The following arguments are to be found, for the most part, in Keith Akers' very useful, A Vegetarian Sourcebook, 1989. Another sourcebook I would also highly recommend for its scholarship is Lewis Regenstein's Replenish the Earth: The History of Organized Religion's Treatment of Animals and Nature--Including the Bible's Message of Conservation and Kindness Toward Animals, 1991.

"I require mercy, not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13 & 12:7)

This is a significant message when we remember that in the context in which this was said meat eating was commonly considered part of these sacrifices. Sacrificial offerings often entailed meat consumption and a strict reading of Leviticus 17: implies that, indeed, all meat consumption necessitated a sacrifice. Also, the noted confrontation of Jesus in the Temple suggests that he was not at all pleased by the desecration of the Temple by the money changers AND by "those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons" (John 2:14-15) since these animals were being sold for sacrifice before being eaten.

No Unequivocal Biblical Reference to Christ Eating or Buying Meat

Consider the verse where it is said that Jesus' disciples "were gone away unto the city to buy meat" (John 4:8). This translation from the King James version has been misunderstood as meaning literally "meat". In fact, the Greek word for "meat" from which the James translation based its choice for this word, simply meant nutrition in the generic sense. Hence, the Revised Standard Version now simply translates this same passage as "his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food".

Regenstein notes that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus depicted as eating meat and "if the Last Supper was a Passover meal -- as many believe -- there is, interestingly, no mention of the traditional lamb dish".

Did Christ at Least Eat Fish? (e.g., Luke 24:43)

Note that on the two occasions where he is said to have eaten fish, these were after his death and resurrection. Also, we should maybe keep in mind that fish was a well known mystical symbol among these early Christians. The Greek word for fish (Ichthys) was used as an acronym whose initials in Greek stood for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior". Given how the early Christians employed the term, there is therefore good historical evidence for the argument that all of the "fish stories" that managed to get into the gospels were intended to be taken symbolically rather than literally.

Biblical Breaks and Contradictions

We should not forget that the Bible is not complete and its many inconsistencies require thoughtful interpretation. For instance, we have the contradiction between Genesis 1:29-30 with Genesis 9:2-3. Some scholars interpret the first prescription for vegetarianism as the preferred diet, and suggest that it was only after God became grievously disappointed with human sin and flooded the earth did the second provision become permitted, and not without qualification (and maybe only as an expedient for the situation). To take another example, the New Testament makes repeated attacks on meat offered to pagan idols (Acts 15:20; Revelation 2:14), but Paul gives assurances that eating such flesh is all right if no one is offended (Corinthians 10:14-33). Paul, then, would seem to be contradicting Christ.

Examples of Early Christians

Not a few Christian scholars have concluded vegetarianism to be the more consistent ethic with respect to the spirit of Christ's teachings. For example, we have the Ebionites, Athanasius, and Arius. Of the early church fathers we have Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Heronymus, Boniface, St. Jerome, and John Chrysostom. Clement wrote, "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh". One of the earliest Christian documents is the `Clementine Homiles', a second-century work purportedly based on the teachings of St. Peter. Homily XII states, "The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in it a man becomes a fellow eater with devils". Many of the monasteries both in ancient times to the present practiced vegetarianism. For instance, Basilius the Great's order, Boniface's order, Trappists monks, etc. Also, we have the examples provided by the stories around some saints like Hubertus, Aegidius and Francis of Assisi.

Indirect Historical Evidence

Knowledge about how the Essenes, the Nazoreans and Ebionites lived suggests that Christ was probably a vegetarian. The Essenes were Jews who were remarkably similar to the early Christians as evinced in their deemphasis upon property and wealth, their communalism and in their rejection of animal sacrifices. The first Christians were known as the Nazoreans (not to be confused with Nazarenes), and the Ebionites were a direct offshoot from them. All three groups were vegetarian which is suggestive of the central role such a practice once played in Early Christianity.

