A few days ago I posted a few myths about vegetarianism and tried to shed some light on the reality of them. Although it addressed a large portion of the problems people have about going vegetarian, it didn’t give too many reasons to do so (which there are many). Personally, I find the reasons for going vegetarian overwhelming, so I’ll fill you in on the reasons I find the most convincing.
One of the biggest reasons people go vegetarian is for the animals. For the most part, all of our meat comes from factory farms – huge farms in which thousands upon thousands of animals are raised. Often they are packed so tight that they have no room to move, and they live in their own feces. Today’s animals are also pumped full of antibiotics, hormones, and other agents to make them as cost-efficient as possible, and they are fed foods that their bodies aren’t designed to handle. This may sound like it is good to some people, but these chemicals make life for the animals even more harsh. Many chickens die because their legs cannot keep up with the weight of their bodies and they collapse, only to die a slow death on the ground. They are often run through parts of the slaughtering process conscious, and some even die that way. To see just a glimpse of this, watch “Meet your Meat” on YouTube (it is rather disturbing, if you have a weak stomach please do not watch). Often when you cite this reason to a non-vegetarian, they say that they are just animals. While this is true, this does not mean that they can’t feel pain or suffer, because anyone who has been around animals know they can. There is no reason to put them through such a life just to be slaughtered and eaten at the end. Someone may say that we are more intelligent, therefore it is justified. If this were true, if an alien race were to come to Earth and was more intelligent, does it have the right to eat us? Or what about angels – many consider them a higher form of life. Of course, both of these are hypotheticals, but nonetheless they get the point across. Just because they are a different species or not as intelligent as us does not give us the right to eat them or treat them terribly.
Another reason for becoming vegetarian, although less used, is the environment. Livestock production takes up about 68% of the land used in agriculture, which is roughly about 30% of the landmass on Earth. Forests are torn down all the time to make room for livestock, not to mention that it produces more amounts of CO2 than all transportation devices. Plus, US livestock alone produces around 250,000 pounds of waste a second, and that can really build up. Not only this, but it also takes a large amount of corn and grain that could be used for other things, but instead we are feeding it to animals so we can eat them, which in the process we lose food. It takes between 6-16 pounds of grain/corn and 441 (meat industry estimate) to 2,500 (widely accepted estimate) gallons of water to make one pound of beef. Chicken and pork, along with other forms of meat, aren’t much better. This is extremely inefficient, especially when we have starving people not only around the world, but in our own country.
This brings on another point, which I find rather convincing: when meat is so inefficient, why do we still eat it? From the last post on vegetarianism, we know that we aren’t necessarily built for meat and we don’t even have to have it in our diets to survive, otherwise there would be no vegetarians. To eat meat while knowing the facts about its cost of production is selfish. It is agreed upon by most scientists that if we were to allocate our resources better, we could feed the entire world, because nearly 20 million people die from malnutrition a year. Not only would stopping meat production feed the world, we could also us the land for more food, housing, and many other things. If you are a person who values people over animals, eating meat is still bad. For every pound of hamburger meat you eat, you could have, at minimum, six pounds of corn/grain for not only yourself but other people. This, of course, is neglecting the fact that every pound of ground meat contains meat from hundreds of animals. Even aside from the animals, factory workers at factory farms work in some of the worst conditions in the country.
On top of all this, there are many health benefits of a vegetarian diet, and they too are rather compelling. It has been proven that vegetarians have less of a risk at getting cancer, diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, renal disease, hypertension, and other ailments. Vegetarians are also less likely to be obese, they have lower cholesterol, lower levels of saturated fat, and less pesticides. One study found that non-vegetarians have 17 times the rate of death from heart disease than vegetarians, and a 5 times higher breast cancer death rate. Not to mention that meat, especially beef, has many undesirable things such as hair and manure that gets in the meat processor, which then makes its way into our bodies. Of course, it is rather obvious that if you don’t eat animals you have a much lower chance of getting a disease that they carry.
