Why do you take the risk of eating murdered animals?

[Hopeful]

I don't see the word "unrighteous" in Ecclesiastes 7:16 but I think it is implied by the fact that only the unrighteous would have any problem with people who are doing righteousness. The teacher of Ecclesiastes is saying that by being overly-righteous, we risk destroying ourself. Jesus said a similar thing in Luke 16:1-12.

Though I see no connection between the two places in scripture, "overly" righteous tends, at worst, to self-aggrandizement or snootiness...perhaps.
As the "teacher" of Ecclesiastes dealt with "vanity" in a lot of his "sayings", his "overly" being "destruction" would seemingly imply a lack of "moderation in all things".
In other words, "What's the point?"
Motive establishes whether or not something is "overly...".
Don't you think?

That's an interesting idea ... do you have scripture to show that? I am thinking of Luke 11:33. How can that fit with your saying that there is an appropriate time to not manifest His son on Earth?

Matt 7:6 might fill the bill..."Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Paul's not going into the "theatre" at Ephesus is another example of the wisdom of "holding one's tongue" too. (Acts 19:24-31)

 

[Serving Zion]

Genesis 1:26 NIV:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In this verse, it mentions God making us to rule over the animals. In the KJV is often times mention the word "dominion" Not that that is our only purpose when we read it, but the phrase here, "and let them have dominion" if we look in the Hebrew is rāḏâ, which is defined in the concordance as:

râdâh, raw-daw'; a primitive root; to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically, to crumble off:—(come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule,(-r, over), take.

Outlines of how it is used:

1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down

A. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate

B. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate

2. to scrape out

A.(Qal) to scrape, scrape out

Dominion in the American Heritage dictionary is defined as:
n.
Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty.
n.
A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.
n.
A self-governing nation under the nominal rule of the British monarch.

That's interesting, you have used the BlueLetter Bible concordance which includes a definition of the translation as "take" or "scrape out". That's new to me, because I have never seen that before.

I have only seen the words "dominion" and "rule", and those are words which speak about having authority to judge over, but they don't confer any entitlement to take the rights that belong to another (post #137).

So when I examined the references with the concordance at biblehub.com, I found only one instance where the translation of רָדָה (radah) becomes "take from", and that is found in Judges 14:9. Every other instance is best translated as "dominion" or "rule" - which means to say that I have been right to view the word as conferring authority to rule but not conferring any right to take from the others.

This is my idea of having dominion: that the one is ruling right and wrong and enforcing it. It's important to get this right because it doesn't reflect the character of godliness when we are to take from those who are subjected to us. The taking from others is something that came into the world from the fall, because when you are unable to see the other's point of view, you are naturally inclined to disregard it whenever it is convenient to do so. John 3:36 observes "the one who doesn't obey the son does not see life", and that's what we see had happened to Adam and Eve: "in the day that you eat of it, death you will die" (Genesis 2:17).

That's why I was surprised when I saw the one instance in Judges 14:9 saying that Samson took ("scraped out") the honey from the carcass of the lion. So, to understand that, I went and found the word that is normally used for "taking from", and that seems to be אָחַז "achaz" ("to grasp, take hold, take possession"), which you can see they have used in Judges 12:6.

So why has the word "dominion" been used only once in the whole of the bible to describe the taking of something? It's quite an interesting question, because given the fact that Samson was a Nazirite who was forbidden by covenant from going near a dead soul (Numbers 6:1;6), it's obvious that the writer has chosen radah to emphasise that Samson was dominating something that was opposing him. The writer is forcing us to consider that Samson had to exercise his dominion over the carcass of the lion in order to get the honey:



"and they ate but he did not tell them that out of the carcass of the lion he had prevailed the honey." (my paraphrase)

It's especially interesting to see this because it shows that Samson was doing sin. The thing that he had to dominate was the conviction of the truth coming against him because of his knowledge of the uncleanness of what he was doing. This is insightful.

This sounds that we have some deciding factors over animals, yes?

Yes it does. We are meant to rule them in order to subdue (make tame) the whole of creation.

Animals and humans are separate in this verse. It makes sense that animals would not be above or equal to human beings.

I have been referring to the principles of service in the kingdom, because we know that those who think to rule over the gentiles love to lord it over them, but it isn't to be that way among us. Instead the one who is greater shall serve - even the son of man didn't come to be served but to serve. Don't you think that the human in his original form was to live that way too, in service to those whom he was ruling over?