Paul's need to constantly deal with these vegetarians is also evidence of how prevalent they were and not a few fellow Christians, it would seem, took issue with Paul. Paul, if he is consistent with his words, would have been vegetarian (Corinthians 8:13), notwithstanding his opposition to the Ebionites. According to Clement of Alexandria, Matthew was a vegetarian. Clementine `Homiles' and `Recognitions' claim that Peter was also a vegetarian. Both Hegisuppus and Augustin testify that the first head of the church in Jerusalem after the death of Christ, namely Christ's brother James the Just, was a vegetarian and raised as one! If Jesus's parents raised James as vegetarian then it would be likely that Jesus was also so raised.

Conclusion

Given the above points, it is reasonable to believe that vegetarianism would be consistent with, if not mandated by, the spirit of early Christianity, a spirit that advocated kindness, mercy, non-violence and showed disdain towards wealth and extravagance. Meat eating would hardly have been considered the way of the humility, non-extravagance and love for all of God's creation. Hence, the orthodox early church father, Christian Hieronymous, could not but be compelled to conclude:

The eating of animal meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have pushed the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw quails in front of the grumbling sensual people in the desert. Jesus Christ, who appeared when the time had been fulfilled, has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat. Postscript: What Happened After Christ?

Maybe an even more important question than that of whether or not Christ was a vegetarian, was why Christianity later abandoned its vegetarian roots. Steven Rosen in his book, Food for the Spirit, 1987, argues:

The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down the their throats if they were captured. Ironic indeed that pagan Rome here would have this longstanding influence upon Christianity.

In any case, I think we can all be thankful that it is a lot easier today to be a vegetarian. The occasional rudeness and social disapproval a vegetarian must tolerate is a pretty small inconvenience in comparison to Constantine's way of dealing with vegetarians.

To cite another sad example: in southern France a group of Albigensian vegetarians (a Cartharist religious group) were put to death by hanging in 1052 because they refused to kill a chicken!

by Ted Altar

Yet again I have another MySpacer (that term makes one sound stupid really) that in their need to justify their meat eating said to me... "That wouldn't explain why we had teeth for tearing flesh! but nice try anyway". *sigh* Here we go kiddies, hold on tight... your lesson for today? Explain why we have teeth for tearing flesh (and other assorted physical reasons why we are not carnivores).

Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.

Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.

Stomach acidity. Carnivores' stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly they don't have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

Fiber. Carnivores don't require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore's digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

But aren't humans anatomically suited to be omnivores?

Nope. We don't anatomically match up with omnivorous animals anymore than we do with carnivorous ones. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores. 

I want to thank PETA for giving me so many good resources!

"Why do you try to force vegetarianism on others? Isn't it a personal choice?"

From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. For example, murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are immoral acts, not matters of choice. Today, our society encourages meat-eating and factory farming, but at one time, society also encouraged slavery, child labor, and many other practices that are now universally recognized as wrong.

See what goes on inside a factory farm.

"Animals kill other animals for food, so why shouldn't we?"

Most animals who kill for food could not survive if they didn't, but that is not the case for humans. In fact, we would be better off if we didn't eat meat. Many animals, including some of our closest primate relatives, are vegetarians. We should look to them, rather than to carnivores, as models of healthy eating.

"The animals have to die sometime, so what's wrong with eating them?"

Humans die, too, but that doesn't give you the right to kill them or cause them a lifetime of suffering.

"Don't farmers treat their animals well so they'll produce more milk or eggs?"

Animals on factory farms gain weight, lay eggs, or produce milk not because they are well cared for, comfortable, and content but because their bodies have been manipulated with medications, hormones, genetics, and management techniques. In addition, animals raised for food are slaughtered when they are extremely young, usually before disease and misery decimate them. Factory farmers raise such huge numbers of animals for food that it is less expensive for them to absorb some losses than it is for them to provide humane conditions.

Watch footage of hens in factory farms.

"What will we do with all the chickens, cows, and pigs if everyone becomes a vegetarian?"

It is unrealistic to expect that everyone will stop eating animals overnight. As the demand for meat decreases, fewer animals will be raised for food. Farmers will stop breeding so many animals and will turn to other types of agriculture. When there are fewer of these animals, they will be able to live more natural lives.

See how factory-farmed animals live.

"If everyone became vegetarian, many animals would never even be born. Isn't that worse for them?"