To top it all of, there are religious reasons for not eating meat. Some religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, advise against eating meat in the first place. They hold it important to end as much suffering as possible, including that of animals. Plus, if other people suffer knowing that animals are killed for food, to stop eating meat would also be an attempt to help bring a ceasing of their suffering as well. In Islam there have been some notable vegetarians, such as Râbi‘ah al-‘Adawîyah of Basrah and Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, and many Muslims will eat vegetarian or seafood meals at restaurants if the food might be non-halal. Many Sufis also adhere to a vegetarian diet. Although Islam does not promote vegetarianism, it does not condemn it and the two are compatible. In fact, the Muslim Vegetarian/Vegan Society was founded in 1996. Judaism also takes no specific stance on vegetarianism, but some have expanded the Commandment “thou shalt not kill” to include animals as well. It has also been pointed out that in God’s original paradise, Eden, Adam and Eve did not eat meat. Some also point out that Isaiah 66:3 says “But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man…” The Jewish group called the Essenes, around in the times of Jesus, ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Many Jews, in fact, did not eat much meat around that time because the majority of meat came from animals sacrificed to Greek and Roman gods. In Christianity, vegetarians are the minority, yet some believe it is the proper way to live. Some, like myself, believe that Jesus himself was a vegetarian. Yes, this is a bold statement to make, and it even seems flat out wrong on first glance. I mean, there are verses where Jesus specifically eats fish. First off, there is a form of vegetarianism that allows the eating of fish, it is called pesco-vegetarianism or pescaterianism. Second, he only does this after his resurrection, and at that time he also has the power to walk through walls – he does not actually need physical nourishment. Jesus even says in John 4:34, before he was crucified, “’My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.‘” Third, the Greek word for fish is “Ichthys,” which, in Greek, is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” The symbol of a fish was common with early Christians who used it to identify themselves (even before the cross), so perhaps this was meant to be symbolic in the Gospels Jesus taught in parables, and symbolism is key in them. In some Bibles, honeycomb is included along with the fish. A more extensive explanation is that since the word “it” follows, he took only one, which was the honeycomb and he was fulfilling the second part of the prophesy commonly quoted by Christians, 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.” There is also the time where he multiplies fish and bread, but he multiplied fish that were already dead, therefore they never died or suffered because they were never alive in the first place. Another accusation against this is the Passover meal, which generally requires a lamb. As mentioned earlier, certain groups of Jews followed a strictly vegetarian diet, and there is only one mention (which is only in certain translations of the Bible) of the Passover lamb, when he tells his disciples to retrieve “meat” or “food,” depending on the translation. Even if it did say meat, the word “meat” is found in Genesis 1:29 when God used it in Eden, and he only listed non-animal sources of food. Besides, Jesus spoke out against animal sacrifices, saying twice “I require mercy, not sacrifice.” He also released the animals that were being sold for sacrifice at the Temple. In the gospels, baptism was used as a cleansing of sins, which took the place of animal sacrifice. In fact, didn’t Jesus come to end the need for sacrifice? The Passover lamb had to be sacrificed before being eaten, which went against what Jesus was saying, therefore it makes sense that his Passover was not one consisting of meat. If it had, why was there no mention of it? And if our body is a temple, as the Bible says, why are we filling it with the remains of dead animals? There are times where vegetarianism is attacked, and we are told all animals are clean to eat, but just because they are clean does not mean we are compelled to eat them. Paul, the one who says vegetarians are weak in faith, also says not to judge, yet by saying they are weak in faith contradicts his own teachings. Also, there is external evidence for this statement. Hegesippus, an early Christian historian said : “James, the brother of the Lord was holy from his mothers womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.” Hegesippus, quoted in The Church History of Eusebius, book 2, chapter 23. If James (known as James the Just) came from the womb not drinking or eating meat, then wouldn’t it make sense that Jesus, who was more holy than him, to do the same if not better? (I can also make a case that Jesus didn’t drink as well, but that is a different topic.) Also, the early Christian writer Clement of Alexandria wrote, “The apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts and vegetables without flesh.” Origen, Tertullian, Arius, Heronymus, Boniface, Jerome, and an entire group of Christians known as the Ebionites were also vegetarian. One of the earliest Christian writings that isn’t in the New Testament, Clementine Homiles’, was based on the teachings of St. Peter. Homily XII says, “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“. There is also a quote from Gospel of the Nazarenes and Epiphanius’ (another early Christian historian) Panarion, where he discusses the Gospel of the Ebionites: “Now, if you were the gluttonous, meat-eating Emperor of Rome enjoying a lavish lifestyle at that time, would you allow that to be exposed to your people?” On top of all this, Jesus was Jewish, and generally meat wasn’t eaten by Jews because they had been sacrificed to other gods, as mentioned earlier. Personally, I find the internal and external evidence strong enough to safely conclude that Jesus was vegetarian. Even if he wasn’t, there is no reason why a Christian couldn’t or shouldn’t become a vegetarian for whatever reason.
