You need to read this in context. God does not need humans to make sacrifice. It has nothing to do with veganism.

Prior to the Flood the eating of meat was prohibited: Genesis 1:29–30, but after the Flood it was permitted: Genesis 9:3

Thats exactly my point. People pick and choose what they want to abide by according to their interpretation of the scripture. I’d say 99% of people are against slavery, yet it is clearly condoned in the Bible. Jesus even tells slaves to obey their masters. And for people who say Slavery was part of the Old Testament and it doesn’t apply anymore, well then I guess we should throw out the rest of the Old Testament with it too, such as the 10 Commandments.

People no longer live by the words of the Bible. Actually, never have.

Better books on management techniques have been written by experts since the first century.

I'm all for throwing out the ten commandments. And replacing them with ten new commandments. Reading word-for-word the same.

(God walks the face of the Earth. Meets a Pharacee."Pharacee, I have a commandment for ya." the Pharacee says, "okay... what is it?" "Thou shalt not steal." The Pharacee looks at Him, in dismay, and says, "are you nuts? I cant' use that commandment. Our entire economy would collapse if we banned thieving." And he goes away.

God meets a Roman. "Roman, I have a commandment for you." "What is it?" "Thou shalt not kill." The Roman looks at him with disdain. "Not kill?" he says. "Our entire empire is built on aggression, fear, and physical force. I can't use that commandment."

God walks down the road farther, and meets Moses. "Moses, I have a commandment for you." Moses looks concerned. "How much does it cost?" He asks. God says, "None, realy. It's free." Moses pipes up: "I'll take ten!!"

but after the Flood it was permitted: Genesis 9:3 — Fooloso4

Lots of salt-water or brime marinated fish and steaks. It was the most economic thing to do under the circumstances.

Jesus even tells slaves to obey their masters. — chatterbears

You're thinking of statements by the Apostles Paul and Peter.

Slavery was not just in the Bible; it was the modus operandi of the Roman Empire which ruled Israel before the Christian Era. Slaves were expected to obey their masters, and apparently a large enforceement system was not required to keep slaves in line. For one, many heavy labor and agricultural slaves worked on chain gangs, so there wasn't much choice about obeying. But domestic servants weren't chained, and were in [potentially dangerous] intimate contact with their masters.

The "social contract" certainly didn't require masters to be nice to slaves. The slaves were property, and as such, masters could do with them whatever they wished. Practically, however, it made sense to be reasonably pleasant to one's slaves, because they were up-close and personal a good share of the time, and outdoor slaves were much more efficient if they were well fed, well rested, reasonably healthy, and so forth.

Slaves who didn't obey their masters weren't ignored: they were generally punished, and they didn't have a lot of rights to protect them. So, as long as slavery was in force, it made sense to be a good slave, rather than being beaten up a lot for mis-behaving.

That slavery is wrong is an idea whose time was quite a long way off.

People pick and choose what they want to abide by according to their interpretation of the scripture. — chatterbears

And this is EXACTLY what people should and must do. Unless you think the Bible is inerrant, there are passages (like the levitical rule about not mixing wool and linen thread together in cloth) that are now irrelevant. All the rules about temple sacrifice are now irrelevant, because there is no more Temple, and hasn't been for roughly 2000 years (the Romans destroyed the Temple).

The rules about cleanliness were directed much more toward spiritual cleanliness than physical cleanliness. Women weren't impure during menstruation because menstrual blood was unsanitary; they were impure for obscure tribal reasons. 2000 years later, ritual purity is still applied by some people (Orthodox Jews), and some people practice ritual purity as a form of OCD.

Most believers consider the Ten Commandments still in effect; similarly they consider the prophetic writings and the psalms to be still in effect. Christians believe that what Jesus had to say is still in effect.