Life on factory farms is so miserable that it is hard to imagine that we are doing animals a favor by bringing them into that type of existence and then confining them, tormenting them, and slaughtering them.

"If everyone only ate vegetables and grains, would there be enough to eat?"

Yes. We feed so much grain to animals to fatten them for consumption that if we all became vegetarians, we could produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth. In the U.S., animals raised for food are fed 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow. The world's cattle consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population.

Read more about the connection between environmentalism and vegetarianism.

"Don't vegetarians have difficulty getting enough protein?"

In Western countries, our problem is that we get too much protein, not too little. Most Americans get at least twice as much protein as they need, and too much protein, especially animal protein, can increase your risk of osteoporosis and kidney disease

You can get enough protein from whole wheat bread, oatmeal, beans, corn, peas, mushrooms, or broccoli—almost every food contains protein. Unless you eat a great deal of junk food, it's almost impossible to eat as many calories as you need for good health without getting enough protein.

Get a free copy of PETA's vegetarian starter kit.

"Don't humans have to eat meat to stay healthy?"

Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association have endorsed vegetarian diets. Studies have also shown that vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels than meat-eaters and are far less likely to die of heart disease or cancer. The consumption of meat and dairy products has been conclusively linked with diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, clogged arteries, obesity, asthma, and impotence.

Read more about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet.

"Aren't humans natural carnivores?"

Actually, a vegetarian diet suits the human body better than a diet that includes meat. Carnivorous animals have claws, short digestive tracts, and long, curved fangs. Humans have flat, flexible nails, and our so-called "canine" teeth are minuscule compared to those of carnivores and even compared to vegetarian primates like gorillas and orangutans. Our tiny canine teeth are better suited to biting into fruits than tearing through tough hides. We have flat molars and long digestive tracts that are suited to diets of vegetables, fruits, and grains. Eating meat is hazardous to our health and contributes to heart disease, cancer, and many other health problems.

Read more about meat-eating myths and the truths behind them.

"Don't dairy cows need to be milked?"

In order for a cow to produce milk, she must have a calf. Each "dairy cow" is impregnated every year so that she continues to produce a steady supply of milk. In nature, the mother's calf would drink her milk, eliminating the need for her to be milked by humans, but on factory farms, calves are taken away from their mothers when they are just a day or two old so that humans can have the milk that nature intended for the calves. Female calves are slaughtered immediately or raised to be dairy cows. Male calves are confined for 16 weeks to tiny veal crates that are so small that they cannot even turn around.

Because of the high demand for dairy products, cows are genetically engineered and fed growth hormones to force them to produce quantities of milk that are well beyond their natural limits. Even the few farmers who choose not to raise animals intensively must get rid of the calves, who would otherwise drink the milk, and send the mothers off to slaughter when their milk production wanes.

Get answers to all your questions about dairy products.

"I know a vegetarian who is unhealthy. Is vegetarianism really good for people?"

There are healthy and unhealthy vegetarians, but doctors agree that vegetarians who eat varied, low-fat diets stand a much better chance of living longer, healthier lives than their meat-eating counterparts.

Read about the link between vegetarianism and shrinking waistlines.

"Why should I feel bad about eating meat? I didn't kill the animal."

You may not have killed the animal yourself, but you hired the killer. Whenever you purchase meat, the killing was done for you, and you paid for it.

"If you were starving on a boat out at sea, would you eat an animal?"

I don't know. Humans will go to extremes to save their own lives, even if it means hurting someone innocent. (People have even killed and eaten other people in such situations.) This example, however, isn't relevant to our daily choices. For most of us, there is no emergency and no excuse to kill animals for food.

"Chickens lay eggs naturally, so what's wrong with eating eggs?"

The real cruelty of egg production lies in the treatment of the "laying" hens, who are perhaps the most abused of all factory-farmed animals. Each egg from a factory farm represents about 34 hours of misery and came from a hen who was packed into a cage the size of a filing-cabinet drawer with as many as five other chickens. At factory farms, cages are stacked many tiers high, and feces from the top rows fall onto the chickens below. Hens become lame and develop osteoporosis because they are forced to remain immobile and because they lose a great deal of calcium when they repeatedly produce egg shells. Some birds' feet grow around the wire cage floors, and they starve to death because they are unable to reach the food trough. At just 2 years of age, most hens are "spent" and are sent to the slaughterhouse. Egg hatcheries don't have any use for male chicks, so they are suffocated, decapitated, crushed, or ground up alive.