You can do it for the animals, for the environment, your fellow humans, the health benefits, or even religious reasons, but in my opinion it is clear that a vegetarian diet is overall beneficial. Why not try it for a few months or a year, and if it doesn’t work out for you than oh well. But once you make the transition you’ll be set in it and feel better overall. As Clement of Alexandria wrote, “It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals.”
“Paul, the one who says vegetarians are weak in faith, also says not to judge, yet by saying they are weak in faith contradicts his own teachings.” —Can you cite this please?
“Hegesippus, an early Christian historian said : “James, the brother of the Lord was holy from his mothers womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.””—The vast majority of scholars consider Hegesippus’ account of St. James to be quite exaggerated, including the description of his extreme ascetism. His account does contain obvious elements of truth, however there is legendary substances. This must be taken into consideration.
“Origen, Tertullian, Arius, Heronymus, Boniface, Jerome”—these, along with the vast majority of Ante-Nicene/Nicene writers and theologians were quite the ascetic type. Their views tend to be more extreme, and do not adequatly represent the views of the majority of christians. These are they same people who taught that celibacy was inherantly a higher, holier, and better lifestyle, as opposed to the inferior married state. I am not saying that they should not be cited or quoted, I am simply saying that the context should be taken into consideration.
One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. – Romans 14:2
Only 11 verses later he says this:
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Romans 14:13
So first he calls those who eat only vegetables weak, but then says not to judge. Of course, later on in 14 he says it is best not to do anything to cause another to stumble, and that if eating meat or drinking does that, that you should not either. (Romans 14:21)
As for Hegesippus’ account, perhaps it was, but as with many religiously oriented things, we cannot know either way for sure. But as you said in the next paragraph, many early church fathers were extreme ascetics. But his account, when taking into account other evidence, can be backed. For example, there is proof of an internal church struggle in the Bible, where, in one event, Paul calls out Cephas publicly. This would have been as embarrassing then as it was now, and this event was also based on eating. Also, there was a debate on circumcision, in which Paul was called to Jerusalem. On that occasion, it is James who gives the final ruling. Although Acts makes it sound friendly, Paul’s letter to the Galatians, which is generally about the same thing (circumcision, the Law, etc.) is very vitriolic and rather heated. It is not only held in tradition, but backed by Scripture and other accounts, that James was the head of the church in Jerusalem (the group of Christians that said circumcision was needed until Paul went). It is possible that this group, including its leader James, was vegetarian, and since Paul often had disagreements with them included an indirect attack in Romans 14:2 at their diet. Other things might hint at this, such as the faith vs. works view between Paul and James (depending of if one sees it that way), and how the book of James is much more Jewish than Paul, who is generally seen as more Hellenized. The Ebionites, a group of Christians that considered themselves the original descendants of the Jewish Christians (James’ group), revered James and considered Paul an apostate. The Ebionites were vegetarians.
Yes, the ones mentioned were the ascetic type, but just because the majority disagrees with them does not mean they were not right (or wrong, either way). Christians did not always hold the majority view (especially for hundreds of years during Roman rule), but this does not mean they were necessarily wrong. And yes, many things should be taken into consideration. Even if Jesus was a vegetarian, or never drank wine, or whatever, it would not have an effect on the teachings we have from him today. The only reason one would consider it a problem was if the goal was to imitate his lifestyle, which most people don’t even do today anyways (personally I try, but it depends on a person’s theology).
“It is possible that this group, including its leader James, was vegetarian”—many things are possible. To assume that he was seems a bit stretchy to me.
Romans 14: “accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One mans faith allows him to eat everytning, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him…..He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God…therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another.”