Christians believe that what Jesus had to say is still in effect. — Bitter Crank

And yet we really do not know what Jesus had to say. All we have is what others had to say about what Jesus had to say. Much of Christianity is not about what Jesus had to say or what others had to say about what Jesus had to say, but about what the Gospel authors had to say about what Jesus was and could do for those who believe. And of course all of this in the context of a world that was about to end.

Very true. Jesus is presented by the Gospels and Paul as an indisputable fact, very much like Caesar Augustus or any other famous person. The problem is "minding the gap"--the disconnect between Jesus and the witnesses, the disciples, the camp followers, orally transmitted accounts, writers, redactors, editors, et al.

Jesus isn't the only problematic person in ancient history. 99.9% of ancient writings were lost over time to all the threats that prey on paper, vellum, and the spoken word. It would help us enormously (or not) if somebody had bothered to chisel into stone or baked clay tablets what Jesus had to say. Fortunately or unfortunately, that didn't happen.

There's never a Time Machine when you need one.

The sacrificial laws of Leviticus which are set forth in very specific detail, even explaining which parts of the animal the priests can eat and how the blood is to be splattered, eliminate any possibility for veganism in the OT. There is also a detailed listing of which animals can and cannot be eaten (the laws of koshruth), again making any claim that the OT advocated veganism entirely inconsistent with the text.

That is not to say that veganism and modern day (post temple destruction) Judaism are not compatible. There is no requirement that one eat meat, and one who eats only vegetables will necessarily be keeping kosher because all vegetables are kosher.

Your question related to Christianity, though, which makes the application of the OT generally limited anyway. Christians are not bound by the rigorous laws of the OT, and so if you limit your inquiry to the New Testament, you can make perhaps a better argument for veganism as a Christian/love related idea, evaluating the question holistically. I don't think though you will find many Christians willing to condemn those as unChristian for eating meat. That would seem like a stretch to make that religion fit your personal ideology.

The rules about cleanliness were directed much more toward spiritual cleanliness than physical cleanliness. Women weren't impure during menstruation because menstrual blood was unsanitary; — Bitter Crank

Yeah, but when it's flowing like the mighty Mississippi, I must forego, regardless of how amorous I might be feeling. I didn't need to read Leviticus to arrive at that rule, but perhaps I'm just a tidy sort.

It would help us enormously (or not) if somebody had bothered to chisel into stone or baked clay tablets what Jesus had to say. — Bitter Crank

It is not clear if they thought such a thing unnecessary given the belief that the kingdom of God/Heaven is at hand. Apparently some took this to mean personal transformation but others, as Paul preached, as a new beginning, death of the physical body with spirit bodies dwelling on a transformed earth, open only to those who had been saved. At the end of days there is no need to set anything in stone. It was a message intended for the present generation, the last generation, but with each new generation the advent of the end was pushed back until eventually it was placed in some indeterminate future.

One reason Evangelicals are pro-Trump is that they believe he will help usher in the end of days which according to the apocalyptic account of Revelations will not occur without Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.

And yet we really do not know what Jesus had to say. — Fooloso4

I believe that many early christians were vegetarian. I'm a vegetarian and so I'd like it if Jesus was too, but the bible seems to contradict this:

- His 'feeding the multitude' miracles involved feeding them fish.
- Jesus himself eat fish according to Luke 24: '"Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.'

But there are opposing views too - Jesus may have entered the temple to protest against animal sacrifice:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/was-jesus-a-vegetarian_b_276141

In the days of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph (give or take a millennium) a meaty diet was a rich man's diet. Most people would have been de facto vegetarians a good share of the time, rather than de jure vegetarians. Animal products were welcome when they could get them. Otherwise their diets relied on grains, legumes, fruit, and vegetables in season.

One of the benefits of having a temple (of any sort) in town was the chance to share in the meat of sacrificed animals. It wasn't the mainstay of anyone (outside of a priesthood), but it helped.

Fish was the most readily available meat (or locusts, if one was waiting out in the desert for inspiration).

