Vegan Talk Forums

FatalError · corpse eater Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 15

Vegetarianism is unnatural.

This is not a modern finding. The Bible gives us evidence of this, and clues that vegetarianism was not regarded with favor. In Genesis , Chapter Four, Eve bears Cain and Abel. 'And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.'

That 'but' in the middle of the sentence is the first clue to disapproval. This disapproval is confirmed by verses three to five. Abel and Cain bring offerings to God: Abel of his sheep and Cain, the fruits of the ground. God, we are told, had respect for Abel's carnivorous offering, but He had no respect for Cain's vegetarian one.

The Bible, however, can only give an indication of the feeling of the time in which it was written. It does not provide a convincing answer to the question of what we really should eat. Are we a carnivorous, omnivorous or vegetarian species?

The answer to that question lies in our past, but not the immediate past.

The way we live now is based on advanced agriculture and the domestication of plants and animals. This is a very recent invention: we cannot have adapted to it yet. To determine what foods are likely to make up an ideal diet for us as a species, we must look further back, at our evolutionary history.

For the food we have adapted to and should eat now is not a matter for current dietary fads, it is determined by what we have adapted to over millions of years and is coded in our genes.

We can trace Man's evolution from remains found in Africa and other parts of the world of early hominids dated as long ago as five and a half million years (5) . We have fossilized bone records of both man and animals. We have found stone tools and implements that must have been used for killing and cutting flesh or for grinding plants. We even have found hominid feces.

These findings have led to a great deal of speculation. Are we a carnivorous, omnivorous or a herbivorous species?

We call our ancestors and the various modern primitive tribes, 'hunter-gatherers'. In the world today, some tribes live exclusively on meat and fish. Others live largely on fruit, nuts and roots, although meat is also highly prized. It is obvious, therefore, that we can survive on a wide variety of foods.

AndyBa · Lord of the posts Joined: 27 May 2001 Posts: 670

Vegetarianism may be unnatural near the poles, where the temperature is too low to alow vegetables and fruits to grow.
But more to the south it is more than natural. And you don't have to analyse past to see this.
Just go and live there in natural i.e wild conditions, naked without any tools.
I can bet that you will rather go and search for some growing vegetables and fruits than try to catch some animals.

Sagecreek · Posted: Aug 2, 2005 11:50 pm Post subject:

We have been eating meat as far back as we have been walking on two feet. Why do we have canine teeth if not to eat meat?

Scott

Dodic · Vegan Talk Frequenter Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 44

rujoon · Vegan Talk Beginner Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 6

Check this out..
http://www.vegetarian-society.org/downloads/Anatomy.pdf

frondescence · Vegan Talk Beginner Joined: 26 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

What the heck is a "Vegetarian Monkey"?

AndyBa · Lord of the posts Joined: 27 May 2001 Posts: 670

BigBecka · Animal defender Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 415

I'm a bit freaked out at using the bible as a historical source...

While humans do seem to have developed as omnivores, it's highly debatable whether anyone needs the large amounts of meat of dairy that consitute a modern western diet. Is it possible humans were meant to scavenge meat as a last resort when vegetation was not plentiful, not the other way round?

Most of the modern research I've read supports vegeatarianism. In the UK, Heart disease is the biggest killer, and it's attributed to obesity and smoking. Obesity related cancers are also on the increase. The obesity is generally a result of Britain's traditionally high animal fat diet, and there's a lot of advertising aimed at getting people to use vegetable oils, eat more fruit and veg, etc. Meat subsitutes like quorn are becoming popular amoung health-conscious meat-eaters.

Eating red meat has also been linked to bowel cancer. Consumption of red meat and animal protein was linked with an increased risk of breast cancer in pre-menopausal women. Diets rich in meat protein lead to more uric acid in the urine, which can cause kidney stones. Milk protein leads to higher levels of cholesterol and fats in the blood than soy protein.
The links below are for the vegan society, who are admittedly not impartial. But they do in turn reference scientific research.
http://www.vegansociety.com/phpws/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=72
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/protein.php

[b]World Health Organisation recommendations:[/b]
Reduce consumption of preserved and
red meat.
Increase fibre and potassium intake from
fruit, vegetables and whole grains.
Cut saturated fat intake (mostly from milk
and meat) from the current UK average of
about 14% to less than 10% by reducing
consumption of fat from dairy and meat.
Include healthful fats, such as flaxseed or
hempseed oil.

MomoPeach · Advanced Vegan Talker Joined: 09 Sep 2006 Posts: 80

Of course the Bible's a historical source, the most important one.
The slow people you come across on the Internet these days....
What else could be a historical source anyway? Some "artifact" or "document"? Put all your trust in some random item you find in the ground or in a cave, when you could just flip to Genesis?

BigBecka · Animal defender Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 415

Hokey Dokey...
First, I'll cross reference this to my other post on the bible, which actually seems to promote vegetarianism.
http://vegtalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=85&start=20

Like I say, you can use the bible to support most arguements. Looking at it objectively, as a historical resource it isn't that reliable. All historical sources must be assessed: who wrote them, where and when, so that we can judge whether they are likely to be biased. We don't know the original authors of the bible - we just know that it has been heavily edited to the point that there is now hundreds of different versions. And that's before we get into off-topic discussions about religion being used to control the population...

I appreciate that the bible carries added meaning for members of Judao-Christian religions, but most of the Christians I know don't take the bible literally as a source. Especially not in a discussion with atheists and people of other religions!

And I don't appreciate being called slow, thank you very much!

MomoPeach · Advanced Vegan Talker Joined: 09 Sep 2006 Posts: 80

BigBecka · Animal defender Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 415

I agree with you that every source has to be questioned and treated with scepticism. Yes, many sources are not what they seem to be; there have been heavily publicised hoaxes (such as the Turin Shroud) and cases where evidence has not been what it first appears to be (medieval artifacts turning out to be victorian copies!).

I am simply stating that if the same process of questioning is applied to the bible, it is just as unreliable. You have to have faith to believe that the bible is the word of god, and faith is not part of an objective investigation.

I am quite sure that everything in the bible is true to you, but you cannot expect other people to alter their lifestyles because of your beliefs.