God prepared everything before bringing us, humans, into being. God thought this through. After all, when a couple is expecting a baby - what do they tend to do? Decorate the nursery? Buy a crib/bassinet/sleeping space of some sort? Buy supplies like diapers, perhaps bottles/pacifiers, burp cloths, clothes, etc.? They are prepared for bringing baby home. God thought of us and made sure everything was ready before placing us into being.

Yes, it is quite reasonable to think that God had planned all along to crown His paradise creation with the glory of His own image

Just because the Lord smelled a pleasing aroma probably doesn't define why there were such changes after Noah. What information are you able to pull from Genesis 8:21?

I see that God's heart has responded to the smell of the aroma with a new declaration: "never again will I curse the ground and destroy every living creature on the account of the human, because his heart imagines evil even from his youth". It's actually an incredibly sad verse when we come to understand what it signals: that even if He ever did find someone righteous as Noah, He would not be willing to do it all again: because, even though Noah had the perfect start: he was given a brand new life, a whole world to himself with no bad influences (1 Corinthians 15:33), and a full knowledge of what he had been saved from (that Adam and Eve didn't have), we see that he is the youth that God is talking about! - Even though he could have rebuilt the world in righteousness, instead we see that out of the imagination of his heart he somehow thought that it would be a nice thing to slaughter some of the clean animals and burn them with fire.

What doesn't fit logically? That people could've eaten meat before then?

Yes that's what I'm saying: that it is a new blessing from God to Noah in that time. I have given good reasons for this in post #196.

God loving and listening people probably did pay attention to God's decrees, but there were other people between Adam and Eve and Noah.

That's a fair point. Without any evidence we can only speculate as to whether there ever was meat being eaten before the time of Noah. We do have to seriously wonder where he got the idea from though because it's a pretty wicked thing to just create from the imagination of one's own heart.

 

[Serving Zion]

Cain was not able to cultivate the land upon being cursed by God

The text only says that the ground would not yield its strength to him, so if he was to extract any sustenance from the ground it would have to be from his own strength. It sounds similar to Genesis 3:17-19 that was upon Adam.

...could it be possible that maybe he resorted to eating meat?

I really wouldn't want to hazard the guess.

He was a rule breaker anyway,

I don't think that he broke a rule as such - because they hadn't learned much about sin yet (Genesis 4:6-7). Romans 5:12-14 says that there was no law in the time of Cain and that "sin is not imputed where there is no law" - and "the manner of [sic Cain etc]'s sin was different from the manner of the sin of Adam" - where we see that Adam did sin by having broken a rule.

murdering his brother and all

Just keep in mind that they had ever seen murder before. Sin overtook him through envy and rage. These days we are very aware of where those feelings can lead, so we are careful to exercise self-control.

and it doesn't tell us much else about Cain's life after he was cursed. That's the kind of thing I think I'm thinking about - the people in between that might not have been listening to God at that time.

Yeah that's fair, but it's all speculation because we don't have evidence either way. We can never expect someone else to believe a speculation, but we can still explore ideas and learn from considering possibilities.

I already mentioned before the purpose of people in previous posts, which I'll stick to:

From what I can gather for an in general type of statement here: The purpose of people as I mentioned before is to do God's will and spread His word. God didn't create us, though, because he needed us. He created us to share His creation with. God wanted to love us and share that with us, he wanted us to be part of His family. God wants us to choose to honor him with our lives and do what's right according to His word.

Let's see then. When Adam and Eve were given dominion to rule over and to subdue (tame) creation, do you think that they would have achieved that in part by spreading His word? How does this fit with the idea that the Word was with God in the beginning (John 1:1) and do you have any insights into how the Word that Adam and Eve were meant to be spreading is only shown as a thing that was external to them (Genesis 1:3, Genesis 3:8-9)?

 

[JLB]

Here we see the Lord enjoying a meal in the company of His friend Abraham —



So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it. So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. Genesis 18:6-8




Again, in the company of His friends the Lord prepared fish —


Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.”
Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.
This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. John 21:10-14



We all have a choice to eat meat or just eat vegetables.



He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. Romans 14:6






JLB

 

[Serving Zion]

This sounds that we have some deciding factors over animals, yes? Animals and humans are separate in this verse. It makes sense that animals would not be above or equal to human beings.

