Killing animals for fashion?!

[Illuminati]

Just because scripture says you can eat meat, doesn't mean that you have to, if health reasons indicate not eating meat would be beneficial, why not?

Edited because of Evoultionary theory, is not allowed.
DW

[Kalthzar]

I just eat meat because it tastes good, is easy to obtain because of high demand, gives a varied diet (although as you said you can get proteins from plants etc)

Of course i doubt someones going to find that meat is for health reasons unhealthy, just look at those eskimo's....eaten away on a meat only diet.

I read an interesting article on that once.... must find it.

[Shemaya]

I'm highly against doing that.They are able to make fake fur now there should be no reason to kill animals for the sole purpoes of clothing,but if u killed it for food them made the skin or fur into clothing then that's different

[Illuminati]

Well in terms of health you have to categorize meats, because in terms of nutrition all meats are not created equal.  Pigs for example, who are smarter than both dogs and horses (interesting fact) are quite unhealthy.  Fish on the other hand, for the most part is a very healthy meat to eat.  But if you look at it from a global point of view.  Cattle consume approximately 60% of the worlds freshwater supply.  Which is somewhat contradictory, because if you value human life over the lives of animals, as most do, one would think that that water should be shipped to the third world countries, where clean water is not available.  The ration of energy consumed/ produced with cows, is something like 90/1.  Meaning that we are losing a substantial amount of energy.

[Sulfurdolphin]

That sounds like evoultionary teaching that our DNA is 99% of Monkeys. I dont buy into that assumption.

[felix102]

Well in terms of health you have to categorize meats, because in terms of nutrition all meats are not created equal.  Pigs for example, who are smarter than both dogs and horses (interesting fact) are quite unhealthy.  Fish on the other hand, for the most part is a very healthy meat to eat.  But if you look at it from a global point of view.  Cattle consume approximately 60% of the worlds freshwater supply.  Which is somewhat contradictory, because if you value human life over the lives of animals, as most do, one would think that that water should be shipped to the third world countries, where clean water is not available.  The ration of energy consumed/ produced with cows, is something like 90/1.  Meaning that we are losing a substantial amount of energy.

Im not quite sure if that makes sense. 60% of the world's freshwater supply?? What exactly do you mean by freshwater? You must mean clean water which is processed from freshwater. So saying cattles consume 60% of the world's freshwater supply does not make sense at all. The supply of water on earth is unlimited; freshwater is constantly replenished and it is constantly processed into drinkable water.

Water is not shipped to third world countries because you do not ship them in the first place. It's not about getting freshwater, its about getting drinkable water. The reason third world countries lack drinkable water is because they do not have the money to obtain adquate water resources (water treament plants, resovoirs, etc.) which makes clean water. Simply, they do not have the money to afford clean water.

Watering lawns takes a greater toll on the nation's water supply than raising cattle. With the same argument, would you disagree with giving your dogs or cat water? Maybe humans should limit their water intake as well.

How exactly would producing meat affect the nation's energy? Are you refering to the amount of food that could be produced from the same quantity of energy (ie. you are able to produce more vegetable with X amount of water than meat with the same X amount of water)? If this is the case then it really doesnt matter. It's like saying everyone should stop using computers so the nation can save electricity. What does it matter? The power plants generate more than enough energy and people who use more will pay more. If it takes more water to raise cattle than plants, then apparently, people are paying for it; meat obviously costs more than vegetables. In this way you advocate saving energy??? That's not logical.

[felix102]

However, Illuminati, I do agree that an all-vegetarian world would make the world more efficient in terms of health, food production, and sanitation(bacteria, parasites, etc found in contaminated meats). This is an idea, but I do not think it is practical now. Maybe in the far future; it wont be happening anytime soon.

You said, "I'm not even getting into the genetic modification (of animals)". Plants can also be genetically modified.   Oh yeah...and much much more easily than modifying animals. It would actually cost less to do research on genetically altered plants than animals.

[sincereheart]

Just because scripture says you can eat meat, doesn't mean that you have to, if health reasons indicate not eating meat would be beneficial, why not?

My husband 'works' for a living. And then he 'works' when he comes home. A diet consisting of vegetables just wouldn't do it for him.  

Now what about eggs?  

[Marv]

Hi,

The concern I have over much of these types of discussions is that usually they are of this type.
1.  This is good (according to what the person knows or thinks)
2.  Christians should do good.
3.  Therefore, Christians should do this.

