• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
Back in January I had shared an ebook under Resources that explained how God requires abstinence from meat, but I haven't gotten feedback from any Christians. The book is called The Abomination of Desolation and contains much evidence from the Bible to prove it's thesis. I am curious to know the responses that Christians have to the book's argument. (Click here to download the ebook.) The book is 900 pages long, so I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing. I am just going to list the page numbers to where the most common passages of scripture that Christians use to defend their meat consumption are addressed:

Cain and Abel's sacrifice: pp. 211, 229-230

Noah's sacrifice: pp. 269, 832-834

Genesis 9: pp. 189-198

Leviticus 11 / Deuteronomy 14 / sacrificial atonement: pp. 265- 316 (Chapter 6, this particular subject cannot be simplified to a couple of pages–too much to cover.)

The Law “requires” eating lamb on Passover / Yahushua ate lamb: pp. 576-584, 592, 599, 834-835

Deuteronomy 16 / Numbers 28: p. 593

Deuteronomy 12: pp. 240-243

Matthew 15 / Mark 7: pp. 840-844

Yahushua ate fish: pp. 449, 835

John the Baptist ate locusts: pp. 446-448

Acts 10: pp. 491, 835-836

Romans 14: pp. 506-510, 860

1 Corinthians 8: pp. 513-514, 859

1 Corinthians 10: pp. 516, 644-645

1 Timothy 4: pp. 825-828

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
What do you think?
Finally became vegan after realizing they lived longer before the flood, whilst only eating fruit.

The Messianic Age shall have no death, which means no more meat eaters, all ravenous beings are to be removed. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
Since Jesus /the man,, was a fisherman, I doubt that He taught veganism.

There is no evidence that Jesus was a fisherman. In fact he told Peter and Andrew to become "fishers of men" when he saw them fishing. The account in John 21 is a deliberate addition to the Gospel. You can easily tell just by reading the end of John 20 where John concludes and closes his gospel, then the next chapter is a sudden “surprise” story. It is out of place and doesn't belong in the Bible.

As for the accounts where Jesus feeds bread and fish to 5000, none of those accounts imply that Jesus or the apostles ate the fish. It is also possible that “fish” is a deliberate mistransliteration of something else, which I lean toward. Jesus was a Nazarite, and all the Nazarites were vegans—as stated in The Abomination of Desolation—and to say that he wasn't would contradict the rest of the Bible's position on flesh consumption. The fact the Jesus was a vegan (or at least a vegetarian) necessarily has to be the case considering the first Christians, the Essenes (Ebionites), were vegans.

Whether he ate fish or not is totally irrelevant. Even if he did, the Gospels do not indicate that he ate fish as a staple in his diet. There is a big difference between eating a few fish here and there and killing fish on a large scale for everyone's everyday consumption. He certainly would not have condoned it. It just isn't sustainable. Besides, eating fish is not the major theme of the Gospels and these accounts of fish consumption cannot be used as as a green light to go ahead and eat as much fish as you please, much less any kind of meat.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Nice site - "The Secrets of Lucifer: Luciferianism and the Satanic Bloodlines" and a bunch of other conspiracy silliness. Are you going to post David Icke stuff next? Maybe some Henry Makow? Oh, wait, he's a Jew. Maybe some Jeff Rense stuff? :) :rolleyes:
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There is no evidence that Jesus was a fisherman. In fact he told Peter and Andrew to become "fishers of men" when he saw them fishing. The account in John 21 is a deliberate addition to the Gospel. You can easily tell just by reading the end of John 20 where John concludes and closes his gospel, then the next chapter is a sudden “surprise” story. It is out of place and doesn't belong in the Bible.
Your thread title refers to ''Christianity''. That usually means Scriptural context from the accepted Bible or Bibles, /different language versions/. However, is usually accepted, the standard books are included. For reference, check the ''Bible' link at the top of the page. If you aren't using the accepted Biblical text, then we need to know that before making arguments in context,/ ie ''Christianity''.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
Nice site - "The Secrets of Lucifer: Luciferianism and the Satanic Bloodlines" and a bunch of other conspiracy silliness. Are you going to post David Icke stuff next? Maybe some Henry Makow? Oh, wait, he's a Jew. Maybe some Jeff Rense stuff? :) :rolleyes:

Bored? Is that why you're trolling? LOL. You're honestly going to pronounce a source as invalid based on the other contents of the site it's hosted at? Pfff.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Bored? Is that why you're trolling? LOL. You're honestly going to pronounce a source as invalid based on the other contents of the site it's hosted at? Pfff.
I'm not trolling. I just looked at the site and that's what I saw. It's just a nutty Christian conspiracy site. Just letting others know.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
Your thread title refers to ''Christianity''. That usually means Scriptural context from the accepted Bible or Bibles, /different language versions/. However, is usually accepted, the standard books are included. For reference, check the ''Bible' link at the top of the page. If you aren't using the accepted Biblical text, then we need to know that before making arguments in context,/ ie ''Christianity''.

With that, we are off topic. You've ignored my point by complaining about the relevance of this thread's title. How childish. Just so you know, Catholicism is considered Christianity, and they accept the seven books of the Apocrypha that other denominations do not accept. Mormons have their own testament, etc. What is the standard? The title of a religion has nothing to do with who thinks which books belong or don't belong.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
I'm not trolling. I just looked at the site and that's what I saw. It's just a nutty Christian conspiracy site. Just letting others know.

Nutty according to you. How does it invalidate the book I'm sharing? You're trying to invalidate this entire thread by mocking a website's content that doesn't pertain to the book. How is that not trolling?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
With that, we are off topic. You've ignored my point by complaining about the relevance of this thread's title. How childish. Just so you know, Catholicism is considered Christianity, and they accept the seven books of the Apocrypha that other denominations do not accept. Mormons have their own testament, etc. What is the standard? The title of a religion has nothing to do with who thinks which books belong or don't belong.

No, we are on topic. We don't know what books you are simply claiming to be later false additions. So, the thread title actually is relevant, because you are using the label of Christianity, and even presenting verses from accepted Scripture. I don't accept your theory that the Scripture you referenced is some later false addition. Not only that, but other Christians, or, rather a Xian that I trust for Scriptural truth/inference, has backed my statement that Jesus & the Apostles ate fish, in another thread.
Anyways, your redacted version of the Bible, is obviously for another thread, don't expect people to present arguments in a Biblical context, if your only argument, is that you think said accepted Scripture is a false addition.
 
Last edited:

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
No, we are on topic.

How can you say that when you're intentionally directing the topic of this thread off course? You're talking about the fish consumption issue and want to cling on to it. What about the rest of scripture? What about the ebook I've shared, which IS the argument? If you're not going to read it or at least check out the pages I've provided and then cling on to your complaint about the thread's title because of my response, then you are indeed directing this thread off topic, and therefore trolling.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
With that, we are off topic. You've ignored my point by complaining about the relevance of this thread's title. How childish. Just so you know, Catholicism is considered Christianity, and they accept the seven books of the Apocrypha that other denominations do not accept. Mormons have their own testament, etc. What is the standard? The title of a religion has nothing to do with who thinks which books belong or don't belong.
They're not Apocrypha (false writings), but Deuterocanonical (second canon). Between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, the Deuterocanonicals are accepted by 75% of Christians worldwide.

As to the thread title, eating meat is of course permissible. The very Scripture verses you cited in your OT prove that without a doubt.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
The very Scripture verses you cited in your OT prove that without a doubt.

Actually I cited the page numbers to where the ebook I'm sharing addresses those passages of scripture. You should download the book and check it out. That is what I've asked people to do on this thread so they know what the argument is, which is why I created this thread in the first place, and if you raise an argument that the book has covered, then your argument is invalid. It is really annoying that people are bickering over the thread's title and completely missing the point.

