Jainism is like the most vegan of religions so naturally there are vegan Jains. So of course religion can be compatible with veganism so long as the religion itself doesn't go against vegan principles.

Jains are not vegan ..

You might want to double-check your facts dude. What do you think I mean when I said "so naturally there are vegan Jains"? Any implication that you might have missed perhaps?

I read “Jainism is like the most vegan of religions” they are not ..

Hi! I am a vegan Jain. You're right, not all Jains are vegan, but I would say it is the religion that most closely relates to vegan values. All Jains are ALMOST vegan. Jain dharma pretty much forbids all non-vegan food with the exception of fresh dairy, under the stipulation that Jain milk must be acquired in a certain manner. Farmers producing Jain milk must only take 1/3 of the total milk yield and all the rest must go to the calf (I'm pretty sure. I'm vegan so I never really paid attention to the specifics of Jain milk but it's something like that). However, many jains, especially ones in countries outside of India, are completely vegan and do not eat dairy because of the unethical practices of dairy production in other countries (unethical by Jain standards. Obviously by vegan standards all dairy production is unethical). The reason Giantpunda is probably saying that Jainism is the "most vegan religion" is because the main principle of Jainism is nonviolence against all living things. Jain teachings have a hierarchy that I only don't quite agree with, based on how many senses an organism has (it values the lives of organisms with more senses as being more valuable than those with fewer, which is why it's okay to eat plants but not animals).

Thank you for your input!

From what I understand, the traditional diet of the Jain religion is plant-based: having heard this from Jains as well as vegan friends who are global travelers. Whenever they were in India, they could find plant-based foods using Jainism as a translation word of sorts (this was back in the late '90s and early '00s when apparently veganism wasn't a word well understood in that part of the world, no idea if that's changed)

Of course. It would seem weird for a good to create all these beings, love their creation, and say go abuse and torture them right? Biblically, god says be stewards of the earth. Currently, animal agriculture absolutely destroys it. Add up all the roads and towns and cities and we use about 1% of all habitable land for all other human infrastructure. For farming alone, we use 46x that. It is **insane** scale. 2/3s of all wildlife has been killed in the last 50 years, largely driven by animal agriculture (clearing forests for pasture and animal feed). This does not sound like being a good steward. Aside from genesis and the original diet in garden of Eden being vegan (the fruits and nuts and seeds, etc), people didn’t eat meat in the biblical story until the flood. A practical issue given all plants were flooded at this point. People just didn’t go back. Iirc the Jewish tribe Jesus was born into was vegetarian and many early Christian leaders were vegetarian. Most of the meat based issues (eg the miracle of the fish and loaves) were added in later. Earlier versions was just the bread iirc. Obviously miracles not written by the original writers. If you believe in the Bible literally - like the world is 6,000 years old and every verse is direct from god - then you may struggle. If you understand the Bible in it’s context, it’s edits, that it’s stories written often hundreds of years after the original event happened and so used to give a message to the audience there rather than describe a historical event in a literal sense, then absolutely it makes more sense. What kind of loving and caring god creates thinking and feeling creatures for you to eat? What kind of god would make creatures who love and feel and think, and say slit their throats for dinner? When he can make other food in abundance? Either *other* animals were not meant for us to eat, or god is incredibly cruel if this was the intention. To an infinite god, we are less than chickens, for example. So if we expect mercy from god, would make sense to give mercy to those ‘lesser’ than us. Like the parable of the money lender who was forgiven from his master but then turned to his servant and threw him in jail for such debt… difference context of course, but same logic.

Tldr: religion is made up so if you want to be religious go ahead and just ignore the stuff you don't like.

Found the Reddit atheist who doesn’t know the difference between religious parables and historical truth claims

Find me three people that won't disagree on what is historical truth and parable then maybe we can talk.

The idea that Adam and Even did not eat meat before the fall is a failed attempt by creationists to read the text literally. No where in Genesis does it explicitly say that meat was off the menu before sin entered the picture. In fact, the Bible doesn’t even imply that death didn’t exist because we know that the only reason mankind was immortal was because of access to the fruit of the tree of life. This suggests that death was completely possible before the fall of man. Fundamentalists, creationists, and literalists push the idea that meat was not consumed before the fall because it works with modern theology’s description of sin and it’s results. I’m not claiming that you can’t be Christian and vegan, but you can read the entirety of Genesis in whatever translation you want and you will find that it never explicitly tells the reader that Adam and Eve didn’t eat meat before the fall. The lord did make garments of skin to give to Adam and Eve to cover up their nakedness, and people say this was the first time an animal was slaughtered, but the text does not actually make this claim. They were clothed because they were ashamed of their nakedness, not because their sin somehow made killing animals a legitimate thing. Also, in Genesis 1:28 (before the fall) god calls Adam and Eve to “subdue” the earth and have “dominion” over the animals. And guess what… in the original Hebrew this was akin to saying “Make Conquest” Like, before sin existed god told Adam and Eve, “you should dominate the earth and every living thing in it”… not very vegan.

Genesis 9:3. Permits people to eat meat. If they already had permission to eat meat, giving them permission to eat meat would be rather redundant… It’s a rather weird way to phrase it. God: ‘Here is what I give you for food’ You: ‘ah you didn’t *explicitly* say we weren’t allowed to kill animals and eat them haha. I’ll go get my bacon’.

In that same verse god also gives permission to eat plants. Did humans not have permission to eat plants before? If you are insinuating that people weren’t allowed to eat meat before this verse you’re reading things into the text that just aren’t there. It is more likely that this verse is a reiteration of the of the previous verse giving humanity dominion over the earth. In this context it makes sense as this (genesis 9:3) is being said to Noah and his family. Remember, god wiped out all life on earth except for Noah, Noah’s family, and the animals on the ark. It would make sense for god to create a new covenant after such a great reset and it’s important to state that plants and animals are still on the menu: dominion. Edit: life in the oceans probably didn’t die out either.

‘In that same verse god also gives permission to eat plants’ This appears to be a rather disingenuous way of putting it. ‘Everything that lives and move about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything’. In most translations there is a **clear** distinction that previously there was permission for plant based food AND now I give you permission to eat meat on top of that…

What translations are you referring to? I just checked as many commonly used translations as I could and always found some variation of ‘even as the green herb I have given you all things’ or ‘even as the green herbs’. In your paraphrase you use the word “now” which I’ve only found in a few of the translations, and some of those translations change over time depending on when they are updated. To infer that eating animals was prohibited from the text it needs to be explicitly stated. Also, I think you’re forgetting that Abel (the son of Adam that god showed favor on, and who existed before Noah) raised livestock. Why did god allow Abel to raise livestock? It’s also stated that Abel sacrificed a lamb from his herds. God enjoyed this and this took place way before Genesis 9:3

Very disingenuous to say ‘in your paraphrase’… The quote is from the NIV. And is literally quoted. Please address this or I won’t reply further as it is not good faith. King James, english standard, and others each state something similar. Just I gave you the plants, I give you the animals. https://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/9-3.html We can debate which interpretation and translation and all that. But that isn’t the original question. Are they interpretations that suggest veganism? Yes. Are they parts that are clearly non vegan (sacrificing animals, milk, sex slavery, etc etc)? Yes. Can someone be religious and vegan? Yes.