I don’t think that what Paul is saying is very confusing or difficult to understand. And i honestly don’t see how you see that Paul is contradicting himself here. He discusses the controversy of eating meat verses not. And his opinion is very similar to my opinion on the relativity of language (of which you are familiar). It is evident to me that the meat abstainers represented to Paul a sort of unenlightened legalism, irrationally based on tradition. When he says their faith is “weak”, he means that he considers them unenlightened and illogical, (just as i would consider those who hold to the illogical traditional view of “bad” language). The reason Paul feels this way seems to stem from these people’s reasoning behind their abstination. (We of course do not know exactly what this reason is). However, Paul recognizes the sincerity of their hearts; that they do this with good intentions, and therefore does not literally look down on them as bad people, and he preaches for others to feel the same. (i do not look down on those who abstain, or those who use, certain words, but i do have my opinion as to what is logical). It seemed illogical to Paul to abstain from eating meat, for he saw meat as calories, the same as bread, and saw no good reason to abstain from it.
Unless you consider his use of the word “faith” as referring to their faith in God, or along those lines, i see no way one can reason that Paul is contradictory.
It seems to me that his use of the word “faith” is referring to their faith in a specific teaching of his, or logic, or referring to their ignorance with regard to reason and logic.
I see no contradiction.
True, many things are possible, but there are many things that are stretches today, such as the authorship of some of the New Testament, such as there were three kings that visited Jesus as a child. It says they came in a group and gave three types of gifts, but the number of kings is never given. (Matthew 2:1-18) It’s possible there were 2; it’s even possible there were dozens. To say there were three only because three types of gifts were given could be a stretch as well, especially considering that the amount per gift isn’t given either (one king could’ve given gold and myrrh, or 2 gold coins, or any combination or amount).
Weak is generally considered a subjective term, therefore, as with all subjective terms, judgment is passed. In Romans 14:13 he says to stop passing judgment. Even if he considers them unenlightened, then he is passing judgment. Yes, he does not look down upon them in a sense, yet he still has a judgment which he makes clear. I doubt that those he was talking about took lightly to their faith being called weak (in any meaning of the word). This is where I see the contradiction.
Even if I were to concede to that point, which I don’t (hence the rebuttal), he goes to say that it is better not to eat meat, or do anything for that matter, that will offend or cause another to fall (Romans 14:21). If we are to hold by his statement that meat is fine/clean to eat, then why would we not also follow this, which promotes the abstention of it?
The word “faith” can have many meanings, but, as I stated above, most people would take offense to their faith being called weak for any reason. As for the relativity of words, we could also take into consideration the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (depending on your translation). What did God mean? Did it only apply to people, or to animals as well?
But the matter of eating vs. not eating meat does not come to a matter of cleanliness per se, but with the morality of it along with following God’s Law (for those who followed it). For the morality of it, I would direct you to the original post, which I address it from both a biocentric and anthropocentric viewpoint. As for following God’s Law, that could also be another post, but Jesus addressed the issue in Matthew 5:17-20. In it he said:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Although he is to fulfill it, he says that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Unless we consider the heaven and earth gone, as well as God’s work done (which means we must already be in heaven or hell and gone through Judgement Day), the Law should still apply. At least that is what Jesus said. In that case most Jews, including James and Jesus, would not eat meat that they could not identify the source of, since it was most likely not Kosher and probably had been sacrificed to a Roman/Greek god.
I never said that there were in fact 3 kings who visited Jesus. Just sayin’.
“Seek and you will find”–Jesus.
)
You and I have sought different themes out of St. Paul’s Romans 14, and we have found different themes. I see your perspective, but i hold to mine.
I believe that it is possible to have an opinion, and still not pass judgement. This is what i do when it comes to the relativity of language, and this is what i see Paul is doing here. If you see this as contradictory, that is fine. Perhaps Paul was getting a lil emotional (because of his ardent enthusiasm of his opinion) when writing this and used the word “weak”, when in fact he probably should’ve used better words. We all sometimes say things we don’t entirely mean when we get emotional.
As for the rest, you make good points, however, i would like to see some references as to where you get your information. (You could be making all of these “facts” about vegetarianism up!
I love you guys, but get a load of this:
In 1 Corinthians 10:25-26, Paul says, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”
Boom. Read the context. It doesn’t change anything.
moving on…
Jesus was not a vegetarian. I would actually really love to think that he was to be honest with you. I don’t think it would make me change, but it would make him become more of a hero – defending man and beast. I’ll give you the pesco-vegetarianism thing, HOWEVER… (this is a quote from “La Vista Church of Christ’s website)
{As a Jew, Jesus must have kept the Law of Moses perfectly. Yet that same law required all Jews to keep the Passover celebration.