Yes. IF the kingdom was at hand, then it was irrelevant because distant future generations wouldn't be happening, presumably. But it soon was apparent that the world wasn't coming to an end immediately after Jesus' death.

In fact, most people live in the present, and their momentous experiences belong to that day , rather than to "all time to come".

An analogy: I remember the Moon landing on July 20, 1969, at 8:17. It was a stunning event at the time; out of this world, very significant. 5 moon landings followed, which deprived that first landing of its stand-alone monumental status. Had an attack on a skyscraper happened 5 more times after 9/11, the WTC destruction would not be as significant in our memories as it is.

As time passes, even startling events fade to some degree. By 1975 I probably wasn't still amazed about the moon landing. I'm not amazed any more about 9/11, either.

So, as time passed, the events that people witnessed in Jesus' life would have faded too -- not over night, certainly. But in 25 years? Probably. New experiences connected to the previous generation's witness of Jesus' ministry would have been primary. Their high points might have been remembering what they had heard about, but not seen themselves. Another generation, and another... before long the events in the lives of people living several generations after Jesus would have been of primary concern.

After several generations, with some growth in believers, it would have become apparent to the leadership that the history of the nascent organization needed to be captured and frozen, else it would escape them altogether.

So it was, and the loose ends have been bothering people ever since.

One of the benefits of having a temple (of any sort) in town was the chance to share in the meat of sacrificed animals. It wasn't the mainstay of anyone (outside of a priesthood), but it helped. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I think it was the Levites who would have benefited from some of the sacrifices, but the Levites main source of food was from the tithe, which was 10% of the agricultural products (including livestock) from the other Hebrew tribes who had land (the Levites had no land). The fact that the tithe existed and related to livestock shows they weren't vegetarians. Additionally, the laws of koshruth required ritualistic slaughter, eliminating the possibility of hunting, making the ancient Hebrews agrarian farmers, increasing the likelihood of them having animal protein as a common source of food.

Fascinating stuff.

I'm not convinced that meat was a common source of food for most people (not rich ones) in the ancient world. Only if you owned many livestock could you afford to regularly eat from your walking supply. If you had only a few animals (more likely) eating one of them would have decreased one's wealth, perhaps quite significantly.

Among non-Jews, and those not engaged in agriculture or fishing (urban dwellers) the pagan temple sacrifices would have been a source of meat for some people outside of whatever priesthood was in place.

Many people did practice hunting, however: Western Hemisphere Amerindians; Northern Europeans outside of the Roman Empire; Africans; Asians. One large problem of meat eating was storage and distribution. The meat would spoil quickly. It would have to be consumed soon after slaughter and locally wherever the weather was warm.

Places with difficult winters were also problematic for hunters.

The Roman Empire supplied BREAD and CIRCUSES not pot roasts and circuses to its population.

The upshot of all this is: Large numbers of people in the ancient world had access to an at least adequate source of calories, mostly vegetarian; meat was a highly desired supplement. Only the rich could afford to eat meat frequently.

I'm not convinced that meat was a common source of food for most people (not rich ones) in the ancient world. Only if you owned many livestock could you afford to regularly eat from your walking supply. If you had only a few animals (more likely) eating one of them would have decreased one's wealth, perhaps quite significantly. — Bitter Crank

This question, like all, is answered by Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israelite_cuisine#Meat

Meat was fairly uncommon as you suspected:

"The Israelites usually ate meat from domesticated goats and sheep. Goat’s meat was the most common. Fat-tailed sheep were the predominant variety of sheep in ancient Israel but as sheep were valued more than goats, they were eaten less often. The fat of the tail was considered a delicacy[53]. Beef and venison were eaten primarily by the elites, and fattened calves provided veal for the wealthy (for example, as mentioned in the Bible, Amos 6:4).[54]

For most people, meat was eaten only a few times a year when animals were slaughtered for the major festivals, or at tribal meetings, celebrations such as weddings, and for the visits of important guests (1 Samuel 28:24). Only at the king's table was meat served daily, according to the Bible.[18]"

You're thinking of statements by the Apostles Paul and Peter. — Bitter Crank

Yes, Paul conveyed those ideas, but Jesus was not against slavery in the slightest. Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:50-51).