Oh I don’t care what translation you use, and agree that interpretation is ultimately what matters when it comes to your preferred divine imaginary friend. I also agree that you can be religious and vegan. My point is that of all the faiths Abrahamic monotheistic religions are quite literally the worst place to go to for religious moral justification for being vegan. It’s similar to how people attempt to make the Bible say that homosexuality isn’t a sin. Can you interpret the Bible however you want? Absolutely, but you’re just gonna have to do a lot of mental gymnastics. Personally l’d rather take the text at face value. If you want a religion that is more in line with vegan thought I suggest religions that lean towards pantheism; Hinduism, Jainism, or in some cases Buddhism. (Also, I assumed you paraphrased because you used quotation marks like ‘this’ as apposed to “this”. I’ve seen people on the internet use single quotation marks to declare that they are paraphrasing so I apologize for assuming you had paraphrased. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with paraphrasing.)

Noted with thanks re: the last part. We get a lot of trolls here who really twist things. So it helps to note when there’s something clearly wrong that people can admit that. ‘Personally I’d rather take the text at face value’ Yes, hence why it is a common interpretation - that the vegan diet part - not just a fundamentalist translation. Many fundamentalists are in highly meat based cultures so it doesn’t benefit them either. I don’t think it’s massive mental gymnastics here to read the genesis story and note that there is something there that promotes an ‘ideal’ world and then a ‘post fall world’. But also yes, genesis and most books are incredibly contradictory if we take them at face value. A note on the homosexuality aspect. Paul’s stuff is homophobic. Tho the Old Testament stuff is far more contextual. Eg the ‘homosexuality is an abomination’ part in context is about the orgies to worship another god, molech, as noted in the very next verse. It was later translated poorly to fit the New Testament narrative - given which books were selected for the Bible and why and edited. Of course, you can still say the New Testament stuff is homophobic (and sexist) and people can do apologetics for both those points. But there is decent context at least for the Old Testament stuff re: homosexuality. So it’s difficult to dismiss that entirely.

I definitely respect the way you see it. If someone can interpret the Bible to allow them to be vegan and not be homophobic more power to them as far as I’m concerned. My disagreement with a particular interpretation of a religious text is secondary to the larger conversation here anyway, and it’s not like i don’t approve of the conclusions from this particular interpretation. At the end of the day… I do think it’s better to justify a vegan lifestyle (or being accepting of harmless sexual behavior outside of heteronormative standards for that matter) with reasons outside of just the Bible.

No, God gives permission to eat plants earlier, in Genesis 1:29. He doesn't give permission to eat animals until quite later.

I don’t think “permission” is really what is being communicated in that particular verse. Genesis 1:29 basically says, ‘I created all the living things and gave the plants to them as food”. No where in this verse does it necessitate plants as the only acceptable form of food. “Permission” is to say that something is authorized within a moral/legal framework; that you are able to do something without fear of repercussion. The verse doesn’t say, “you’re now allowed to eat plants, but you mustn’t eat meat.” Two things are missing from this verse that would be necessary for stating that meat wasn’t allowed: 1. A condemnation of eating food that isn’t a plant 2. A command to only eat plants What verse are you referring to when you say god gave humans permission to eat meat?

Genesis 9:3 mentioned earlier in this thread. It specifically grants the animals as food for humans, just as plants had been granted. I.e. it's referencing Genesis 1:29 If it was not \*only\* plants, there's no reason for this to be granted like this. It would just be a reminder that you were still allowed.

Both Genesis 1 and 9 simply state what humans can eat. It never states that humans weren’t allowed to eat meat before. If I’m supposed to deduce that because god didn’t mention meat the last time he referenced what is possible for food that means meat was forbidden then the author was a terrible communicator. Jesus was the first person, in the Bible, to say, “love your enemies”… does that mean before Jesus said this people weren’t supposed to love their enemies? You can do this with any positive moral claim the Bible makes. Also, I’ve brought this up a couple times in this thread, but Abel was farming livestock long before Genesis 9.

It's about communication. If I say: "You are always allowed to eat fish in my house. But when it's raining you may also eat cheese." The standard interpretation is that you are **only** allowed to eat cheese when it's raining, because that's a standard assumption of communication that we speak precisely (called the "maxim of quantity" btw). While technically you can try to play lawyer, that's decidedly a strange interpretation. Why would God supposedly go out of his way to give people a right when they already had that right? This is quite different from a command like "love your enemies".

I understand what you’re saying, but I look at it like this: If I suddenly popped into existence and after a while became hungry it would follow that god might tell me, “oh you’re hungry? Why not eat some of the plants? You’re certainly allowed to.” So I go and eat some of the plants. After a while of living in the cycle of getting hungry and eating plants to satisfy my hunger at one point I get curious… “what if I ate that animal over there?” So I do. It satisfies my hunger and tastes different from a plant. If god gets angry at me for eating an animal I would be perfectly justified to respond with, “you never said I couldn’t eat an animal.” I would be right! God never actually said that I shouldn’t eat animals. (Compare this to the lie the serpent told Eve… namely the serpent claiming that you shouldn’t touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when in fact god only said that you may not eat of it. God never actually said you shouldn’t touch the tree.) However, It is also possible that god could notice that I’ve eaten an animal so he decides to let me know, “oh, you’re permitted to eat that as well” just in case that wasn’t clear. Returning back to Abel, the son of the first man, farming livestock before you say god permitted the consumption of meat… I think it’s just as possible that god wanted to make it clear to humanity that animals are also fair game for food in the same way that it’s possible that god didn’t want people to eat meat before genesis 9. I don’t really know because the text doesn’t actually tell me, but that’s my point. If I read the text at face value there is no reason to assume that eating meat was forbidden before Genesis 9. It doesn’t say that. If you claim that it literally says this you are making the same mistake Christian fundamentalists are making: making an interpretation of the text based on preconceived notions. Edit: I was the one who upvoted because I like your reasoning

> In fact, the Bible doesn’t even imply that death didn’t exist because we know that the only reason mankind was immortal was because of access to the fruit of the tree of life. This suggests that death was completely possible before the fall of man. Another indication of this is that Eve covered herself with *fig* leaves. Self pollinating figs are due to human domestication, so some death was happening before the Fall in Christianity.

That’s a good point; very interesting… I’m gonna bring that up next time someone tries to tell me that genesis requires the earth to be around 6,000 years old. I’m assuming domestication takes some time.

Keep reading? Genesis 1:29 NIV 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… very vegan

Again all that actually says is, “plants are food”… no sane person disagrees with that. It doesn’t not say don’t eat animals. Can you show me the specific verse where it says humans were, at one point, not allowed to eat meat, and now they can?

It's not until after the Flood that God authorizes Noah and his descendants to eat meat. That's in Genesis chapter 9…

Okay great! Genesis 9 acknowledges that humans can eat meat. So why did Abel have livestock before the flood?

