Talk:Christian vegetarianism/Archive 1

Sources?

Is this article about real, large enough group with sufficiently long history? Isn't it just artificial complement to other vegetarian articles? Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This, I imagine, is a general article from which the more specific articles can hang. Kingturtle 22:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The story is two thousand years old. That is "sufficiently long." Das Baz 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Too wishy-washy

• It is thought by some Christian vegetarians that the movement away from vegetarianism began with Paul, and that they need to return to pre-Pauline early Christianity.

• There are also some Christian vegetarians who believe that the Christian principles of compassion and nonviolence require a vegetarian diet whether the original Christians were historically vegetarians or not. Some believe a vegan diet such as fruitarianism was the original diet of humankind in the form of Adam and Eve, and if we are ever to return to Eden then we will have to go back to a holistic diet.

• Yet others point out that the Christian mandate to feed the hungry can be fulfilled on a world-wide scale by adopting a vegetarian diet, since a carnivorous diet consumes and destroys too large a portion of the world's food resources.

Who are these "somes" and "others"? Can we get some names and citations please? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If we don't find out who these critics are, I'm going to remove the cited text. -Willmcw 20:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keith Akers, Stephen R. Kaufman, Nathan Braun, Leo Tolstoy, Ammon Hennacy, Christian anarchists and the Charismatics, for example --86.133.239.0 09:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. Can we plug those names into the slots now filled by "some"s and "yet others"? That would make it more specific. -Willmcw 09:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, consider it done. --86.133.239.0 12:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks! -Willmcw 20:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

A NPOV tag has been added by Spookfish. Explain/discuss please. --nirvana2013 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No reply received after 7 days. Removed NPOV tag. --nirvana2013 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Scripture

Some of the assertions in this article seems to contain very obvious conflicts with the common mainstream interpetations of certain New Testament verses -- for example, it would be extremely difficult to participate in a Passover feast at that time without eating some lamb (which was the main part of the feast, as mentioned in Luke 22:7), and Paul in Romans 14:2-3 says that vegetarianism is merely a personal preference, which should not be made a source of divisiveness within the Christian community. AnonMoos 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus insisted that no lamb, or any other flesh, would be consumed at his Passover. Das Baz 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nice -- Luke 22:7 and Romans 14:2-3 are in the Bible as accepted by the vast majority of Christians, while the Gospel of the Hebrews isn't. AnonMoos 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Christian Vegetarian Association Paul was not referring to vegetarianism which was not an issue in those times, but to the practice of not eating meat from the meat market because of fear that it been sacrificed to an idol as was the custom in those days. Also, Jesus ate the Passover lamb as required by God's law. Other than that, meat eating was entirely discretionary. What people don't understand is that God only permitted meat eating with certain health related restrictions due to the ignorance of the people and their "craving" for meat. The vegan diet was the best and that was why He tried to establish it in the beginning. Genesis 1:29-31.

It is interesting that the Israelites in general refused manna, offered to them during The Exodus.^{[Numbers 11:4–10]} Manna was not an animal product. They preferred meat, and were condemned for it.^{[Numbers 11:32–34]} Because of that lust, the place where the events happened got known as Kibroth Hattaavah.

The article states that

One of the Ten Commandments says categorically, "Thou shalt not kill".

This not at all accurate. Firstly the meaning of Exodus 20:13 is not "categorically" clear in any sense. Secondly the usual rendering of Exodus 20:13 is something like

"You shall not murder"

as in the NRSV. It seems to me therefore that a change to something like

"Common among Christian Vegetarians is an interpretation of Exodus 20:13 as saying, "You shall not kill" instead of "You shall not murder"

may be necessary.

Alternatively, would a section showing interpretations particular to Christian Vegetarians and that clearly indicates them as such be worthwhile? Tinbath (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and the flood?

Vegetarianim is clearly not commanded anywhere in the Bible, however has anyone heard this theory?

That before the flood the patriarchs did not eat meat, which accounted for their long life spans, (800 - 1000 years), and that after the flood God 'allowed' them to eat meat, which caused them to have much shorter lifespans.