See the conditions on egg "farms."

"Can fish feel pain?"

Research has shown that fish can feel pain. According to Dr. Donald Bloom, animal welfare advisor to the British government, "Anatomically, physiologically, and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals." Fish have fully developed brains and nervous systems and very sensitive mouths. Fish use their tongues and mouths like humans use their hands—to catch or gather food, build nests, and hide their offspring from danger. Fish also experience fear. An Australian study found that when fish are chased, confined, or otherwise threatened, they react with increased heart and breathing rates and a burst of adrenaline, just as humans do.

Learn more about fish.

"Isn't seafood healthy and low in fat?"

Contrary to popular belief, fish is not a health food. Fish flesh contains toxins from the water that fish live in, and those toxins get passed on to people who eat fish. Fish raised on farms are given antibiotics, which are also passed on to consumers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 325,000 people in the U.S. get sick or die every year from eating contaminated fish and other sea animals. Even if you could be sure that the fish you eat were free of chemicals, the flesh of some sea animals, especially shrimps and scallops, contains even more cholesterol than beef!

Learn more about tasty, healthy alternatives to meat.

Here is some info from the PETA site that answers questions I am always asked...

"It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but why do you try to tell other people what to do?"

Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior.

"Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?"

An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability’s inability to do so. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion.

"It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?"

It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.

"What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?"

The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring and job retraining. Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress—not a reason to deter it.

"Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?"

The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights activists is the belief that we should not harm any animal—human or otherwise. However, all large movements have factions that believe in the use of force.

"How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?"

Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

"How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?"

There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.

"Most animals used for food, fur, or experiments are bred for that purpose, so what's wrong with using them?"

Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s biological capacity to feel pain and fear.

"Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories don’t suffer that much because they’ve never known anything else, right?"

Wrong! Animals on factory farms and in laboratories are prevented from acting on even the most basic instinctual behaviors, which causes tremendous suffering. Even animals who have been caged since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves, stretch their limbs or wings, and exercise. Herd animals and flock animals become distressed when they are forced to live in isolation or when they are put in groups that are too large for them to be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined animals suffer from intense boredom—some so severely that it can lead to self-mutilation or other self-destructive behavior.

"If animal exploitation were wrong, wouldn't it be illegal?"

Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and who doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinions of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not as arbitrary. Child labor, human slavery, and the oppression of women were all legal in the U.S. at one time, but that does not mean that they were ever ethical.

"Animals are not as intelligent or as advanced as humans, so why can't we use them?"

Possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human, so why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans? There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as is the case when a chimpanzee is compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?

"What's wrong with factory farms or fur farms? Aren't animals worse off in the wild, where they die of starvation, disease, or predation? At least the animals on factory farms and fur farms are fed and protected."

A similar argument was used to support the claim that black people were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered to be one of society’s harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t "wild" to the animals who live there—it’s their home. There, they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity.

O God, source of life and power, Who feedeth the birds of the heavens, increase our tenderness towards all the creatures of Thy hand. Help us to refrain from petty acts of cruelty, or thoughtless deeds of harm to any living animal. May we care for them at all times, especially during hard weather, and protect them from injury so that they learn to trust us as friends. Let our sympathy grow with knowledge, so that the whole creation may rejoice in Thy presence.

I find it rather amusing (and some what annoying) how I never impose my Vegetarianism on other (especially people I do not personally know) but flesh eaters find it a 'mission' to keep imposing on my time by justifying their eating of dead flesh. Each to their own, I enjoy my healthy guilt free life of eating as the Lord specifies.

Vegetarianism: Supported in the Bible

The Bible has many quotations against meat-eating as can be seen from the following: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it." (Genesis 9.4-5) Certainly we can see in this verse that no one was meant to live by eating the flesh and blood of others. If one did so, then he would have to pay with his own blood, as it says, "your blood of your lives will I require." This is merely a reference to the law of karma: for every animal who suffers because of you, you will also similarly suffer: "at the hand of every beast will I require it."