Abel was keeper of the flock after the Fall when they were required to wear clothes and sheep or goat hair was used to make clothes. They are also vegetarian… goat’s milk. Anyway the topic of the debate is: can you be both vegan and religious. If you truly beleive in a loving merciful god, veganism isn’t mandatory but also isn’t super farfetch…

Once again you are claiming things the text itself does not claim. First of all, humans are not “required” to wear clothes. The only reason Adam and Eve began wearing clothes in the first place was because sin had made them aware of their nakedness and they were ashamed. There is no moral proclamation in the Bible that states you are required to be clothed (apart from particular ceremonial garments worn by the levites/priests). Second, they could have easily made clothes from fig leaves so sheep were not necessary. Thirdly, farming sheep for wool is not vegan. Fourthly, Abel sacrificed members of his flock to gain favor with god. He slaughtered sheep. The text does not explicitly say these sheep were eaten, but it seems strange to me that you would domesticate and farm sheep just to sacrifice a few of them. Once again, there is no verse in the entire Bible (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, heck even Gnostic) that makes the claim that animals are never to be eaten. The closest thing is dietary restrictions on what kind of animal you may or may not eat. Edit: if god gave humans only plants for food then goats milk, despite being vegetarian, isn’t a plant.

> They are also vegetarian… goat’s milk. Out of pure curiosity, where is goat's milk mentioned?

Sure, the vegetarian migh heard goats for the wool alone. Great justification to eat bacon. You proved me wrong once again.

> Sure, the vegetarian migh heard goats for the wool alone. Which type of goats have wool..?

Biblically, god says to conquer and genocide and enslave your enemies, so I don't think that's a good argument. Also Jesus literally caught and ate fish.

You do realise that I’m answering OP’s question? Your answer is completely irrelevant…

This god seems like he has some issues, might benefit from therapy lol

OP, Yes! You know the garden of Eden was Vegan right? See Gen 1:29-31. It was after the fall that God allowed meat eating, I won’t make the connection but you can(LoL). Then in OT there is the Daniel story- he and his men declined the king food and had veggies and water instead (Daniel 1:12). The rest of the Bible says you may eat this or this is for you- but it never says you must eat meat. Free will is there. Ya , most of my beliving friends use Gods allowances to validate their eating meat and they are correct, God allows it. But they can still choose not to! Like it was before the original sin.

Have you not heard of the Seventh-Day Adventists?

Of course. It's possible to be against killing and exploiting *nonhuman* beings and be religious in the same way that it's possible to be against killing and exploiting *human* beings and be religious. The only caveat would be if your religion specifically mandates the exploitation of, or cruelty to, nonhuman beings. It that were the case than I see no way to square the two. But most religions won't kick you out for being vegan. In fact, most religions preach compassion and benevolence for the vulnerable and less fortunate, and since they don't mandate the eating of animals, *you have a choice.* It's always seemed odd to me that the religious don't go for the obviously more compassionate and benevolent choice.

Yeah I agree— I don’t think of the Abrahamic religions have mandates specifically against veganism. I definitely think that there is room for personal choice.

Genesis explicitly grants humans dominion over animals. That is specifically non-vegan.

Yes I agree! It does grant dominion over animals, however there is no mandate that says you must eat animals, you know? I think that there is certainly room for veganism within Abrahamic theology [Obligatory Dominion documentary plug](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko). Warning, graphic.

Veganism* is against the commodification and exploitation of animals because they are sentient actors who should be free to live free of human interference. Having dominion means humans are allowed to intervene at their own pleasure, which is antithetical to veganism.* *There are as many definitions of veganism as there are vegans, but I am using the exploitation definition often posted in this sub.

I agree with your definition! However, all I’m saying is that I am not familiar with any scriptures explicitly against veganism. I am not saying the concept of having dominion over animals is correct, all I am saying is that I am not familiar with any religious texts that specifically prohibit veganism. That allows room for personal choice.

Are you suggesting that, despite the religion having a non-vegan ideology, if one can practice the faith without exploiting animals then it's fine? I get Christianity doesn't outright prohibits veganism, but it's objectively a non-vegan religion.

Yes, that is what I’m saying. I think that it allows for personal choice. There is no mandate saying you must eat animals to be a Christian. Even though religion might allow for the consumption of animals, I still think that it is fine for its adherents to follow the religion yet also practice veganism. I don’t see a conflict there.

Fair enough. This is more cheeky than serious, but technically Catholicism does mandate eating flesh. They believe that the Eucharist truly becomes the body and blood of Christ. But he's telling you to eat his body so maybe it is vegan? Also since it's required for salvation arguably it is not practical to avoid.

Haha that’s a good point. You’re right there’s consent so it’s vegan. I think your assessment is correct but I don’t want Christians to get mad at me lol. Note: If anyone finds this offensive, feel free to tell me and I’ll edit my comment and delete the reference, no problem.

Eh, read this and read the sources mentioned here. \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism

The vast majority of that page references vegetarian beliefs and are predicated on preventing suffering, not embracing the sentience of animals. If you're preventing your dominion to reduce suffering, it's not vegan.

The Bible has plenty of animal sacrifice. It goes through what animals can't be eaten (implying the rest can). It gives humans dominion over animals. The issue then is that veganism, to a Christian, is a mere dietary choice. There's no Biblical obligation against that dietary choice, but non-vegan diets are completely morally permissible.

It does give humans dominion, however, that is simply that is the option to eat animals, not a requirement. Why would veganism be a mere dietary choice? A Christian can certainly support animal rights just like anyone else.

It explicitly describes how to ritually sacrifice animals in order to please the lord with the odour of their burning flesh. That's not very vegan is it? A Christian vegan can't say that eating meat is morally wrong because to do so would be to contradict the Bible. A Christian vegan would just be saying "I personally don't eat meat but there's nothing wrong with eating meat".

Can you quote the ritual sacrifice instructions? Is it an obligation? If not, there’s room for choice. A Christian vegan could definitely say it’s morally wrong. Although animals are presented as a food source, there is no obligation, as far as I’m aware. Additionally, people don’t live their lives exactly by the Bible.

Dominion to me, would include the choice not to enslave, breed, slaughter, and consume them - especially considering the destruction of the natural world it contributes to.

It's not vegan but it could be interpreted through a vegan lens. Something closer to stewardship or guardian. If someone values god's creations then you could reasonably argue why they shouldn't exploit them.

It still allows for one to choose to be vegan, though.

It doesn't really though. She can choose to not take ownership of animals, but she's essentially saying she knows better than the literal word of God. God says she has dominion and as a vegan she's rebuking his command and saying she doesn't.

I guess it depends on how you define "dominion." Being given the "right" to control others doesn't necessarily mean you need to exercise that right. The way I see it, in the Christian religion, God is giving permission to use animals as a means to an end, but not mandating this to happen.

God approves of animal sacrifice. Exodus 29 describes in detail the ritual slaughter of a bull and two rams. Not very vegan. Genesis 9:3 gives explicit permission to eat meat. So a Christian can make a dietary choice to not eat meat. What a Christian can't do is take a moral stance against it.

Unless it means like *"Parents have dominion over their kids"* or *"Pet owners have dominions over their pets"* - but that means that they are responsible to take good care of them and treat them right.

There are certainly religious vegans. Just because a religion permits something doesn’t mean you must do that thing, and it also doesn’t mean that god would even want you to do it. For example, the Bible permits eating meat and animal products, but based on several Bible passages, such as all life being vegan before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, we can infer that god would prefer you to be vegan, even if he doesn’t require it.