I have heard and read this in different places. Anybody got a source? Terrible Tim 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read about this idea in an issue of The Final Call, published by Louis Farrakhan. The article was a reprint of an article (or book page) by Elijah Muhammad, a leader of the Nation of Islam. Whether this idea originated with Elijah Muhammed I can't say. The Nation of Islam and The Final Call do advocate vegetarianism. williamaswensonjr 3 December 2006.

consideration of cannabis

I am curious about this, as the pro-marijuana movement frequently refers to the Genesis quote regarding seeded plants (which C. sativa is). How sweeping is this movement? Just food itself, or promotion of using plants for everything (e.g., being more toward the vegan end of things). ... aa:talk 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Romans 14

I'm removing the passages from Romans 14 from both the "Advocating vegetarianism" and the "Advocating meat" sections, as it is original research to claim the passages advocate either. The most straightforward interpretation of Romans 14 is that meat-eaters shouldn't be judgmental about vegetarians, and vice versa, but it doesn't advocate either side of the argument. If someone can cite a source from an author who has used passages from Romans 14 to advocate one side or the other, we can add it back (pointing out that this is that author's point of view, not necessarily Paul's). —Angr 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Following on from my comment above, it seems the whole "Biblical references to diet" is original research. We can't find Biblical passages and then say of our own accord "this passage advocates vegetarianism", "this passage advocates eating fish", or "this passage advocates eating meat". We need to find sources showing that the pro and con sides of the issue themselves have used these passages to make their arguments. —Angr 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing it now. It's really a morass of original research and it's getting worse rather than better.

—Angr 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some place here for such a section. Christians have indeed used various passages to support or criticise vegetarianism. A large section of Christianity interprets the bible outside a rigorous teaching authority and its reasonable to reflect those diverse views here rather than regard it all as original research. GoldenMeadows 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine as long as there are reliable sources that can be cited to show that certain influential people have used these passages to make the argument. For Wikipedia to list Bible passages that could be interpreted as pro-veg, pro-fish-eating, or pro-meat-eating, without any evidence that these passages have been used for such advocating in published sources is original research. —Angr 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No covenant with the fish?

No covenant made with "fish of the sea" for protection during the millennium (Hosea 2:18)

Huh? That seems a bit a strange way to advocate fish-eating. Who uses this? --Terrible Tim 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I use it. Why would you consider this a strange way to advocate fish eating? Do you have another explanation for why "fish of the sea" was left out of the covenant? Do you believe in Old Testament prophecy?

It's unfortunate that some people believe it's their duty to block the free exchange of information and ideas to others. There has been a lot in the media and the health literature about the many health benefits of fish eating. Would it have hurt anyone to have left this explanation in? It should be up to the reader to believe or not to believe. Williamaswensonjr 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for advocacy. If you can find and cite a published, reliable source showing that this passage has been used to advocate eating fish, you can add it. But adding the information on the basis of the fact that you do so yourself is original research. —Angr 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Meat in the Bible

Haven't any critics mentioned all the instances of meat-eating and fishing in the Bible? Feeding the multitude comes to mind. -LtNOWIS 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably someone has. We just need to be able to cite a reliable source showing that a specific author has made this argument in a published work. —Angr 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

why is there a criticism of vegetarianism linked from this page? what does it have to do with christian vegetarianism?

i think that section should be deleted. i think arguments for keeping it would be weak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.118.198 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and deleted the bit criticizing vegetarianisms as environmentally unsound -- it was totally off topic. I think a criticism section is warranted, but that particular criticism belongs on the environmental vegetarian page, not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.140 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 July 2007

---

I think the sentence "Critics suggest that the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice" needs to be either deleted or re-worded. The sentence suggests that only critics and not proponents of Christian vegetarianism believe in personal choice or free will. Both Ammon Hennacy and Leo Tolstoy were Christian vegetarians and Christian anarchists, believing people are free to choose their own path without the interference from any governing power other than God. The sentence should read "Critics and proponents suggest that the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice", but then there is no point including it in the Criticism section or even the article. Also various critics, or Christian Biblical literalists, believe eating meat is God's instruction from Genesis 9:1-3 and therefore not a choice at all !!! nirvana2013 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If all Christian vegetarian advocates agreed that "the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice", then there would never have been any controversy in the first place. The only reason a controversy exists at all is because some Christian vegetarian advocates do NOT agree "the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice". AnonMoos 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So what about the critics who believe that eating meat is not a personal choice but a God given instruction? nirvana2013 08:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Those people who go around telling vegetarians that they must chow down a medium-rare sirloin to be able to receive the salvation of Jesus Christ must be much less militant and strident than Christian vegetarianism advocates, because I've never heard of them. AnonMoos 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Christian right promote many things, including eating meat. They can be just as strident as vegetarians, or even more so, as unlike Christian vegetarians most certainly don't believe in nonviolence. nirvana2013 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Christian right take many controversial positions, but it has never come to my attention that any prominent Christian-right spokesman has declared that chowing down on a medium-rare sirloin is essential to be able to receive the salvation of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, PETA took out billboard advertisements in several cities with the Biblically-false assertion that "Jesus was a vegetarian"[sic].