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of goats. When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear, for your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1.11,15)

"It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. (Leviticus 3.17). . . And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of strangers who sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set My face against that soul that eateth blood." (Leviticus 17.10)

From these verses and others not included here, we can certainly see that God's law, as set down in the Bible, was against the eating of flesh and blood and the killing of other entities. However, there are some people who try to legitimize the eating of meat by draining the blood and, thus, make the meat "kosher." Of course, this idea doesn't really work. Blood permeates meat, so how can one be free from eating blood by trying to drain it from the flesh? This is not very realistic, and it certainly does not free one from the violence that must be inflicted on the animal when it is killed in order to eat its flesh. The real point of the matter is not to kill. This is clearly stated in Exodus (20.13) in the Hebrew lo tirtzach, which, when accurately translated, means "thou shalt not kill."

In fact, the Bible compares the killing of cows to murdering a man: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man." (Isaiah 66.3) There are a few verses, however, which I am sure some students of the Bible will reach for that seem to support the eating of flesh. But in every case, this is due to inaccurate translations as we shall see.

For example, in John (4.8) it states: "For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat." The word meat was taken from the Greek word trophe, which actually means nourishment. This is exactly the same case in Acts (9.19): "And when he had received meat, he was strengthened." When translated accurately it means that by receiving nourishment, he felt stronger.

In Luke (8.55) we find, "And her spirit came again and she arose straightaway: and he (Jesus) commanded to give her meat." The word meat in this case was translated from the Greek word phago, which translated correctly simply means to eat.

In I Corinthians (8.8) it states: "But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse." The word for meat here is broma, which actually means food. Therefore, this verse signifies that eating or not eating food has little to do with our relationship to God and not, as some people think, that eating meat holds no wrong.

In Romans (14.20-21) the verses are: "For meat destroy not the word of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." The word for meat here is broma, which actually means foods, and the word for flesh is kreas, which does mean flesh. Therefore, this verse makes it clear that flesh eating is unacceptable.

If the Bible explains that eating meat is wrong, then what is the proper thing to eat? Genesis (1.29) clearly states: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." This makes it quite obvious that the food for human beings is herbs, seeds, grains, and fruits.

We also find in Isaiah (7.14-15): "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." The first verse is often quoted by Christians for proof that Jesus was the savior, but the next verse shows that he will be a vegetarian to know the difference between right and wrong.

As mentioned earlier, meat-eating is a sign of spiritual ignorance and tends to keep one from developing compassion and mercy towards our fellow living entities. To be merciful only to man and yet be an enemy to animals by killing and eating them is Satan's philosophy. One will never live in true harmony with God while performing such activities. This is often overlooked by the Christians, Muslims, and others. If these verses were actually understood and the meaning fully realized and practically applied by the Christians and others, I am sure it would bring beneficial reactions the world over in their spiritual development. After all, one of the ten commandments specifically says thou shalt not kill. It does not say merely thou shalt not murder, which would imply only humans, but it says "Thou shalt not kill," meaning any living being.

Introduction
When I first began to study the bible, the people I studied with told me that it was wrong for me to be a vegetarian. I have found a common attack by Christians, and even Muslims on vegetarianism goes along the lines of "God said we could eat meat. Are you trying to say you are more merciful than God?" The answer to that question is "surely not", God should be the most merciful being. To help faith-based vegetarians, this article will discuss how vegetarianism relates to the bible, animals, and God. I will be quoting from the NIV translation of the bible, unless otherwise noted.

In The Beginning
According to the bible, the first people were vegetarians. The first two chapters of Genesis tell a story of man and animal being companions, and trees being the source of food. In Genesis chapter 1, verse 29, God commands man to only eat fruits and vegetables.....

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.

It is very clear, that right there it says God gave the first people the plants and the trees for food. Some people try to twist this scripture to mean other things, and try to argue that this does not prove people were eating only the fruits and plants. One popular argument is that it was allowing man to eat vegetables as well as meat, but this is wrong. Humans did not meat eat until after the flood. To prove this we need to turn to the 9th chapter of Genesis.....