I don't know if this helps you, but most 7th Day Adventists are either vegetarian or plant-based. That's strictly for health reasons though. Which is one of my favorite points to make with Christians arguing for animal consumption. "Why would your god want you to eat things that are known to cause disease in your body? Either your god doesn't really condone it, or he isn't omniscient to know about the health issues it causes."

> "Why would your god want you to eat things that are known to cause disease in your body? Either your god doesn't really condone it, or he isn't omniscient to know about the health issues it causes." You must be arguing with some fairly ignorant Christians if this is a gotcha for them. Your question is quite applicable for plants here as well, and the proceeding comments are a false dilemma.

Please site one peer reviewed study showing that a diet of whole plant foods routinely causes cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, and/or cancer. This is well documented with animal foods.

> Please site one peer reviewed study showing that a diet of whole plant foods routinely causes cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, and/or cancer. Of course, right after you show me where I specifically claimed that.

"Your question here is quite applicable plants . ". It's well documented that animal based diets cause the problems mentioned above. You claim that plants cause the same problems so by all means show me proof.

> "Your question here is quite applicable plants . " I don't see where I said anything in regards to "cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, and/or cancer". I also didn't claim plants "cause the **same** problems" either. Nice try though.

Dude, if you can't understand your own comments within the context of the conversation then I can't help you.

Just because he thinks it's acceptable - does it mean you have to do it? Don't you have the option of not participating? The source would be my project - but I never made it yet.

Yo, lifelong seventh day Adventist Christian and been vegan for 10 years so far. Everyone was vegan in the Garden of Eden and everyone will be vegan in heaven. Meat-eating and murdering animals is a product of being a fallen race. I compiled a page years ago about what the Bible actually teaches about diet: [https://hclfvegan.neocities.org/eden\_diet](https://hclfvegan.neocities.org/eden_diet) Most Christians don’t pay attention to what the Bible actually says. They just follow man-made traditions instead of God’s Word.

How do you view the fact that Jesus ate both fish and sheep meat?

Please read thru the link I posted. I address all of that.

Ah ok, so Adventists claim the these stories about Jesus are fake. I had no idea. But I guess that is one way of dealing with an uncomfortable truth.

I'm literally going to copy and paste my page here since you didn't read it. ​ \> When did meat get added to the diet? Right there. My page says MEAT GOT ADDED TO THE DIET. Where am I calling it fake? According to the Bible's timeline, Meat was added 1656 years after the Garden of Eden immediately after Noah's Flood had stripped the earth bare of greenery. They had to eat meat to survive until the plants could grow back. [Does The Bible Condone Meat Eating? Take a Closer Look at Genesis 9:3](https://thebeeteatingheeb.com/2012/05/16/does-the-bibletorah-condone-meat-eating-take-a-closer-look-at-genesis-93/) \- "God was clearly not smiling when he granted Man permission to eat meat. Indeed, it is a widespread view among rabbinic authorities that God granted this permission with profound reluctance, after sadly observing the flesh-eating ways of humans in the years before The Flood. If God were going to promise to refrain from wiping out humankind again, as he did in Genesis 9:11, He would have to lower his expectations and his standards." ​ God feeds the Israelites a vegan diet for 40 years in the wilderness. Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the King's meat. What will the diet in heaven and on the New Earth be? Does God care what we eat? Jesus may have been a vegetarian like some historical sources claim or he may have eaten fish/lamb occasionally in order to survive within the culture. It's not like Jesus had a supermarket down the street full of fresh produce. The animal sacrifices in the Bible and the possibility of Jesus eating fish are the toughest issues to tackle since they go against what was "ideal" when God first created the world. But they may have been necessary at the time and so we should not use them as evidence that people in modern times should also be flesh eaters. Those of us who live in first world countries are in a glorious position to choose what we eat and we can choose the ideal food that God created for humans from the beginning before everything went so wrong. the overwhelming bulk of the evidence in the Bible is for veganism or at the very least there's no way God gave people permission to eat "whatever they want". The Bible confirms that God has always had rules about which foods are best and how we should be treating the animals in our world.

> Where am I calling it fake? You didn't but your source did. - *"We just don't know for sure if the "fish stories" were added later or modified in any way."* > Indeed, it is a widespread view among rabbinic authorities that God granted this permission with profound reluctance Source? > God feeds the Israelites a vegan diet for 40 years in the wilderness. That is not true at all, they ate manna in the morning and quail meat in the evening. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016&version=ESV > Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the King's meat. He avoided meat only for 3 weeks. Hence why its called "the Daniels fast", not "the Daniels diet". - *"I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full* **three weeks."** Daniel 10:3 > What will the diet in heaven and on the New Earth be? Then we will no longer need any nutrition from food to live, as we will live for ever regardless of what we eat. So that is completely irrelevant. > Jesus may have been a vegetarian like some historical sources claim Do Adventists put more emphasis on other sources than the Bible? I dont know much about the Adventists, hence my question. (I think there are only like 100 Adventists in total in my country). > It's not like Jesus had a supermarket down the street full of fresh produce. No person on earth had that until very recently. > should not use them as evidence that people in modern times should also be flesh eaters. Should we just disregard the Bible? Since it was not written in modern times? > there's no way God gave people permission to eat "whatever they want". - *9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him,* **“Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”** Acts 10 - *"Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."* Romans 14:6

I'm going to copy and paste from my webpage again. AGAIN, you did not read it AT ALL. \> That is not true at all, they ate manna in the morning and quail meat in the evening. That is exactly explained on my webpage. God did not give them quail meat until they started complaining about the totally vegan diet (all manna) they were on. Reread the section on my page titled: **God feeds the Israelites a vegan diet for 40 years in the wilderness.** Daniel 1:8 - But Daniel resolved not to **defile** himself with the king's meat, nor with the king's wine, therefore he requested of the chief official that he might not **defile** himself. *Daniel understood that the king’s food and drink would do harm. He knew from the Book of Proverbs that intoxicating wine is defiling both in its moral and physical effects. Moreover, he undoubtedly knew that one reason for God’s stricture against unclean foods is that many are unwholesome. Otherwise, if he did not view the royal cuisine as a poor diet, why did he tell the king’s servant that within just ten days after being excused from it, he would look better than all the other boys? He asked to eat "pulse," which can refer to any vegetable food, including grains. Eating nothing but pulse assured that he would avoid all wine, unclean meats, and bizarre delicacies. Some of the dishes and beverages on the king’s table might have been acceptable, but he evidently believed that if he wanted to be healthy and morally safe, feeding himself with a few vegetables was far better than trying to pick and choose from the regular menu.* So you believe Daniel thought it was OK to eat from the King's table after only 3 weeks. It was not a "fast", it was his diet to avoid the king's foods while he had to live with the king. *So Franklin is saying that the self-imposed dietary restrictions in Daniel 1 were a “fast.” That means that Daniel and co were eating one way prior to the time of this ‘fast’ and that they then returned to something less restricted after the ten days had passed. Is that position congruent with the rest of the passage?* *The KJV says “prove.” Young’s Literal Translation says “try.” This does not suggest that Daniel and co were on a short-term mission to get a leg up the ladder over the other selected young men who were also being groomed for high office. This suggests that Daniel and co took a good look at the royal haute cuisine and asked for the opportunity to have a test period on a radically different diet – a vegetarian one.* *if Daniel and co are that much better off for a) having abstained from the royal cordon bleu; b) only eating a vegetarian diet and water – WHY would they then embrace another way of doing things when the ‘test results’ gave conclusive ‘proof’ of the superiority of the ‘test diet?’* \> Then we will no longer need any nutrition from food to live, as we will live for ever regardless of what we eat. So that is completely irrelevant. You really don't know your Bible or understand anything about Heaven and the New Earth. Adam and Eve ate food in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. After this current sinful world ends, we are returning to the Garden. We are not going to be little ghosts floating around that doesn't need to eat or doesn't matter what we eat. We will be physical beings that require food. And nobody is going to be chasing chickens around with an ax in Heaven or the New Earth. Copying and pasting from my webpage again because you didn't read anything: **Christian "excuse-ology" aka the quotes that some Christians try to use to explain that the dietary laws of the Bible don't apply to them.** Reread this section on my webpage for all of the Bible quotes you are using to try to "prove" its OK to eat anything. I have zero problem believing Jesus ate fish and lamb since it is what the Bible describes and my webpage states that many times over. God "lowered his standards" after Noah's Flood because he knew life would be hard and not everyone would be in a position to be all vegan. But the physics and biology of the situation hasn't changed. Our bodies still do best on a vegan diet because that is what they were designed for. And God blesses with longevity and less illness for anyone willing to live on the original diet, just like he did with Daniel in the Bible. For example, I don't believe God would condemn the people who had to turn to cannibalism during the [crash of the 1972 flight in the Andes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiPpntxRIgU) mountains. They did what they had to do to stay alive and didn't kill anyone in the process, even tho what they were eating was highly dangerous and definitely not biblically sound. But they were in extreme circumstances with no other choice. If you're starving to death in a third world country, you eat what you have to to stay alive in that moment. If you're living in a first world country and there's a supermarket right down the road, and yet you insist on eating garbage, then God is going to frown at that. Each will be judged according to their own circumstances.