We end up being Pharisees all over again, creating a law of behavior that isn't correct and doesn't produce holiness or salvation, just rules to live by.

As for fur from animals, is the problem with fur or with the idea of fashion, showing oneself off as a better dresser, or is there a problem at all?  Using fur is one way to use something from animals that often have to be removed for public safety anyway.  Is it worse to trap raccoons and use their fur, or trap raccoons for public safety to control rabies and throw the whole animal away because noone wants the fur or meat?  If you don't want to wear fur, don't for the glory of God.  If someone else wants to, let them for the glory of God.

With fur or meat we go down the is it right to only use the animal for that road, then if someone tries not to "waste" the leftovers, then we go down the "it's not right to feed animals to animals" road.  I would agree that we shouldn't be feeding parts of cattle to other cattle as a health control measure, but now there are those that want to forbid feeding those parts to cats and dogs, based on their view that it isn't right.  Would you prefer the fur farm ground the carcasses and included them in your burger?  After all, wouldn't that be the right thing if it is wrong to "waste" them.  And look at all the cat and dog carcasses that go to waste every year.  Many people in the world would eat them, let's set up packing plants to use those animals instead of wasting them.

We can talk health effects.  It hurts ones health to be exposed to air pollution.  Maybe we should have a rule that no Christian should live where there is air pollution.  Ridiculous, you say.  Only until you look at the number that want to control others' diets and exercise and smoking and drinking etc.

Isn't one of the major points of the Bible that we are to be concerned foremost with our personal sins and our personal behavior?

If corn is fed to cattle it isn't because it must be, it is because the cattle feeder buys it.  If you think it should be fed to people and that would be the right thing to do.  Then your responsibility (and if you think that is what is right, it is your responsibility) is to spend your money to provide it to people.  Just outbid the cattle feeder and ship it to the people you want to help.  Simple, easy, no law.

It is easy to say that a farmer should grow vegetables for people on his irrigated land, and not alfalfa for forage for cattle.  But alfalfa breaks pest cycles, gets deep nitrogen back out of the ground (preventing nitrates in drinking water) and improves soil tilth and health.  In addition it reduces erosion from what vegetable crops would have.  So is it wrong or right to grow alfalfa?  It can be both or neither.  The farmer tries to maintain a balanced system producing what works in his situation.  There are many that want to make the decision of how he farms for him.  They often don't have a clue about his land and farm and often the rules and laws choose one evil over another.  Often the farmer's decision comes down to balancing good things against bad things.  Eliminating options often results in poorer conditions than before.

It is easy to say the cornbelt should grow wheat and not corn.  It did at one time.  The wheat largely left the cornbelt because diseases made it.  You force the farmers to grow wheat, you better be willing to eat wheat full of toxins produced from fungal infections (all natural, some pretty toxic, some carcinogenic).  So is it better for that farmer to grow wheat instead of corn when we have to throw the wheat away due to it's poor quality?

What I believe is wrong from a Christian perspective is people deciding on their limited knowledge that something is wasteful or morally wrong and expecting others to follow their beliefs.

If you don't want to eat meat, fine.
If you don't want to wear fur, fine.
If you don't want to have over 200 square feet of living space per person in your house, fine.
If you don't want to ever take the smallest drink of alcohol, fine.
If you want to run 6 miles a day, fine.
If you want your vehicle to get at least 40 mpg, fine.
If you want to keep the temperature in your house at 50 degree in the winter and 85 in the summer, fine.
If you want to homeschool, fine.

Where it would be wrong is to take your decisions and impose them on others.  That is not fine.

Marv

[Willowbirch]

Is our focus on eternity?

Our is it on temporary things?

We need to be wise stewards of what God has given us, and as Christians we do this task in different ways, and we often don't agree; but do we have an eternal outlook when we deal with things that "will soon pass away"?

[Shammu]

I'm highly against doing that.They are able to make fake fur now there should be no reason to kill animals for the sole purpoes of clothing,but if u killed it for food them made the skin or fur into clothing then that's different

I agree, as I posted earlier in this thread. It must be remembered though that, we are not to focus on temporary things. Our main focus should be Jesus Christ, and on eternity.

[sincereheart]

My tennies are leather.  

[2nd Timothy]

I wonder if moose hide would make for a good running shoe?