I just want to give an example because I have been thinking about this and it seems to be that what I've said is something that people are naturally inclined to misread, and its to do with this post of mine:

I consider animals are my neighbours. We are each living here side by side. I am putting animals above humans in a way too, because they were put here before we were and we were put here in order to serve duty to them as godly rulers.

and somehow it's kicked up quite a bit of dust. So it's been present in my thoughts the last couple of days and it has just occurred to me that these people who think I'm talking about worshiping animals have misread me because there's an implied word in there that I didn't actually write. It is the interests of the animals that I place above the interests of the human, and that's why I have given twice the example of Jesus having washed His disciples feet: because although He was in a greater position than they were (speaking of authority), He did not command them to wash His own feet. This is because He recognised that it was in their interests to have their feet cleaned, so we can see that He sacrificed His own interests for theirs (that is: He sacrificed His own honour by having stooped and served at their feet).

In a similar way we can take an example that sometimes parents will be trying to get a job done and then maybe the kids will start fighting or maybe they'll get into a dangerous situation etc. Well, the parent would stop the job they are doing, even if it means that they will not get the job done on time, and they will rush to tend to the child's needs - because they are putting the interests of the child above their own interests. This is how it should be for the human when he is serving creation as the image of God:

Consider then, if Adam and Eve are in the garden of Eden as they were in the first place, and ruling over creation with dominion, and they can see a duck being aggressively grabbed by another duck who is trying to rape her. What would they do? I'll tell you what I did when I saw that happening, I got out of my car and walked up to them. They all took off and flew in a big circle, then came back to land on the water. The female duck who was being assaulted walked over to me and was giving me that head flick that they do when they're trying to say something, and then her boy duck came over too and they were both looking at me to thank me for intervening. I'm not saying that I had to give up anything in particular of mine in order to help the ducks in that case, but I chose to do so because I recognised that I was in a position of dominion over them and it was my duty to rule. Others (the sinful, selfish types) wouldn't have exercised their domain to rule, but instead would have taken from the situation for their own (perverted) interests: they would have been too lazy to get out of the car, or they might have taken a video of it to share with their friends.

I hope this helps to clear it up a bit, but do keep asking questions if you think it's not quite making sense.

 

[JLB]

I just want to give an example because I have been thinking about this and it seems to be that what I've said is something that people are naturally inclined to misread, and its to do with this post of mine:



and somehow it's kicked up quite a bit of dust. So it's been present in my thoughts the last couple of days and it has just occurred to me that these people who think I'm talking about worshiping animals have misread me because there's an implied word in there that I didn't actually write. It is the interests of the animals that I place above the interests of the human, and that's why I have given twice the example of Jesus having washed His disciples feet: because although He was in a greater position than they were (speaking of authority), He did not command them to wash His own feet. This is because He recognised that it was in their interests to have their feet cleaned, so we can see that He sacrificed His own interests for theirs (that is: He sacrificed His own honour by having stooped and served at their feet).

In a similar way we can take an example that sometimes parents will be trying to get a job done and then maybe the kids will start fighting or maybe they'll get into a dangerous situation etc. Well, the parent would stop the job they are doing, even if it means that they will not get the job done on time, and they will rush to tend to the child's needs - because they are putting the interests of the child above their own interests. This is how it should be for the human when he is serving creation as the image of God:

Consider then, if Adam and Eve are in the garden of Eden as they were in the first place, and ruling over creation with dominion, and they can see a duck being aggressively grabbed by another duck who is trying to rape her. What would they do? I'll tell you what I did when I saw that happening, I got out of my car and walked up to them. They all took off and flew in a big circle, then came back to land on the water. The female duck who was being assaulted walked over to me and was giving me that head flick that they do when they're trying to say something, and then her boy duck came over too and they were both looking at me to thank me for intervening. I'm not saying that I had to give up anything in particular of mine in order to help the ducks in that case, but I chose to do so because I recognised that I was in a position of dominion over them and it was my duty to rule. Others (the sinful, selfish types) wouldn't have exercised their domain to rule, but instead would have taken from the situation for their own (perverted) interests: they would have been too lazy to get out of the car, or they might have taken a video of it to share with their friends.

I hope this helps to clear it up a bit, but do keep asking questions if you think it's not quite making sense.