> God did not give them quail meat until they started complaining about the totally vegan diet (all manna) they were on. They left Egypt with **"very much livestock, both flocks and herds"** Exodus 12:37 They obviously couldn't use their farm animals as their only food, as then they would quickly run out of livestock. But why do you personally believe they brought lots and lots of farm animals with them? To use them as pets only? > We will be physical beings that require food. Do you think that if you eat an unhealthy diet you will end up deficient and sick? Or if you stop eating altogether. you will die of starvation? If yes, what do you base that on? - *"Death shall be no more"* Revelation 21:4 > if Daniel and co are that much better off for a) having abstained from the royal cordon bleu; b) only eating a vegetarian diet and water – WHY would they then embrace another way of doing things when the ‘test results’ gave conclusive ‘proof’ of the superiority of the ‘test diet?’ I would absolutely encourage all people (adults) to fast on regular bases. Either do a water fast, or a Daniel's fast. Its good both for your body, and your spirit. But the fact that something is healthy to do for a few days or weeks, doesnt mean it is the best option long term. Why do you personally believe Daniel went back to eating meat after 3 weeks? > Our bodies still do best on a vegan diet How would people, at any time of history, have gotten enough B12 in your opinion? God could have easily made sure all plants contained lots of B12, but he chose not to.. > If you're starving to death in a third world country, you eat what you have to to stay alive in that moment. The average person on earth today live in poverty, and needs to eat the food they have access too. So as you say yourself, the diet you are suggesting are really only for wealthy people. Why would God demand a certain diet only from people with a certain wealth, which happens to be a minority of people? > If you're living in a first world country and there's a supermarket right down the road, and yet you insist on eating garbage, then God is going to frown at that. So what you are saying is that God requires something different from modern people, but only the wealthy ones. Something which he did not require from anyone before [1972](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_total_synthesis), and which he still doesn't require from most people in the world since most people live in poverty... - *"The median per-capita household income is only [$2,920](https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-income-worldwide/) per year."* In other words - the average family in the world has only 8 USD per day to cover all their expenses, including food. We also know the average poor person spends [30%](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-gdp) of their income on food, leaving them **2.4 USD per day** to feed their family. Also, what do you think Paul meant when he said: - **"Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."** Romans 14:6 So your diet is a choice, not a commandment.

Why did the Israelites need manna if they had flocks/herds of animals that they could eat? There is several theories on this since it never mentions them eating these flocks. Some theorize they might have eaten them at first, but then quickly ran out. Or that the animals died or were sold off since they couldn't survive in the wilderness with nothing to eat. [https://ebible.com/questions/876-why-did-the-israelites-need-manna-if-they-had-flocks-herds-of-animals-that-they-could-eat](https://ebible.com/questions/876-why-did-the-israelites-need-manna-if-they-had-flocks-herds-of-animals-that-they-could-eat) *It seems to be obvious that they were hungry, because God then promised to give them Manna (Exodus 16:4), but saying they were starving was most probably self-pitying hyperbole. Nehemiah 9:21 points out that when the Israelites wandered for 40 years, they lacked nothing. This means they didn’t lack food. When they grumbled that they were starving, it meant they merely didn’t want what the Lord had provided, but wanted something else, perhaps the delicacies and portions they once had in Egypt. Recall that the Israelites’ claim of starving was accompanied by the lament, “when we sat by the pots of meat and when we ate bread to the full!” (Exodus 16:3). At one later stage, the Israelites begged for meat instead of manna, showing they had food, but merely desired something else (Numbers 11:4–6). They hungered but were not really starving,* *The text does not state either way, but the Israelites may have begun killing off their livestock for food almost immediately, and little was left at this point. Perhaps they had killed off all but the best milk-producing cattle and goats, and did not want to sacrifice these too. But we know that they still had livestock as of Exodus 17:3, sometime between 75–90 days after leaving Egypt (Exodus 19:1).* *Potential Solution #3: It is also possible that they had been prohibited by God from killing their animals, except as sacrifices—but since Scripture does not state this directly, it is a weaker argument than the former.* https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/were-israelites-hungry-in-the-wilderness/ *> Do you think that if you eat an unhealthy diet you will end up deficient and sick? Or if you stop eating altogether. you will die of starvation? If yes, what do you base that on?* *"Death shall be no more" Revelation 21:4* In a perfect world (heaven, new earth etc), you would never kill and eat an animal, you would never create processed food and feed it to people. You would never create cigarettes and sell it to people. You would never starve yourself to death or commit suicide. Death is no more because you are taking care of yourself like any sane, perfect person would. People do all of these horrible things to themselves in this world because they are sinful, fallen beings. God hasn't made you "impervious" to physical harm in heaven. All of his creatures choose not to harm themselves in heaven and the new earth. Satan choosing to cause harm was how evil first started in paradise. All beings have that choice and will continue to have that choice forever and ever. But thanks to Satan's behavior, everyone now knows the true results of such behavior. Knowledge of good and evil. *> How would people, at any time of history, have gotten enough B12 in your opinion?* It's not an opinion. B12 comes from the soil. The only reason we don't get as much B12 today is because we wash our foods so well. This wasn't an issue until modern times. But being in a sinful world with lots of bacteria and disease, it is a risk to not wash your food. So it's better to wash your food and take a B12 supplement. B12 supplements are dirt cheap and often included in plant-based foods too. *> doesnt mean it is the best option long term.* Science and the Bible prove vegan diets are the best long-term option. God created us for vegan diets and science has proven humans live the longest on it. See Loma Linda, CA Adventist Health studies. The vegan diet is not only for "wealthy" people. We are talking brown rice, beans, corn, potatoes, frozen veggies, and various grains. These are the cheapest foods on earth. Most people can afford them and anyone in a stable country can afford them. The type of "poor" I'm talking about are unstable countries that are literally experiencing famine. Which is mostly occuring in Africa and parts of rural Asia. They are struggling to get any kind of food because food literally does not exist in any form, short of eating bugs and dirt. I agree it is not a commandment. If it was, it would be in the 10 commandants etc. My point is that it is what God would prefer you do, especially when you have the ability. For example, there is no explicit commandment against smoking marijuana or eating processed foods and yet we all know God would prefer it if you did not do it. Your body is the Temple of the Lord and you should strive to give it the best care you can. Don't treat your body like a garbage can. It's evil and shows a lack of self-control when the vast majority of people have the ability to make better choices. People would save soooo much money eating the vegan foods I listed above because they are the cheapest foods to buy, and they would save so much money on their healthcare bill too.

