What’s the theological basis for eating meat?

I hear a lot of people (not here, but just in general) saying that God created animals to be used as food for humans. I find that strange since God stated that he gave man fruit, nuts, and seeds of the tree for food. I know that later in Genesis after the flood narrative, God permitted the consumption of animals. I just wonder why God permitted animals to be eaten if he originally stated that plants were meant to be humanity’s source of food? Didn’t God have the ability to create plants with all of the nutrients necessary for human life? That makes a lot more sense to me; plants are much less resource demanding than animals. I can simply pick fruit, vegetables, and nuts off of a tree. With animals, I have to do too much work to process the critter, such as a cow or pig.

And before anyone says it, I’m not a vegan; I eat eggs occasionally. I drink milk sometimes. My main source of meat is chicken, but my tolerance for meat is declining as I age, for some reason.

Attached: 5401D948-5897-43E5-9ACF-A0A7139AA369.jpeg (1000x500, 125.5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/Christianity/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

When God LITERALLY told Peter to kill and eat animals.

Pretty sure God gave us dominion over the animals. And meat is a dense source of nutrients and also delicious. Why is it suddenly called into question whether or not eating meat means you hate animals? I love farm animals. Cows are cute but they were made to be eaten.

*eats 5 wheelbarrows full of leaves to get the same amount of protein as a chunk of meat*
*eats 5 wheelbarrows full of a different plant with a complementary amino acid profile*

Later:
*gathers a gorillion nuts off the tree and presses them*

"Huh wtf i spent the whole day eating leaves and mimicking a giraffe also what's nutrient density? Nutrients are just vitamins right? Brainlet.jpeg"

I think it was a concession due to the fall, you don't have to eat meat though.

God simply saying something isn’t a theological basis


Wtf? I never said that, damn it! Don’t put words in my mouth


That was uncalled for, you fuking dick. Do you insult everyone who asked a series of simple questions? Go piss off if you’re going to be an unhelpful asshole. Also, nuts and seeds are high in calories and protein, so I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Beans and lentils are technically seeds, so there goes your brainlet meme, winnie the pooher.

People like you guys make posting here so unbearable. Get some social skills, you god damn autists. Stop sperging out over simple questions.


What was so special about the fall that God permitted the eating of meat? The only thing I could think of is if there is a shortage of plants. Then again, I don’t think the flood story literally happened; doesn’t make a shred of sense. All of the plant matter would have died due to the water covering them for so long.

How so? Theology is the study of God, so it makes sense that God saying something would give it a theological basis.

Attached: awm-02-driven-to-distraction-85-betsy-smiles.jpg (720x480, 259.78K)

You're on the wrong site, bro, lemme help you out reddit.com/r/Christianity/

51th rule of the same holy Apostles: "If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, abstains from marriage, flesh, and wine, not for his own exercise, but because he abominates these things, forgetting that "all things were very good," Genesis 1:31 and that "God made man male and female," Genesis 1:26 and blasphemously abuses the creation, either let him reform, or let him be deprived, and be cast out of the Church; and the same for one of the laity. "

53rt rule of the Apostles: "If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon does not on festival days partake of flesh or wine, let him be deprived, as "having a seared conscience," 1 Timothy 4:2 and becoming a cause of scandal to many."

2nd rule of the synod at Gangra (approved by the 3rd Ecumenical council): "If any one shall condemn him who eats flesh, which is without blood and has not been offered to idols nor strangled, and is faithful and devout, as though the man were without hope [of salvation] because of his eating, let him be anathema."

Apostle Paul (1 Tim 4:1-5): "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."

14th rule of the synod at Ancyra: "As for those presbyters or deacons who are in the clergy and who abstain from meat, it has seemed right for them to touch and taste the meat and then, if they so wish, to refrain from eating it; but if they are unwilling to eat even vegetables that have been cooked with meat, and refuse to submit to the Canon, let them be dismissed from the orders."

A summary of all this: abstaining from meat as form of ascetism is good. But in order to safeguard from heresies, everyone should test his consciousnes by eating meat at least occasionally or maybe even only by eating vegetables cooked with meat.
————————————————–

According to Theodoret of Cyrus this was because God knew that in the future people would worship various animals, so in this way the people would know the indecency of this.

Jerome: "But afterwards when God saw that the heart of man from his youth was set on wickedness continually, and that His Spirit could not remain in them because they were flesh, He by the deluge passed sentence on the works of the flesh, and, taking note of the extreme greediness of men, gave them liberty to eat flesh: so that while understanding that all things were lawful for them, they might not greatly desire that which was allowed, lest they should turn a commandment into a cause of transgression."

Literally read the Bible

Attached: d9b90b8fe27b35b95b6f9dd88b31bae53a6c1f8d18cf24b7e8fde65de9c5cb2c.gif (500x390, 74.21K)

Attached: 1531087484676.png (3084x2568, 187.81K)

Attached: kjhgad985jekgjh5987rihdwrwer3y5u43y5345.gif (400x200, 4.11M)

Attached: 67114010.jpg (298x298, 62.17K)

I wasn't quoting you

Attached: 555-come-on-now.jpg (500x375, 24.22K)

contributing

Attached: 1533671002903.jpg (1280x720, 102.07K)

Attached: SSPX intensifies.png (898x976, 886.61K)

It seems like you all didn’t understand what I meant when I said “theological basis.” I was asking what is the reasoning behind eating meat. In otherwise words, WHY did god tell us to eat meat. I can’t believe so many people missed that.