Genesis 9:3
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Now notice God says "just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything". This is proof that before this point, people were only eating fruits and vegetables. At any rate, at this point God allowed man to eat meat, which opens up the argument that abstaining from meat is a subconscious form of questioning God's mercy. This is not true at all. In fact, vegetarians who believe in the bible are merely preparing themselves for heaven. When the kingdom of heaven is established, all beings will become herbivores. Some might argue that we will not need to eat in heaven, but the bible teaches that even in heaven, beings must eat. For example, in Genesis 19:1-3, angels from heaven ate a meal made of bread. So in heaven, beings will continue to eat. The prophet Isaiah gave many descriptions of this kingdom, and all his visions point to all beings being vegetarian. If all beings in heaven are going to be herbivores, then it would be safe to say that vegetarians living today are merely more prepared for that time. Isaiah chapter 11 gives a lengthy description of the peaceful kingdom, and the 65th chapter has a particular verse that strongly supports the idea of a kingdom filled with nothing but herbivores....

Isaiah 65:25
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Man's Dominion over Animals
The bible, on many occasions, says that man was given "dominion" over the animals. People have twisted this to mean that they can do anything they wish to animals. What is meant by "dominion" is the ability to impose our will. We do indeed rule over all animals, as we are the most powerful species on the planet. This however, does not mean it is okay to abuse this power, through animal abuse, and other wicked acts. God, without a doubt, wants us to show mercy for animals.

Throughout the bible there are many stories that have a strong moral value. Whenever you read a story in the bible, ask yourself what the moral of that story was. It has to have a moral, because if there is no moral, then the story has no relevance. Surely nothing in the bible is irrelevant. In the 22nd chapter of the book of Numbers, there is the story of Balaam beating his donkey. Within in these verses is a strong story about animal abuse, suffering, and animal rights. Lets look at this story closely (the story of Balaam abusing his donkey can be found in Numbers 22:21-33)

Numbers 22:21-23
Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab. But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, she turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat her to get her back on the road.

Now, it should be noted that God was not angry with Balaam only because he abused animals. No, God was angry for many other reasons as well, but in the above verses, the angel tests Balaam's morals by diverting the path of his donkey. Balaam failed this first test as he beat his donkey for not staying on the path.

Numbers 22:24-25
Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between two vineyards, with walls on both sides. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam's foot against it. So he beat her again.

So, the donkey kept on moving, but the angel again diverted her path. This time the donkey's weight crushed Balaam's foot against the wall of a vineyard. In his rage, Balaam again beat the animal, not knowing that an angel was watching his wicked act.

Numbers 22:26-27
Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff.

This third time, the angel makes sure that the donkey cannot go left or right, and she therefore chooses to lay down. This time Balaam beat the donkey with his staff. This is particularly viscous, as in those times staffs were usually used by shepards to fend off wolves. They were made to protect sheep by severely hurting predators, sometimes even breaking bones, so the donkey must have been in terrible pain when Balaam beat her with his staff. The beatings are getting worse and worse, and both God and the angel have seen enough.....

Numbers 22:28-30
Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now." The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" "No," he said.

So God allowed the donkey to speak. The donkey expressed her suffering, showing that the bible teaches that animals indeed suffer and feel pain. In verse 29, Balaam lets the donkey know how cold his heart is, telling her he would have killed her if he had his sword. In verse 30, Balaam agrees that the donkey had never before disobeyed orders. Those beatings were rather severe for first time offenses...

Numbers 22:31-34
Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown. The angel of the LORD asked him, "Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her." Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me."

Once Balaam saw the angel, he realized he had made a mistake. The angel is disgusted by Balaam's actions, and tells him that had the donkey kept walking he would have killed Balaam, but spared her. Abusing is animals is wrong, and the angel even asked Balaam why he would do such a thing as beating his donkey. In verse 34, Balaam said to the angel "I have sinned". What was Balaam's sin? It is clear his sin was beating his donkey. Even Balaam realized this. So, these verses show us it is wrong to abuse animals, and abuse the power we have been given over them.