“All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate [the Passover].” (Exodus 12:47)
The Gospels specifically mention Jesus keeping three Passover feasts in Jerusalem. However, in order to keep the feast, the participants were given roasted lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread to eat (Exodus 12:3-4). The entire lamb had to be eaten during the feast. If there were any leftovers, they had to be burned (Exodus 12:10). If Jesus did not eat the lamb, he would have been violating the Law and could have been accused of sin.
“… observe the Passover to the LORD. ‘In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight, they shall observe it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. ‘They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute of the Passover they shall observe it. ‘But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man will bear his sin.” (Numbers 9:10-13)
The New Testament records that Jesus did eat the Passover feast, which would include the eating of the roasted lamb (Luke 22:14-15). In fact, before the last Passover meal, Jesus specifically instructs his disciples to prepare the meal, including the lamb, for their observance.
“Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.”" (Luke 22:7-8)}
You may claim that he didn’t eat MEAT at the Passover, but Galen, your claim is based on the fact that Jesus said, “I require mercy, not sacrifice.”, and that doesn’t make any sense. Just because someone doesn’t REQUIRE something doesn’t mean they won’t partake in it. It would be the same principle as me saying, “I require love, not hugs.” We all need love, but whoever you are “Galen”
I’m sure YOU’VE even hugged someone before. We even use both points – love and hugs – because we’ve hugged someone we love. Technically speaking, Jesus requires MERCY, yet it is still good to SACRIFICE your time, energy, and money for His cause. We’ve discussed this before. What I’m trying to say is that we can’t say he didn’t eat meat because he doesn’t REQUIRE sacrifice.
The reason we don’t see him eating much meat in the Bible is, much like you said, “Many Jews, in fact, did not eat much meat around that time because the majority of meat came from animals sacrificed to Greek and Roman gods.” But when he had to, he did. Part of being “vegetarian” is having the will power to say NO to meat. He said YES at times.
I have absolutely no problem with people being vegetarian. I have a great respect for you, “Galen”, because you do not eat meat unless you have to. That takes some balls. I watched that “Meet Your Meat” video (reluctantly, thanks to the fact that it was narrated by Alec Baldwin) and I can see why many people choose to be vegetarians. And yes, the health and efficiency reasons are VERY great as well, but I have a problem when people mess with the image of Jesus. For all I know I could be wrong as well, but evidence points to the fact that he was NOT a vegetarian… the belief that he was a vegetarian is actually based on a claim that there is a LACK of evidence that he ate meat, but we have now seen the evidence proving the former.
You may claim that Jesus was a kind of “easy going” vegetarian, not eating meat unless the law required it. But he’s quoted Luke 22:15 as saying, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” IT WAS CONSENSUAL! lol.
Alright here we go, sorry it’s taken so long for me to get on, I had to buy internet service from the campus.
The point of the 3 kings was just to point out that we stretch things a lot, etc.
We did find different meanings to Romans 14, and it’s no wonder there are so many denominations considering that we disagree on one passage, yet there is the entire Bible that people can disagree on. As for references and the like, I’ll put some up here. I don’t know which exactly you want, and to go through them all would be tedious, but I’ll give you a few and if you want more I can give them to you.
As for human rights issues, hair and manure in the meat, and violence towards animals, look up the documentary “Food, Inc.” Another rather graphic one, is the link I posted in the original post called “Meat your Meat.”
For the protein: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf , http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26480.php , http://www.snyderhealth.com/documents/Protein_FAQ.pdf , http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/dairy.htm
As for medical reasons: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S#T7 , http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2003_ADA_position_paper.pdf , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4801570.stm , http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1043849120071211 , http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/26
Paul was a very Hellenized Jew, he was, according to Acts, from Tarsus, which is in modern day Turkey. Tarsus, is 291 miles from Nazareth. He also said, “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall” (Romans 14:21). So a combination of the two is that if you do eat meat then do it with a clear conscious, perhaps. As for having a clear conscious, and also in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (which says that all food is okay if you thank God for it), does this include human flesh? If I had a clear conscious and thanked God for it, does that make it okay for me to eat? And, as I mentioned before, Paul clashed with the original disciples on many things, and diets may have been one of them.
