamed about sharing your thoughts. We are here to learn from one another, and ultimately in a Spirit of peace.
- H
Yes, Veganism is a philosophy that can be taken to extremes, meaning it shouldn't simply be acquiesced to. The following piece written by a Vegan is an open admission that even the Hindus didn't go so far, despite considering the cow sacred:
I was offended by the demanding tone, and lack of concern expressed in a previous comment to me.
I stand on my original comment AND my replay to a request to explain my comment.
The individual was obviously offended by my comment, so I responded in a manner that I would have if I was eating lunch with a vegetarian... I humbled myself and offered to "remove the offense" to show favor to the one offended.
It's a general principle in scripture to think of the other person before yourself. My reply was just that.
And, it is also a scriptural principle to not engage in fruitless arguments...
Yes it is. And I commend you for it. Some discuss scriptural issues purely out of an interest in finding the truth, while others are also engaging in debate as a form of entertainment. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the latter if it can be done peaceably, but it's when it gets into strife and contentiousness that you want to back up from it.
Humility and acting wisely are good qualities to have, and you seem like you'd make a good addition to our community if you stick around.
Blessings in Christ,
Hidden In Him
Mark 7.
From the context of the verses surround Mark 7:19, the question has nothing to do with eating something that is not already understood by the Jewish Pharisees to be considered food. They were not talking about eating something that is unclean according to the Torah; they were talking about how their actions would make something that God said is clean for food to be unclean.
Remember, only animals consecrated by GOD is considered food.
What animals have been consecrated by God?
From the context of the verses surround Mark 7:19, the question has nothing to do with eating something that is not already understood by the Jewish Pharisees to be considered food. They were not talking about eating something that is unclean according to the Torah; they were talking about how their actions would make something that God said is clean for food to be unclean.
Remember, only animals consecrated by GOD is considered food.
What animals have been consecrated by God?
When I was "asked" to explain my original comment, I responded accordingly.
When someone expressed offense by my comment and seemed too demanding, i chose not to engage in what I perceived as anger.
I always hope that I am communicating with people who have the fruits of the Spirit and not an agenda-driven need to passionately debate.
I simply don't debate scripture. I'll teach, answer well-worded questions, discuss interesting or difficult topics, but He doesn't allow me to debate.
(Thus He declared all foods clean.)
Those words in Mark 7:19 are not found in the oldest manuscripts; you will find a footnote relating to that statement in most of the Bibles quoting it. If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true. Here are a several of many examples.
Mark 7:19 - Geneva Bible 1599 Because it entered not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught which is the purging of all meats? Mark 7:19 - Young’s Literal Translation (from 1862, revised in 1887 and 1898) because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats
Mark 7:19 – Authorized King James Version (1769 version of the 1611 KJV) because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? Mark 7:19 – 1611 King James Version Because it entreth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
It’s quite possible and maybe even likely, that in later translations those words were added in by the translators; they were making their own determination about what Yeshua was talking about.
The common teaching that Yeshua made all things clean does not fit the context of the passage. Instead, what we see is Yeshua revealing a great truth here; there is nothing we can do to change the word of God. Yahweh declared what is clean to eat; nothing man can do will change it. Whether our hands are clean or dirty, food is still food and non-food remains not food.
Gentlemen, keep it peaceable please.
Carry, if I may, the Lord said to Peter, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 8 I replied, "Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth."
If it was just about what the Gentiles could eat, why was God telling Peter to?
Why the defensive posture? Asking for Scripture reference does not imply a desire for heated debate. It's just good to know where one is coming from besides just an opinion. This is Theology, the study of God and our religious beliefs and so we desire to study and sometimes that may includes sharing differences of opinion and understanding. The goal is to grow in our faith and understanding. Maybe you're confusing Theology with Apologetics?
Mark 7 is a different context. You are extrapolating beyond the Christian tradition passed down to the early church. You are also not taking into account Acts 15, or do you take the position that food was irrelevant there as well?
Ok, scratch Acts 15, since I know what your answer will likely be.
Instead give me your exegesis of Acts 10, and what you think it applies to.
- H
In case you are looking for evidence for my statement above, the following might be helpful. Granted, you may denounce anything other than the authorized cannon that was decided upon many centuries later, but Barnabas in particular is very early, likely around 70-75 A.D.
As for their [the Jews'] scrupulousness about meats, and their superstitions about the Sabbath, and their much-vaunted circumcision, and their pretentious festivals and new-moon observances...I hardly think you need instruction from me. For how can it be anything but impious to accept some of the things which God has created for our use and assert their creation to have been commendable, but to reject others as being needless and good-for-nothing? (Letter to Diognetus, 4).
And now for that saying of Moses, You are not to eat of swine; nor yet of eagle, hawk, or crow; nor of any fish that has not got scales. In this there are three distinct moral precepts which he had received and understood. (For God says in Deuteronomy, I will make a covenant with this people that will embody my rules for holiness; so, you see, the divine command is in no sense a literal ban on eating, and Moses was speaking spiritually.) The meaning of his allusion to swine is this: what he is really saying is, 'you are not to consort with the class of people who are like swine, inasmuch as they forget all about the Lord while they are living in affluence, but remember him when they are in want--just as a swine, so long as it is eating, ignores its master, but starts to squeal the moment it feels hungry...In these dietary laws, then, Moses was taking three moral maxims and expounding them spiritually, though the Jews, with their carnal instincts. took him to be referring literally to foodstuffs. (Letter of Barnabas, 10).