Animal Sacrifices
We have just discussed the concept of God having mercy on animals, and not wanting us to abuse them. The idea of animal rights being expressed in the bible comes under fire from those who point to instances of animal sacrifice. I admit the many mentionings of animal sacrifice in the bible have troubled me in the past. How can a merciful God command us to sacrifice animals? The truth of the matter is, we are NOT supposed to sacrifice animals. God does not command us to do this. The truth is, in Moses' time, after the Jews came out of Egypt, God allowed animal sacrifices for that time period.

The great Jewish philosopher Abarbanel believed animal sacrifice was briefly allowed by God in order to end the idolatry the Jews practiced in Egypt. He cited a Jewish writing that indicated that the Jews had become accustomed to sacrifices in Egypt. To wean them from these idolatrous practices, God tolerated the sacrifices but commanded that they be offered in one central sanctuary:

Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let them at all times offer their sacrifices before Me in the Tabernacle, and they will be weaned from idolatry, and thus be saved." (Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 562)

This was after the Jews had come out of Egypt. One Jewish theologian indicated that God did not want the Israelites to bring sacrifices; it was their choice. He based this on a biblical verse read on the Sabbath when the book of Leviticus (which discusses sacrifices) is read:

Isaiah 43:23
I have not burdened thee with a meal-offering, Nor wearied thee with frankincense.

The bible teaches that animal sacrifices were voluntary. Many have taken the scriptures to mean that we must sacrifice animals in order to please God. This is not what pleases God. We are commanded to obey his laws. This can be see in the book of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 7:22-23
For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

God never commanded us to sacrifice animals. His message was "obey my voice". Nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there any reference to sacrifice, and even when sacrifices are first mentioned (Leviticus 1:2) the expression used is "when any man of you bringeth an offering," the first Hebrew word ki being literally "if", implying that it was a voluntary act.

I say it again: animal sacrifices were never a law of God. Infact God prefers we don't sacrifice animals. That is what is meant by "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Proverbs 21:3). Also, in Hosea 6:6, God said "What I want is mercy, not sacrifice." As was stated before, animal sacrifices were permitted only for a brief time after the exodus from Egypt. After that, God began to hate animal sacrifice. Consider the following verses from the book of Isaiah....

Isaiah 1:11-16
"The multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations-- I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong!

Jesus was a vegetarian
Now this is a touchy subject. Across the globe, there is a small handful of vegetarian Christians who assert that Jesus was a vegetarian. The bible, and other sources, seems to support this belief. Vegetarianism is not without precedent in the Christian, or even Catholic faiths: Many early church fathers were vegetarian, including St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Francis of Assisi.
vMany Biblical scholars believe Jesus was a member of the Nazarene Essenes, a Jewish religious sect that followed a vegetarian diet and rejected animal sacrifices. This is possible when one looks at the Shroud of Turin, a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man, whom many believe to be Jesus. If Jesus was indeed a member of the Nazarene Essenes, he would also have taken the vow of a Nazarene, thus not cut his hair (Numbers 6:5). In the imprint found in the shroud of turin, there is a man with west-asian features (Nazareth is in west Asia), who has long hair, further supporting the claim Jesus was a member of the Nazarene Essenes.

Of course, there is no definite proof the Shroud of Turin is legitimate, so in order to prove Jesus was a Nazarene Essene, or a vegetarian, we need to look into the bible. Now Jesus was loved by some, and hated by others, and accused of blasphemy by the priests of his time. This was because he claimed to be the Jewish Messiah that was prophesized about in the TaNaKh (Jewish bible, or "old testament"). Lets take a look at the Old Testament description of the Messiah to come... Note: For these scriptures, I will use the King James Translation, which I feel is more accurate.

Isaiah 7:14-15 (KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, so that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

First of all, it says God's sign of the Messiah will be a virgin giving birth to a son. Jesus was born of a virgin mother. It says his name shall be Immanuel, which means "God is with us". Jesus' real name was Yeshua, which means "God is salvation". The name "Immanuel" is meant to signify that this will be the Messiah, regardless of what his name is. At any rate, in verse 15, the pre-messianic prophesy of Jesus, it says he will eat butter and honey, so that he can know the difference between good and evil.