To follow the law perfectly (the 613 Mitzvot given throughout the Pentateuch) Jesus would have also had to followed God’s command “Be fruitful and multiply,” which was actually a command the Jews had to follow. Here’s a link to all 613 laws: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. The 63rd one in this list is the one I mentioned above. Now, for Jesus to follow that law as well as the others, he would have had to been married (which would not be blasphemous). As for the Law and the Passover, Jesus had a different interpretation of the Law than most. For example, when he is accused of breaking he Sabbath and he basically says that there are more important things (Matthew 12:1-7, Luke 13:10-17). The Law was also broken when they moved and dressed his body after his death.
In John, the Passover meal is not ever eaten (John 18:28, John 19:14 ) and the Last Supper is eaten earlier, and there are many theological websites that say that Jesus was actually the Passover lamb, considering he is called the Lamb in Revelation, multiple Pauline passages about how he was the perfect sacrifice/lamb, etc. Now, of course, this brings up problems when the Synoptics and John say different things. And of the things included in the Lord’s Supper, meat is not one of them, although it was usually part of the Passover. Why is that?
And personally, if someone makes me a meal which includes meat when they don’t know my preference, I’m not going to insult them and say I won’t accept it. There is a difference in giving into a craving and showing gratitude towards a host for his/her effort. Now, if someone offers to buy me something, then I have the choice to choose, which I would. This view goes along with him being able to say yes, which I agree with, and I think is a possibility. I don’t mean to say he was vehemently a PETA member ( I say this jokingly, I don’t mean offense to anyone), but he would avoid causing everyone, including animals, more suffering. He even took fishermen away from fishing and made them “fishers of men” instead. He went into the desert for 40 days and lived with animals (Mark 1:13), and considering he was fasting (Luke 4:2), did not eat any of them.
Yes, in the Synoptic Gospels he does tell them to prepare it, but if he had other times that he made exceptions to the Law or different interpretations, there is a chance that one of his teachings to the disciples was that meat wasn’t needed. Of course, this is speculation and a stretch, but in John 20:30-31 it says that there were many other things he did that were not recorded. I mean, we have an entire 15-20 years of his life missing.
And no, we can’t say that he didn’t eat is solely on the fact that he didn’t require sacrifice, but there is Biblical support for both views, as with many other subjects. And he did want to eat it with them, but we don’t have details either way, so both assumptions could be considered unsafe to make. That is a rather lame argument, but it is still one, haha. Interpretation is everything, what if “One who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” included the butcher’s knife and everyone who ate from it?
As for Jesus’ image, I think it would be great if Christians could say that Jesus, as well as his followers, didn’t/don’t eat meat and caused no suffering to anything. Meat eating is common in today’s world, it is the norm and when we eat a burger we usually don’t think, “Oh, this is part of a cow that was pumped full of drugs and hormones, given a bad life, and then slaughtered for food.” Anyone can eat meat, but it takes control not to, which self control always looks good, especially as ministry.
tl;dr
You realize that by eliminating meat you destroy vast portions of culture and art, right? That’s like if you burst into a museum and destroyed everything from a certain period of time, merely because you didn’t agree with it’s stance on things. Obviously I think animal cruelty is disgusting, but I think meat has validity too.
There is a viable alternative, that solves everything. In vitro meat. Literally meat grown in a lab. With enough research and funding, we would have the ability to produce pork, chicken, beef, from a non-intelligent organism. Currently we’re only able to produce mince meat, but that’s because of a lack of corporate and gov’t backing. Oh, also, it would be much more efficient (after the initial problems are tackled) and would harm the environment less, as well as increasing land availability.
By eliminating, or changing for that matter, anything that is (or has been) part of society will effect culture and art. But the goal is not to eliminate it from history, or even today’s society if people do not want it to.
And yes, in vitro meat is a good solution. Hopefully they will get it rolling soon, I really like the idea. Personally, I like the taste of (most) meat, but as the reasons above point out, I have reasons to resist the “temptation.” From what I understand, it is really expensive as of now, but, as you pointed out, once they get the initial problems solved then it should become more common.