Christians believe that what Jesus had to say is still in effect. — Bitter Crank

So they must be ok with slavery then right? Jesus never opposed it, as I said already.

Christians are not bound by the rigorous laws of the OT, and so if you limit your inquiry to the New Testament, you can make perhaps a better argument for veganism as a Christian/love related idea, evaluating the question holistically. — Hanover

So I guess the 10 commandments are out of the water. And maybe you haven't read the New Testament, but there are things in there that are just as ridiculous as the OT. How about the blatant sexism in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Or the fact that slavery was still condoned and promoted. Even Jesus was not opposed to it. Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).

To say the New Testament is about "love", is very warped and corrupt.

To say the New Testament is about "love", is very warped and corrupt. — chatterbears

It's a matter of interpretation and levels of literalism you wish to impose.

It's a matter of interpretation and levels of literalism you wish to impose. — Hanover

True. But are the good bits worth the other stuff?

And maybe you haven't read the New Testament, but there are things in there that are just as ridiculous as the OT. How about the blatant sexism in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ? — chatterbears

Actually, in my personal opinion, they should just throw out anything written by Paul. He brought in a lot of specific and personal interpretations on what Christianity is and how Christians should behave - I'd see that as secondary literature which has no business being treated as "holy scripture".
But then... I have returned my member card for that club a while ago, so it's not really my business any longer.

People pick and choose what they want to abide by according to their interpretation of the scripture. — chatterbears

And this is EXACTLY what people should and must do. — Bitter Crank

Chatterbears: Do you believe the Bible (OT or NT or Koran) is inerrant? Do you believe that everything in the Bible or the Koran must be applied as literally and precisely as possible?

If you don't, then you should be quite happy to have people pick and choose what they want to abide by. If you do, then of course you would expect people to march in lock step with everything the Bible or Koran says.

By the way, you may have noticed that religious law is not secular law, the law of the land. People in most societies are required to abide by secular law, first and last. If they practice slavery, then they will subject to severe punishment. If they burn witches, they should expect either the death penalty themselves, or at least a long prison term.

Some societies follow religious law (like strict sharia law). If the community and civil authorities are willing, maybe one can get away with burning witches or killing homosexuals. At one time, in some later-enlightened western European countries, it was possible to get away with burning/hanging/drowning witches. In New England, at one time, one could get expelled from the community for disagreeing with John Calvin. Pretty strict, they were.

What kind of society do you want? One where people obey secular law and pick and chose which religious rules to pay attention to, or a society where secular and religious law are the same, and may not have a choice?

Pick and choose, Chatterbears.

It's a matter of interpretation and levels of literalism you wish to impose. — Hanover

A perfect book written by a "perfect" creator should not have something as trivial as interpretation stand in his way of conveying the most important life lessons to mankind. I guess he isn't that perfect after all?

Chatterbears: Do you believe the Bible (OT or NT or Koran) is inerrant? Do you believe that everything in the Bible or the Koran must be applied as literally and precisely as possible? — Bitter Crank

If Religious people believe God is perfect, and that his word is perfect (which they all do), then yes. They should follow it literally and as precise as possible. If they actually did that, maybe they would realize how imperfect that book actually is.

If you don't, then you should be quite happy to have people pick and choose what they want to abide by. If you do, then of course you would expect people to march in lock step with everything the Bible or Koran says. — Bitter Crank

People picking and choosing is just a form of logically inconsistency. It's like a child saying, "Everything my parents taught me is correct. But I am going to pick and choose what to follow, just because."