That is an interesting point that I have never heard of before. Thanks for being useful, unlike the rest of the autists in this thread. With that being said, I don’t see why the commandment to eat meat is a necessary action to safeguard against eating meat. He could have simply said “don’t worship animals.”

I’m not quite sure I understand Jerome’s point here. Is it because meat would have been more difficult to obtain?? He’s not really clear as to why man wouldn’t “greatly desire that which was allowed.” One thing that I’ve noticed with covetous people is that the more lofty and unlikely a thing is, the stronger their desire is to obtain it.


Leave your house and pull that brainlet shit on real people. See what happens to you.

see

Attached: a9dadf86a977059700413aec3c155f6132ec9c5a8b77a3ae9d0059d310fa3689.jpg (540x615, 22.31K)

It may be that it is a great source of nutrition and there is nothing wrong with it. The only people who consider it immoral are crazy.

He did say this (to the Hebrews) and it didn't work.


Ap. Paul: "law came and so the trespass increased" (Romans 5:20), "But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness" (Romans 7:8).

An explanation for Romans 7:8 by Chrysostom:

"Do you see how he has cleared it of all blame? For "sin," he says, "taking occasion by the commandment," it was, and not the Law, that increased the concupiscence, and the reverse of the Law's intent was brought about. This came of weakness, and not of any badness. For when we desire a thing, and then are hindered of it, the flame of the desire is but increased. Now this came not of the Law; for it hindered us of itself to keep us off from it; but sin, that is, your own listlessness and bad disposition, used what was good for the reverse. But this is no fault in the physician, but in the patient who applies the medicine wrongly. For the reason of the Law being given was, not to inflame concupiscence, but to extinguish it, though the reverse came of it. Yet the blame attaches not to it, but to us. Since if a person had a fever, and wanted to take cold drink when it was not good for him, and one were not to let him take his fill of it, and so increase his lust after this ruinous pleasure, one could not deservedly be found fault with. For the physician's business is simply prohibiting it, but the restraining himself is the patient's. And what if sin did take occasion from it? Surely there are many bad men who by good precepts grow in their own wickedness. For this was the way in which the devil ruined Judas, by plunging him into avarice, and making him steal what belonged to the poor. However it was not the being entrusted with the bag that brought this to pass, but the wickedness of his own spirit. And Eve, by bringing Adam to eat from the tree, threw him out of Paradise. But neither in that case was the tree the cause, even if it was through it that the occasion took place."

Attached: 23BE6445-7041-41DF-AB52-E3F637043B49.gif (720x404, 1.12M)

Also, this whole post makes you look like a soy-chugging faggot. Seriously, don't come to a chan and then complain about chan culture.

So you meant moral basis, then?

How about, "animals are subordinate to humans and also aren't moral actors, so whatever we decide to do to them that doesn't harm ourselves spiritually is all good"?

Considering that animals eating animals is the natural order of things and that humans have almost always eaten animals with no apparent harm to our psyches, I'd say we're good on that front.

Attached: 9095c5e7f393ba406d99946edc87b45c37e6de121e7053aa6f1072128c84d318.jpg (480x720, 54.9K)

Attached: 6a1ecc5d92005852d9b9e4cc455789e52707ce6372abba324cd24f392a11711e.jpg (255x190, 13.26K)

Attached: cat.jpg (880x720, 81.89K)

Also the eden argument is beyond stupid. Pre-fall we adam and eve didn't wear clothing, so it's more holy to be nude? Adam and eve pre-fall didn't work, so we should also not work? Pre-fall they didn't go to church or read the bible so we shouldn't go to church and read the bible either?

God literally tells Peter to kill and eat animals, to kill them, and we are to say we have a superior moral standard to God? For this reason alone veganism is antithetical to Christianity. Veganism is not a diet, but it is an ethical position, stating that it is morally wrong to use animals for food, clothing, etc. It's saying that their man-made made up morality is higher than Gods. There were historically vegetarians at the time of St. Peter, God could have easily said not to kill and eat animals, but he did the opposite.

The adam and eve vegan apologists are the stupidest though, next with the "fish was actually fishweed" apologists. How idiotic are them. They claim that the word for fish in greek is mistranslated to fish but actually meant fishweed. So Jesus said to catch the first fishweed you find from the ocean and open the "mouth" of a fishweed and there you will find a coin to give as tax? weed have mouths now?

Just eat your fuc​king meat, be satiated for a good third of a day because of it, getting extremely good nutritious value from it, so you can do things that matter in life.

P.S.:
If your diet would get you killed in European climates during the winter without fancy stuff like greenhouses and co, then you know your diet is pure, undiluted, anti life bullshit.

Aka, if you only eat plants then you would die in European winters.