Now the question is, what does eating butter and honey have to do with knowing how to choose between good and evil. To answer this question, we must have an understanding of Jewish beliefs about dietary laws, and vegetarianism. Throughout history there has been many vegetarian jews. Even today, only India has more faith-based vegetarians than Israel. These vegetarian jews believed meat corrupted your soul. Eating meat was permitted by God, but so was drinking alcohol. Infact, just like alcohol, the bible teaches, meat makes you "stumble", or corrupts your heart. That is why Jesus, the Messiah, would eat butter and honey, instead of meat, so that his heart would not be corrupted. Before, during, and after Jesus' time Jews argued wether or not meat was good for people. Consider the 14th chapter of Romans...

Romans 14:21
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause any man to stumble.

There were many vegetarian jews, so why not Jesus? Especially considering he was from Nazareth. Jesus is even called a Nazarene in Matthew 2:23. Want an example of another vegetarian Jew from the bible? How about the prophet Daniel.

The name Daniel means "God is my judge", showing how confident he was that his actions were righteous in the eyes of God. Well, Daniel also was a vegetarian. In the first chapter of the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon has imprisoned Daniel. In verse 8, Daniel refused to defile himself by eating the meat being served to him in the prison. Some have said that this is because the meat was offered to Babylonian gods, but this is incorrect, as vegetables were also offered in the name of these same Gods. Daniel abstained from the meat offered because he was a vegetarian. He knew the benefits of such a diet. Consider the following verses...

Daniel 1:11-16
Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over him: "Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see." So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days. At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. So the guard took away their meat and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

It's pretty clear Daniel was a vegetarian. So why not Jesus? The prophesy in Isaiah 7:15 said he would eat butter and honey (rather than meat) to be able to know the difference between good and evil. If Jesus ate meat, then he does not fit the Messianic prophesy of the Jews. Nowhere in the bible does it ever mention Jesus eating meat. In the King James translation, there are a few verses that mention Jesus eating meat, but in those cases, meat is translated from the Greek word "Broma" which literally means "food". All other translations of those same exact verses do not use the word "meat", rather they say Jesus sat down and ate "food".

Nowhere does it say Jesus ate meat. Now, knowing that the bible never mentions him eating meat, and taking into account the fact that Jesus taught love and kindness, how hard is it to assume he might have been a vegetarian? Also, Jesus was against animal sacrifice. He quoted Hosea 6:6, saying "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." He quoted Hosea in Matthew 9:13, and Matthew 12:6-7. He did this in a challenge to the Pharisees. Could this have been a hint into him being a vegetarian?

What about Fish?
In the 14th chapter of Matthew (verses 13-21) Jesus takes his boat to a remote island. Thousands follow him there. Jesus tells his disciples to feed these people, but the tell him that they only have five loaves of bread and two fish (verse 17). Jesus gave thanks for the food, and it multiplied into enough to feed five thousand people. Now the question is, if Jesus was a vegetarian, why was he giving fish to his followers?

It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish.

Also, when one considers that the disciples did not even think about trying to catch some fish, this helps explain Matthew 4:18-20, where Jesus gets his first disciples by telling some fishermen to give up their profession and follow him. Jesus even says to them "I will make you a fisher of men". Could this be Jesus was having them give up their barbaric line of work to do something more righteous? It may sound absurd, but it starts to make a little more sense when you take it in the same context as the story of feeding five thousand, where the disciples never even considered trying to catch some fish, despite being beside the sea. Why didn't they go fishing? Did Jesus teach it was wrong to eat fish?

Finally, there is the story of after the resurrection, in Luke 24:42-43, where Jesus eats some fish. This is an interesting story. Some scholars however, have stated that in this verse, the Greek word for fish is "ixous", which happens to be an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. This argument could go on and on. I would not totally dismiss the concept of Jesus eating fish. Maybe it was possible. There are vegetarians who eat fish, they are called "pesco-vegetarians". Also, it should be noted that in the Catholic church you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays, but you are still allowed to eat fish. Could this be the result of Jesus' pesco-vegetarian life-style?

By Denis Giron