By the way, you may have noticed that religious law is not secular law, the law of the land. People in most societies are required to abide by secular law, first and last. If they practice slavery, then they will subject to severe punishment. If they burn witches, they should expect either the death penalty themselves, or at least a long prison term. — Bitter Crank

Yeah I think that's pretty obvious. And this is the reason why secular law was created, because people realized how absurd the laws in the Bible and other holy books actually are.

Some societies follow religious law (like strict sharia law). If the community and civil authorities are willing, maybe one can get away with burning witches or killing homosexuals. At one time, in some later-enlightened western European countries, it was possible to get away with burning/hanging/drowning witches. In New England, at one time, one could get expelled from the community for disagreeing with John Calvin. Pretty strict, they were. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, the societies that follow religious law are at least true to what they believe. If a health care professional picked and chose what practices he should initiate with patients, we probably would call them an unreliable and bad doctor. If a cop picked and chose what type of lethal force to use, depending on how he was feeling that day, we would call that a bad cop.

To become recognized as good and reliable doctor, they would use a consistent method of health care practices, which produce results that are repeatable. Same with science, and almost any other area of life. Yet, when we apply this same stand of consistency to Religious People, suddenly picking and choosing is OK to do? Being inconsistent in your beliefs and practices, is suddenly a good thing? Smh...

What kind of society do you want? One where people obey secular law and pick and chose which religious rules to pay attention to, or a society where secular and religious law are the same, and may not have a choice?

Pick and choose, Chatterbears. — Bitter Crank

Aside from you setting up a false dichotomy, I want a society where people act consistent according to their beliefs. And the thing is, people's beliefs would crumble under any type of consistency test. For example:

Chatterbears: Do you believe what is morally good is whatever God commands?
Religious Person: Yes, anything God commands is morally good.
Chatterbears: If God commanded rape, would that be morally good?
Religious Person: No, rape is bad...

There's a form of inconsistency already. And I've had similar conversations like that with many of my religious friends. So when you actually reflect and become self-aware of what your beliefs stand on, the ground under them crumbles immensely.

So you asked, what kind of society I want. One where people act consistent in accordance to their actions and beliefs. Our world would improve by 95% if people actually did that.

A perfect book written by a "perfect" creator should not have something as trivial as interpretation stand in his way of conveying the most important life lessons to mankind. I guess he isn't that perfect after all? — chatterbears

No one holds that the NT was written by God and only some fundamentalist sects hold that the 5 books of Moses were written by God. No one holds that a sign of imperfection of God is that humans have imperfect understanding. It's an argument, I guess, which would argue that if God has perfect understanding, all plants, animals, and inanimate objects ought to too as that would be a more perfect world than one that did not. Original sin is obviously inconsistent with what you're arguing because that posits imperfection in humans and is a fundamental belief among Christians (offering the very basis for the death and Resurrection).

If Religious people believe God is perfect, and that his word is perfect (which they all do), then yes. They should follow it literally and as precise as possible. If they actually did that, maybe they would realize how imperfect that book actually is. — chatterbears

All religious people don't believe as you say (in the perfection of the world). But, assuming they do, it does not follow that they also believe in the perfection of the Bible. You're arguing that the fundamentalist view is the only view. Significant numbers of religious people (both Jewish and Christian) do not believe in the literal accuracy of the bible, from creation, the Noah story, the exodus, and all sorts of other events. Their views range from it being divinely inspired to it being an entirely manmade creation filled with wisdom through the ages.

You're also presenting a dubious theory, held by only certain fundamentalists, that literalism is the proper method of biblical interpretation assuming divine authorship of the bible. It does not follow that God can speak only literally when the rest of the world is able to speak metaphorically. As with Aesop, no one suggests there actually was a lazy hare that lost a race to a diligent tortoise, and so it does not follow that ideas are conveyed only literally, or even that they're conveyed best literally. That means it's entirely possible that the literal interpretation imposed on the bible is leading to absurd results in part because it isn't meant to be taken that way.