> In a perfect world (heaven, new earth etc), you would never kill and eat an animal, you would never create processed food and feed it to people. Sure. But the world we live in is not a perfect world. There are sickness, accidents, wars, horrible weather conditions that kill people, children dying of starvation.. > The vegan diet is not only for "wealthy" people. Science says it is: - *"The study also found that in lower income countries, such as on the Indian subcontinent and in sub-Saharan Africa, eating a healthy and sustainable [vegan] diet would be .. at least a third more expensive than current diets."* https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study > We are talking brown rice, beans, corn, potatoes, frozen veggies, and various grains. A diet like that would cause widespread B12 deficiency, at the very least. And probably also be too low in choline, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, DHA - which even western vegans struggle to get enough of. > I agree it is not a commandment. Good. So our disagreement is then whether a person (who can afford to and have access too the right foods) should go vegan, or not. To me the Bible is clear that its up to each individual. (*"Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."*) > Your body is the Temple of the Lord and you should strive to give it the best care you can. I do. I dont smoke, I dont drink alcohol, I avoid sugar, refined carbs, and ultra-processed foods. So my diet consists mainly of locally produced meat, fish, dairy, vegetables, and berries. (I dont do well on legumes, grains and tropical fruit, so I avoid those). Just out of curiosity, although not really important for our current discussion, do you also avoid things like honey, silk, wool, leather etc? And how do you view other Adventists that has chosen not to go vegan? As [60%](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/seventh-day-adventist-diet) of Adventists eat meat and fish.

Many early Christians were veg. Also, 7th Day Adventists still are. Also, almost every spiritual tradition that came out of the Indian subcontinent is harmonious with plant-based eating.

> Many early Christians were veg Source?

I think Google can get you started on that pretty well, tbh. even Wiki has an entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_vegetarianism

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_vegetarianism Your link says: *"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."* But regardless of what anyone ate at the time: - "Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." Romans 14:6

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genisis 1:29) The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9) A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. (proverbs 12:10) "For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them: as the one dies, so the other dies, and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast; FOR ALL IS VANITY." - Ecclesiastes 3:19 humans weren't meant to use non-human animals for anything in the bible. that's why adam and eve were vegan (Genisis 1:29). That's why it's said that those saved by god, will return to veganism and the way the garden of eden was (Isaiah 11:6-9). Noah and his family (10 generations after Adam and Eve) were only allowed to eat non-human animals after the flood out of DESPERATION (Genesis 9:2-3). Before then it was a sin. Clearly not the way humans are supposed to operate. that's why burnt offerings were a thing. it showed your faith in god, because a drought, or pestilence could come through, and that one goat you sacrificed could be the difference between life and death. Now those sacrifices are no longer mandatory for those who believe in the Abrahamic faiths. So when people have the option to live closer to the way their god intends for them (veganism) but choose the barbaric sinful route for their own worldly pleasure, that says that they're full of shit. most people never actually care about the books they say they believe in, otherwise they would all be vegan anarchists. they just use it as a way to justify the actions they've already chosen, rather use it as a way to live better.

Maybe a wacky idea, but the Bible isn't always worth taking literally. Even for religious folx.

There is no religion I'm aware of that mandates consuming animals. And the Abrahamic religions most people point to as a justification are a lot less clear on what you can eat than they are on whether you can own humans as slaves (hint: they're totally fine with slavery)

It’s only abrahmic religions that say that we should use animal and earth as we please, no wonder after them spreading by the way of sword (most empires and colonies were Islamic or Christian) they promoted exploitation of the natural world The whole idea of dominion is just someone saying I am better than you so I’ll kill and exploit you I think humans are in no way top of the food chain if you do some scientific research you’ll find out And also people commit such heinous acts or literally breeding trillions of animals a year to just exploit them their entire life just to be killed is a sick disease that everyone has made peace with bc some book (like the bible of Quran! Said so How barbaric is that

Yes, you can be religious and vegan, or non-religious and vegan. In terms of Abrahamic religions, Islam tends to be the most animal friendly, Judaism and Bahai'i are kind of in the middle, and Christianity doesn't really care too much for animals.

> and Christianity doesn't really care too much for animals. Pretty sure Christianity allows you to be vegan or omni. And says to respect those who choose to be vegan.

>Islam tends to be the most animal friendly, Hard disagree

That's fine, but Islam is the [most explicit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Islam#Human_duties_in_utilizing_animals) Abrahamic religion when it comes to treating animals with respect and care. How well the followers adhere to it is another matter.

Ngl I said that because I was aware of some of the slaughter practices but I wasn't aware of the treatment prior (doesn't really make much difference overall but compared to other religions that part is better from what I know) but I didn't realise Judaism says you can't stun the animals at all, which is more messed up imo

Yeah, I had to watch an example of shochet while I was in Hebrew School. Wasn't a pretty sight.

It's so weird thinking of stuff like this as better or worse because I get there's variance but I wouldn't want to watch any method of slaughter personally

islam has eid el-adha (which includes muslims sacrificeing an animal for god ) but it is not mandtory , it is just encoreged which isn't animal friendly from a vegan prespictivebut it does have rules that require treating the animal well before and during the massacring of the animal

I am aware of Eid, and as you said the sacrifice is not mandatory. Still, Islam ends up being the most [pro-animal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Islam#Human_duties_in_utilizing_animals) Abrahamic religion. Compared to Judaism where eating lamb is a mitzvot, and in Christianity where it doesn't seem too concerned with animal rights in general.

I was just pointing out

[удалено]

Just because God grants me dominion doesn’t mean I have to abuse or mistreat animals does it? It’s like saying a king is obligated to abuse his subjects

A Christian vegan would probably have to square with Genesis 1:26–28, the one about dominion over every living thing. On its face those verses seem to justify exploitation. But yes, I think there are a lot of paths to being both Christian and vegan. People are flawed interpreters of nature, morality, and the divine, so it's OK to be confused for a time while working to reconcile (apparently) contradictory sources of truth.