How about the carnivores of the animal kingdom?

They naturally seek other animals to eat.

As we see from the scriptures, the Lord enjoyed a meal in the company of Abraham, of fatted calf. This was before He became flesh.


Also, after He was resurrected he ate fish with His disciples.

I see nothing morally wrong with eating meat.

I believe it’s up to each person to decide.





JLB

 

[Serving Zion]

How about the carnivores of the animal kingdom?

They naturally seek other animals to eat.

As we see from the scriptures, the Lord enjoyed a meal in the company of Abraham, of fatted calf. This was before He became flesh.


Also, after He was resurrected he ate fish with His disciples.

What question is there for me to answer here? You have stated facts, but what are you asking me to explain?

I see nothing morally wrong with eating meat.

Yes, but that is only saying that you don't see it. It doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with it, because the animals do have another perspective. It is their perspective, really, that has the right to say whether there is anything wrong with it or not. That's what morality is.

I believe it’s up to each person to decide.

People keep making their own decisions anyway regardless of what you or I believe. Our beliefs really don't matter that much.

 

[JLB]

Yes, but that is only saying that you don't see it. It doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with it, because the animals do have another perspective. It is their perspective, really, that has the right to say whether there is anything wrong with it or not. That's what morality is.

Based on the scriptures I and others have given, I see nothing morally wrong with eating meat.


So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it. So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. Genesis 18:6-8




Again, in the company of His friends the Lord prepared fish —


Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.”
Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.
This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. John 21:10-14



We all have a choice to eat meat or just eat vegetables.



Do you believe the Lord was morally wrong for eating a fatted calf and eating fish with His disciples?






JLB

 

[Serving Zion]

Based on the scriptures I and others have given, I see nothing morally wrong with eating meat.

Do you see it as being morally wrong based on the scriptures I have shown? or of not, can you please explain why not?

Do you believe the Lord was morally wrong for eating a fatted calf and eating fish with His disciples?

I'm actually not allowed to make that judgment, because the scriptures say that the one who does not eat meat must not judge the one who does. But I think the cows and the fish would be the ones who are entitled to answer that. Did they protest or did they lay down their life willingly?

 

[Corn Pop]

God told moses to tell the people they could eat the beasts of the earth that are clovenfoot and chew cud and that they shall eat. If God was against people eating meat why would he say that?

In Genesis God says every moving thing that lives shall be food. And as he gave the green plants, he gives everything. So thats meat, fruit, and vegetables. Obviously he clarified more what type of meat when speaking to Moses and Aaron, that chews the cud, a nice Steak or roast Lamb thats well done with no blood in it.

Unless God changed his mind but it would have to be in scripture God saying he changed his mind.

 

[Serving Zion]

If God was against people eating meat why would he say that?

Why are you asking this question? Has anyone actually suggested that God is against the eating of meat?

Hej73 , are you coming back to the thread or is it all for me now?

(I get the feeling that he isn't even so much a Christian, because he never mentioned a single verse from the bible and said that it was his "spirit guide" that is directing him in his faith. Hej73 if you read this can you ease confirm that for me, thanks, ).

 

[Corn Pop]

Why are you asking this question? Has anyone actually suggested that God is against the eating of meat?

Some people chose to eat meat and some people dont. It dont matter if people eat meat or not in my opinion.

 

[JLB]

Do you see it as being morally wrong based on the scriptures I have shown? or of not, can you please explain why not?

I haven’t seen any scriptures from you that indicate eating meat is morally wrong.. If you have a scripture that indicates eating meat is morally wrong then please post it for us to see.









JLB

 

[JLB]

I'm actually not allowed to make that judgment, because the scriptures say that the one who does not eat meat must not judge the one who does. But I think the cows and the fish would be the ones who are entitled to answer that. Did they protest or did they lay down their life willingly?

So if you don’t believe it’s morally wrong for the Lord to eat meat, then why do you believe it’s morally wrong for His people to eat meat?





JLB

 

[JLB]

But I think the cows and the fish would be the ones who are entitled to answer that. Did they protest or did they lay down their life willingly?

Ok, what did the cows and fish say about it?


Here is what the scripture tells us to do, with our lives —


I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1


Do you believe people protest being a living sacrifice or that they do so willingly?