Of course eating meat is permissible, but as Paul says "All is permissible, but not all is profitable." God permitted divorce, but does that mean people should do it? As Jesus said (paraphrasing) "Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but in the beginning it was not so." By the same logic, meat was permitted, but was not so in the beginning (Genesis 1:29). Rather than only considering the letter of the Torah, consider the wisdom of it: "Thou shalt not kill."

Here is more wisdom. The Law says to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). Considering that Earth is home to all sentient beings, we share it with the animals, which makes them our neighbors. So we are obligated to respect them and love them rather than killing them. Adam was given dominion over the animals, which means he (and all mankind) was tasked to take care of them, the same way parents have dominion over their children. Many people think that "dominion" constitutes doing as we please with the animals, but that is a deliberate excuse to be irresponsible, merciless, and cruel.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
The author of that ebook doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Genesis 9:3

He doesn't really have a response to this, because it is so unambiguous what God is saying. He admits that God does give permission to eat meat. He just tries to dismiss it by saying it might only be circumstancial - but contextually God is giving them the same universal commission to fill the earth that He gave Adam, and establishing universal laws that all are expected to obey. Aside from that, if eating meat is as major a sin as he claims it is then God wouldn't be making any provision for it. One thing the Bible clearly shows us is that God is someone who doesn't put anyone in a circumstance that forces them to sin in order for them to survive. God is powerful enough to provide people with what they need to live in a righteous way. Even it it involves supernatural creation of food, as is seen throughout the Bible.

I also don't see any reasoning on the pages you listed that would explain why he thinks Jesus would make and cook fish for his disciples while supposedly considering it a sin to eat such things.

It's clear from the creation account that man was never intended to eat animals. Genesis 1:29.
It's also suggested in millennial reign prophesy that animals werent originally intended to eat each other either. Isaiah 65:35.

The author may be within bounds to suggest that vegetarianism is preferable, or even ideal, but he goes completely off the rails when he tries to make the entire story of sin and redemption in the Bible revolve around man eating animals, and claim that God forbids it today for us. That doesnt remotely hold up to a proper exegesis of scripture. He spends nearly 1000 pages rambling nonsense in attempt to rewrite the message of the entire Bible to revolve around his vegan ideology. And he does an extremely poor job at it.
 
Last edited:

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
Did you also read this part? Pages 196-198 (note: all Hebrew words are spelled left to right due to a copy/paste error):

It is no exaggeration to say that the Jewish scribes have literally added the word םכל (lakem ‘unto you’) where it suited them, and that it is missing from the original Hebrew manuscripts. This is incredibly significant to the proper understanding of the text, because without “unto you,” there is no indirect object: the possession is inferred as “I give to you.” Of course, it is also inferred from a proper reading (the possession necessitates an object), but what is actually given to Noah as his possession is made a whole lot clearer when we realize that lakem has been manually inserted to change the meaning. It is no wonder, considering that the second instance of the insertion in Genesis 9:3 is followed by תא (ayt, H853), the untranslatable primary article (i.e. “a,” but it really should not be translated as anything at all), which the translators have rendered “you.”

Recall our earlier discussion of the word םחל (lekhem, H3899), signifying plants as foods (or solid plant-based foods), and the other words which we have already demonstrated were subverted by the translators, in order to show their willful intent to destroy the meaning of other passages related to dietary restrictions. The difference between םכל (lakem) and םחל (lekhem) is slight enough to almost go unnoticed, but for the fact that it is followed by the word הלכאל (le’aklah, from H402). This same word is translated in Jeremiah 12:9 as “to devour,” elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 16:15) as “to eat,” and in other places (e.g. Ezekiel 15:4,6) as “for fuel.” The lamed distinguishes it from aklah (H402), meaning ‘food,’ thereby giving it the meaning of ‘for food,’ while the kaf at the beginning of the next word, קרי (ka’yereq, from H3418)—and this is the only use of קריכ in Scripture—signifies that this is the word which is taking the property of the object. (As a prefix, kaf has the meaning of ‘like’ or ‘as.’)