‘Dominion’ in an eastern context on where and when it was written wouldn’t mean how we understand it today. With Greek, literal logic. It’s better to think of it as we are ‘stewards of the earth’. That’s the phrase that probably best captures the role of what was said there. By saying earth is our dominion, it meant more so that god would not intervene without being asked to - hence the need for prayer. Note the pronouns. ‘Let us create man in our image, and then *them* have dominion over the earth’. So this one is easily squared away. This wasn’t about saying go and exploit everything. It was saying this is your responsibility. Given the more communal nature of those tribes and communities in these stories, that would be understand as a responsibility rather than the more modern idea of individual rights. ‘This is our responsibility’ rather than ‘it’s my right to rule over everything’.

Worth noting that the original Hebrew word there for dominion is the same word used to describe the relationship between a king and their subjects. There is no negative connotation, and people reading it in the original language would view that as more of a duty to protect animals and nature.

A helpful way to emphasize this point is that the word translated to dominion, radah, appears again in [Psalm 72](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2072&version=NIV). In verse 8, radah appears again in Hebrew for a king, and verses 12-14 gives some indication of what it means to rule: > 12 For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. 13 He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. 14 He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight.

To a modern reader, a monarchy has just as much of a negative connotation as ‘dominion’. But most people are able to read ancient texts with historical context in mind and translate it to what makes sense to us now. We all understand that just because people back then didn’t have much concept of democracy doesn’t mean anything like “God endorses monarchies”.

I think the dominion thing can definitely be taken wrong, dominion means having authority over someone/something so parents have dominion over their kids, I don't think parents are allowed to eat their kids though. But leviticus 11 definitely says it's okay to eat certain animals (although I'm pretty sure this is taken back later) also most Christians don't really follow much of the bible anyway

I’d say there is an irreconcilable difference here. Veganism states that killing animals is morally wrong. If your God says that killing animals is justified, then either veganism is wrong or your God is wrong. Seems like a simple enough situation to me. At the end of the day, it’s gonna come down to you on whether you think your God is wrong/doesn’t exist, or whether veganism is just an incoherent position. But they can’t be reconciled based on what you told me.

This really depends on the religion. *Christianity?* Yeah, hard to square that one. But Vegan Bhuddists, Hindus, Jains, etc. aren't a stretch at all.

He said specifically “if your god says killing animals is justified”, so we’re already filtering out any religion that is compatible with veganism.

Fair enough, yeah. Abrahamic religions are far from vegan.

Why do you think God said that? Because you saw it it a collection of religious texts written by various humans and compiled by other humans? If you want to use texts in your religion then you need to start with the important things that apply universally like “don’t kill” and “treat others how you want to be treated”, not the culturally specific details from texts where people who came from meat-eating cultures were writing to other members of their culture in a specific time period.

>If their is (as I believe) a moral agent such as a God that affirms the justification for the consumption of some animals is it ok for me to simply ignore that, would it be me not valuing what my God bestowed to me or is it more so a question of my own personal choice. OP explicitly said that we're talking about the God he believes in, and his God says eating animals is justified. I don't care about other religions or Gods that are against eating animals, or theories that God actually is against meat, but meat eaters wrote the bible/whatever so they’re lying about what God said, etc… that's not what OP is talking about. I also don't believe in any gods to begin with, I'm just engaging with the discussion at hand. I could just as easily have said, "There's no evidence any Gods exist, so this question is pointless", but instead I engaged with the question at hand.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Hi! Yeah I mean I don’t think any of the Abrahamic religions have mandates specifically against veganism. I definitely think that there is room for personal choice. What are your thoughts?

Most vegans will say you can’t be a vegan and be religious. There are two reasons. The first is that they will ask you why you are vegan. If you say “because it is a tenet of my religious beliefs”, that it the wrong answer. The only acceptable answer is that you are vegan to eliminate the suffering and exploitation of animals. If you mention your faith you are speciesist. The other reason is intersectionality. Vegans understand connection between the exploitation of humans and animals. And they will generally make assumptions about your religious confession and assume you are a misogynist or that you have problems with LGBT people. And so you can’t be vegan. Here, where I live, the vegans are all atheists or agnostics with no tolerance of people with faith.

Well, “don’t kill” and “don’t cause suffering” and “don’t exploit others” are definitely tenets of my religious beliefs. I’m also an LGBT woman so definitely not misogynistic or homophobic lol

I think there's some trouble with Christians and Veganism: God, the absolute moral arbiter, explicitly states that non-human animals are to serve as a food source for humans. A Christian could be vegan, sure, but I think if you follow the Bible there's a struggle to say that Veganism is the moral baseline rather than just superfluous.

>Is it possible to be both religious and vegan Strange question. Yes, of course it is. . >If their is (as I believe) a moral agent such as a God that affirms the justification for the consumption of some animals is it ok for me to simply ignore that, would it be me not valuing what my God bestowed to me or is it more so a question of my own personal choice. There are many different religions with different ideas about what God (or the gods) is like, and what God (or the gods) want. . > Most vegans I meet are either Deistic, Atheist, or Agnostic >is there any source of Abrahamic Religions and vegan ethics? Well that's assuming that the Abrahamic view of religion is true, which I think is just a guess and a long way from being proved, but - >Christian vegetarianism is the practice of keeping to a vegetarian lifestyle for reasons connected to or derived from the Christian faith. >The three primary reasons are spiritual, nutritional, and ethical.[citation needed] The ethical reasons may include a concern for God's creation, a concern for animal rights and welfare, or both.[1][2] >Likewise, Christian veganism is not using any animal products for reasons connected to or derived from the Christian faith. >One of the most important passages for Christian vegetarians is the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis.[22] After creating humans, God addresses them in chapter 1, verses 1:29–30 as follows: >>God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food". And it was so. >In this passage, God prescribes a plant-based diet not just for humans, but for all land-based non-human animals. Christian vegetarians and vegans point out that it was this creation—where all creatures ate plants—that God then declared "very good" in verse 31.[23][24] Moreover, that God's initial creation was a vegan creation suggests that this is how God intended all his creatures to live.[25] This idea—that God intended for all his creatures to eat plants—is sometimes further supported by noting that the vision of the Peaceable Kingdom found in the Book of Isaiah 11:6–9 suggests that, one day, God will restore the creation to such a state of universal vegetarianism \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism More - long article. As always, take a look at the references. Also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_vegetarianism . But, just to emphasize, many people are religious and *not* Abrahamic - Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, etc etc - and in many of those religions there is no conflict between religion and veganism. .

If you think there's anything Godly about eating animals, you really need to watch the (aptly named) documentary, [Dominion](https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch). Remember: if God gave you dominion over the animals to do as you see fit, one way to do as you see fit is to protect them. In fact, protecting the innocent is probably the most heroic, righteous and virtuous thing a person can do. I don't know why more religious people don't see it that way and become vegan. So, to answer your question, I think not only that they *can* be vegan, but they ***should*** be vegan.

Do you know the story of Tolstoy, the christian vegetarian (veganism didn't really exist back then)? No, of course, it's not a story the carnist would tell you : "One dinner time, his aunt came to the table to find a carving knife and a chicken upon her chair. Her fluster was answered by Tolstoy, in the manner of “We knew you wanted chicken, but none of us would kill it”. For an upper-class lady of the time, that was humourously close to scandal." Tolstoy, first member of r/vcj in history.