JLB

 

[Edward]

God told moses to tell the people they could eat the beasts of the earth that are clovenfoot and chew cud and that they shall eat. If God was against people eating meat why would he say that?

In Genesis God says every moving thing that lives shall be food. And as he gave the green plants, he gives everything. So thats meat, fruit, and vegetables. Obviously he clarified more what type of meat when speaking to Moses and Aaron, that chews the cud, a nice Steak or roast Lamb thats well done with no blood in it.

Unless God changed his mind but it would have to be in scripture God saying he changed his mind.

Exactly. And this is scripture, so what's not to understand?

The earth was made for man. Not man for the earth. For our debatable member to say that to kill an animal and eat it because we're hungry somehow does a disservice to the animal, or that we are here to serve animals... is to assign human traits and characteristics to the animal. There's a word for that. Anthro something. Anthropomorphic?

And that's just wrong Brother. We are here to serve God.

When the Israelites were wandering the desert, God fed them with Manna. But they got tired of it and began complaining and asking for some meat. Complaining irritates God so He sent them swarms of birds to provide them with meat and they loved it until they got tired of that too and started complaining again. But the point here is, God does not cause man to sin, nor does He tempt man. So for God to send the Israelites meat to eat sort of settles the entire debate, eh? Eating meat must be ok or God wouldn't have sent them meat to eat.

Let me ask you something, Serving Zion. What if you were in a survival situation and food was scarce. Your wife's hungry. Your kids are hungry. Would you eat meat in a survival situation if that's all that was on the menu?

 

[Corn Pop]

Exactly. And this is scripture, so what's not to understand?

The earth was made for man. Not man for the earth. For our debatable member to say that to kill an animal and eat it because we're hungry somehow does a disservice to the animal, or that we are here to serve animals... is to assign human traits and characteristics to the animal. There's a word for that. Anthro something. Anthropomorphic?

And that's just wrong Brother. We are here to serve God.

When the Israelites were wandering the desert, God fed them with Manna. But they got tired of it and began complaining and asking for some meat. Complaining irritates God so He sent them swarms of birds to provide them with meat and they loved it until they got tired of that too and started complaining again. But the point here is, God does not cause man to sin, nor does He tempt man. So for God to send the Israelites meat to eat sort of settles the entire debate, eh? Eating meat must be ok or God wouldn't have sent them meat to eat.

Let me ask you something, Serving Zion. What if you were in a survival situation and food was scarce. Your wife's hungry. Your kids are hungry. Would you eat meat in a survival situation if that's all that was on the menu?

I dont know what this thread is trying to achieve. The OP said something about it maybe a risk eating animals?, in my belief i dont see no risk of God condemning me or anyone for eating meat and i dont see a valid argument, so what is the point of this this thread if its nothing about salvation. I could be doomed because i eat meat?. What on earth is this thread representing?

Some people eat meat some dont each to there own and scripture respects every individual in that choice. Are we going to allow that to divide the kingdom of God?. Something as pathetic as the food we eat so more division.

This world is a Joke.

 

[Edward]

râdâh, raw-daw'; a primitive root; to season with spices, i.e. grill; specifically, to use bbq sauce on:—(come to, make to) have medium rare steak, prevail against, reign, bbq, tailgate party (bear, cattle, lamb or any other beast, make to) rule,(-r, over), take. Eat.

I'm sorry Sister, no offense intended but when I read this portion of your post, my mischievous side couldn't help but see an instant joke in it. So I reworded it a little, lol.

Now I've never hunted for sport and we've ate everything that we ever killed hunting. I don't normally have squirrels in my diet but I have ate them. My dog loves bbq'd squirrel. He ate it bones and all.

I imagine that even possum or racoon would be ok in a pinch...with enough bbq sauce on it, lol.

 

[Edward]

can see a duck being aggressively grabbed by another duck who is trying to rape her. What would they do? I'll tell you what I did when I saw that happening

There's no rape in the animal kingdom. Maybe she likes it rough? From your story, it's not entirely clear if you saved a hen duck from being raped...or just interrupted them?

It sure is an entertaining thread, I'll give it that. lol.

 

[Serving Zion]

Maybe she likes it rough?

She didn't like it. She was trying to get away from them but the three of them were chasing her and grabbing her aggressively and they overpowered her.

There's no rape in the animal kingdom.

What made you form that belief?