This necessarily means that the punctuation which the translators have added is arbitrary, and that the passage makes more sense without it, both grammatically and syllogistically, as God was simply reiterating to Noah what he had said to Adam, in the context of what he is to do with the animals which have been put under his charge. Imagine that; God has not actually changed his mind between sending the Flood to destroy carnivorous men and telling Noah immediately afterward that he is okay with that now—the Jews and the Christians changed it for him. Compare the NIV’s rendering to a literal rendering of Genesis 9:3, without anything added:

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (NIV)

Everything that breathes shall take for food of the green plants I have given all.

A comparison between the NIV’s rendering of the whole context (9:1-6) and a literal translation is as follows:

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.”
(NIV)

And (the) Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and said, “Bring forth much fruit to fill the land [ha’aresh]. Dread and terror shall be on every creature of the land [ha’aresh], and on every bird of the heavens, on everything that creeps of (those of the) earth [ha’adamah—i.e. the “serpents”], (and) on all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they shall be given. [And now that dominion is given, here are the rules for stewardship:] Everything that breathes shall take for food of the green plants I have given (to) all, but flesh that has spirit [nephesh], which (is its) blood [ומד, damow], eat not. And surely (those) poor [םכמד, dimkim] like yourselves [lenapsotaykim] I will require by the hand (of) every beast. And I will require by the hand of man [ha’adam], by the hand of (a) man’s brother, (he) who sheds (the) blood [םד, dam] of man [ha’adam]; by man [ba’adam] (his) blood [damow] shall be shed. For in the likeness of (the) Elohim man [ha’adam] (has been) made.”

Notice there are three separate words that are translated as “blood” or “lifeblood” (properly םד or dam, H1818) in this context. The main cause for contention here is with what God requires. Damow indeed means ‘blood.’ In other words, “whatever has had blood in it”—not what still has blood in it—“and whatever looks like you (has a face): do not eat.” However, the dalet in dimkim signifies a prefix, ‘that’ or ‘which,’ and the final mem indicates a plural, without which the passage makes no sense. The only word in Hebrew which even begins with mem and kaf is myk (H4134), and that is the whole word—meaning there is no other plausible alternative to supposing that the word rendered “blood” (or “lifeblood”) here means anything other than mykim, which is to say, ‘the poor (plural)’ or ‘the lowly,’ or ‘the oppressed.’ In other words, “If you disobey me, I will require your blood for the blood of the victim.”

As for the fish issue, I have already given an explanation for that above.

... but he goes completely off the rails when he tries to make the entire story of sin and redemption in the Bible revolve around man eating animals, and claim that God forbids it today for us. That doesnt remotely hold up to a proper exegesis of scripture. He spends nearly 1000 pages rambling nonsense in attempt to rewrite the message of the entire Bible to revolve around his vegan ideology. And he does an extremely poor job at it.

Can you explain how he did a poor job? Honestly I don't think you've read the book. Your response sounds like you're having a moment of cognitive dissonance. Typical response from someone who has no conscience and a complete disregard for scripture.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
On page 180 he poo-poos Christianity altogether, 1st presuming substitutionary atonement, 2nd assuming that is crazy, 3rd dismissing Christianity as a religion. He say says the God of Christianity is bloodthirsty. At the other end of the spectrum he absolutely implies that the Bible is literally true, that we are descended, literally, from Adam, that God literally created the Earth.

He spends maybe 50 pages talking about milk, growth hormone, effects on children.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
On page 180 he poo-poos Christianity altogether, 1st presuming substitutionary atonement, 2nd assuming that is crazy, 3rd dismissing Christianity as a religion. He says the God of Christianity is bloodthirsty. At the other end of the spectrum he absolutely implies that the Bible is literally true, that we are descended, literally, from Adam, that God literally created the Earth.

I assume you're trying to conclude that the author contradicts himself. If so, that is not the case because the author differentiates between the God of the Bible and the god of Christianity, and testifies that modern Christianity is not a Biblical religion.
 
Top