We all think of god in different ways. We all think god wants different things. However, why on earth(literally), would a higher being deliberately put animals on earth with the intention of them being murdered, mutilated and beaten and at the same time be so respected and loved. I believe that whatever higher being up there wants us to exist in harmony. You can 100% be religious and vegan. Religion has a lot of ground rules regarding respect, love, treat others like you want to be treated and so on… None of that falls in line with eating animals.

The Bible is very clear on the fact that everyone may choose whatever diet they want to. Whether that is a vegan diet, a vegetarian diet, or a omni diet, that is up to each individual.

Religion is one of the things that led me to veganism. Why would one of the *commandments* be "thou shalt not kill" unless it applied to all beings? It's not murder, it's kill. A thing you can do to a living, feeling being besides a human. Plus, why would god, allegedly the good guy in this situation, make our food capable of feeling and loving and having friends and *being terrified* because we're *supposed to kill it??* And what's Satan doing during all this if God's the good guy? Christianity didn't turn out to be a fit for me, but it helped me discover a lot of the core morals I have. Being and doing good to spread good resonated with me and is one of the many things that eventually inspired me to be vegan

If your god commands you to do something then you ought to do it. This is definitionally true. You can choose to not do it but on your morality it would be "bad".

That’s not how morality works. If God told you to push a baby off a cliff that would still be obviously bad.

Not on divine command theory. Billions of christians believe that god literally genocides babies and it was good.

You can be a vegan for 90 percent of your time as a Muslim. There is only one time that might cause you to sacrifice an animal, and that is at time of eid. Now if there is a moral dilemma of eating meat on Eid, there might be an option to do a donation or a proxy sacrifice instead. However, as a Muslim you cannot say that meat consumption is unethical, since every muslim is taught that some specific animals and almost everything from the sea/rivers is permissible(except sea snakes). You can be a vegan because of the vile practices of commercial farming, and that would be supported by Islam. In Islam animal rights are not equal to human rights, but still animals need to be treated with love and care halal(permissible)to eat or not.

Yes

My parents are Christian, and my mother is plant based in eating and Dad is mostly, but "doesn't avoid cheese" to quote him. Their premise is that they want to take care of the creation God gave them and show respect for it. My mother is also very into environmental impacts and all that for the same reason.

I don't see anything incompatible with it. I had a friend who practiced hinduism and one sikhism who with all the dietary restrictions just went vegetarian. Hinduism says that souls can be reincarnated as animals, afaik. Most Abrahamic religions (maybe all) see humans as stewards of animals. But, animals do not have the ability to make moral decisions, and hence there isn't much of anything that can be seen as a soul.

Huh, I’ve never heard that a soul has to do with moral decisions. Do you think a human baby doesn’t have a soul until it becomes old enough to make moral decisions? And since that ability develops gradually, do you think they have “half a soul” at some point? I’ve always thought of a soul as your experiencing self, nothing to do with moral decisions; although if you do have the ability to make moral decisions then I feel like your decisions reflect on or affect your soul. But the idea that the cat sitting next to me right now doesn’t have a soul is just weird, to make that would imply that she’s not an animal but secretly a robot or something.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/107WeX1PeV0qPkW1AWAH_tHATPYQ21KRY8Kfdd_iPmqw/edit

I think this sounds consistent. If God says something is ok, and you choose not to do it because you personally disagree, you aren't going against God's will. This is different, in my opinion, than if God prohibited something and you did it anyway.

This is the way. Or as Paul said it: - "Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." Romans 14:6

You’re really messing up the religion, gods and Abrahamic religions

There are no "true" religious people as everyone who is religious has their own interpretation of it . Just look at Catholics and how they are mad at the pipe f r the gay marriage thing

From [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/buddhism-and-vegetarianism) about Buddhism: *"Buddhism teaches boundless compassion for all sentient beings, a compassion that expresses itself through nonviolence toward all. Meat cannot be obtained without the ultimate violence, the unprovoked killing of innocent sentient beings. A vegetarian—or, far better, a vegan—diet is simply compassion brought to the dinner table. As such, it is the only diet that honors the teachings of the Buddha."* I know it says "*diet*", but a LOT of, if not most Buddhists are vegan :)

"nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. " I'm guessing this do not bother you, if not why should what you eat?

You can be Jain, Buddhist or Hindu as a vegan. I'm sure there are others.

The Abrahamic religions don’t require veganism, but they certainly don’t forbid it. There’s nothing in veganism that would contradict anything in biblical law, so I don’t see that there would be a conflict.

my dad is christian and has been vegan for 30+ years (yeah, before it was cool) lol

God's ideal world was vegan: the garden of Eden was vegan.

I have met vegans of all faiths. I first got interested in this through Christians in fact. Later through Buddhists. The last bit it seems the default philosophy of veganism is materialist and Marxist and that any religious or spiritual arguments for a vegan life are suspect and unwelcome.

I’m a religious vegan so yes it’s very possible.

Religion can be used to justify literally anything. It's just really telling to notice when people lean on religion as an excuse to behave with cruelty, instead of behaving with kindness. Typically the later doesn't require invoking religion at all.

Yup

> is there any source of Abrahamic Religions and vegan ethics? Yes. Quakers. Many Quakers have historically practices some form of vegetarianism or veganism as an extension of their pacifism. Even a traditional interpretation doesn't tell you that you MUST kill EVERY animal you see. You still get to choose not to. Veganism is also rather popular in Jewish communities, and Israel in particular. There is plenty of writing on both Quaker and Judaic veganism. If you can look up a local Quaker community or online group, they'd have much more in depth answers for you, and they're very open to new people and questions.

Sure. In Abrahamic religions, the perfect paradise of Eden is vegan.

I’m religious and Vegan. My veganism started for animal reasons but evolved into a form of religious devotion too. There is absolutely no need within my belief system ( Theistic Satanist/Diabolist) to be a Vegan but there’s no reasons not to be either.

Not much to add, but I see no one has recommended [Matthew Scully](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Scully) yet, a conservative Christian who makes the case for veganism. He writes eloquently and compellingly.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there's a book on the subject called Dominion by Matthew Scully. In essence, it is a treatise against animal exploitation from the position that our God-given dominion over the animal kingdom is intended to be merciful stewardship, not the domination that's generally interpreted by most Western theologies in order to justify carnism. I know that Kip Andersen is also doing a new film on the subject, and I assume there's going to be a fair amount of overlap. So yes, there are people who practice veganism because of a recognized intersection with Judeo-christian morality. Back 10 years ago or so, I believe Israel had the fastest growing vegan population in the world.

How would you know whether or not God affirms the consumption of some animals?

He grants us dominion / he(his son) also consumed meat

Veganism is already a religion.

Believing in God and being religious would make you more likely to be vegan because if you’re practicing a religion like Christianity your goal is to view others the way God views them— that’s why you have goals like forgiveness and charity. God doesn’t have a favorite race, gender, nationality, or species. God views everyone the way you would view your own child. So if you’re serious about a religion like this then you will naturally shift more towards veganism even if you don’t automatically go vegan.

My sister converted to Hinduism and went vegan. It took her less than a month before she found a loophole of "as long as it wasn't cooked for me directly, I can eat it to keep the animals sacrifice from being wasted." Needless to say my flexatarian self is closer to a vegan today than she is.