Having little sympathy with the assertion that vegetarianism is religiously obligatory on Christians is not the same as actively asserting that meat-eating is religiously obligatory on Christians, and I've never heard of anybody who advocated the latter position... AnonMoos 13:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So mention the "it's a matter of choice" criticism(if you can call it that) alongside a paragraph on "The Controversy". Without any of that Peta advocacy stuff, the criticism doesn't make much sense to the reader. The environmental vegetarianism criticism belongs in the environmental vegetarianism article. --Dodo bird 05:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter's Dream

In Acts Peter has a dream, all the animals are running amock God say what do you want to eat, Peter says none they are unclean, God sya I made them they are pure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• What the above post likely meant is that while there may be no biblical injunction against the practice of vegetarianism, there is an injunction against saying that vegetarianism is mandatory or even recommended for Christians. See Acts 10:

9. On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11. And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12. Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

SingingSongsOfFreedom (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• And indeed, the Paul the Apostle reinforces that injunction in I Timothy 4:

1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

• There is also an injunction against judging those who are vegetarians—although it seems to say that they are weak in their faith—and an injunction against vegetarians judging those who are not. See Romans 14:

1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

SingingSongsOfFreedom (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Paul had a tendency to inject his personal opinions (people shouldn't get married; vegetarians are weak in faith) into his letters, which was fine since at the time he had no way of knowing his letters were going to be accepted into the canon of Christianity and said to be divinely inspired. —Angr 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article lacks focus and is preachy

This article needs some kind of focus. It does not state clearly what Christian vegetarianism is or how it differs from secular vegetarianism. Also, it seems to be proselytizing—none of the links or references seem to be to a scholarly inquiry into a Biblical foundation for a certain kind of diet, but, instead, seem to be opinions of committed vegetarians couched in religious language. I don't think the article can be fixed. Even if the proselytes allow a balanced and civil discussion, without scholarly sources it will be one of those nonsense articles with competing "on one hand" "on the other hand" sentences. If it's still in this shape a year from now, it should be deleted. SingingSongsOfFreedom (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many examples of individuals (Leo Tolstoy, Ammon Hennacy etc) who extend Jesus' message of nonviolence to the animal kingdom. It is one of many different paths/motivations which can lead to a vegetarian diet. This article could do with more work, but can't most wiki articles? They are all work in progress. nirvana2013 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about poverty

One thing I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention that one of the monastic motivations for vegetarianism is live like a member of the underclass, who until relatively recently rarely ate meat or certain other foods that we take for granted. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Being a Christian Vegetarian is stupid. Jesus ate fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.167.4 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it's "stupid" as such, but according to the Bible, Jesus not only provided fish for the meal of the loaves and fishes (and continually associated with fishermen), but also sent his disciples to obtain a lamb for the passover feast, and participated in the passover feast himself (which almost always meant eating lamb in those days). There's no problem with a Christian deciding to be a vegetarian -- the only problem comes if they try to make the Bible say something that it doesn't say... AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Greg Boyd

If somebody could add Greg Boyd to the list of notable Christian vegetarians. I'd do it myself but I am unsure how to link it correctly to his Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_A._Boyd http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-im-vegetarian.html Sacr1fyce (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to add him to the list unless his vegetarianism is something he's really known for. If he's well known for advocating and discussing Christian vegetarianism, then okay, but if he's well known for other things and just "happens to be" vegetarian too, then he probably doesn't belong. However, it would probably would be good to add mention of his vegetarianism (with his blog as the source) to the article Gregory A. Boyd, and to add that article to Category:Christian vegetarians. —Angr 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Added 3 new references & commented out some texts

In the Present-day churches section, 5th paragraph, I added 2 references to the sentence "Pope John III declared an anathema against the vegetarians at the First Council of Braga in Portugal" and hid the sentence "He wanted to outlaw the Manicheans who were living vegetarian". In the 6th paragraph, I added 1 reference to "The Liberal Catholic Movement traditionally had many people who were vegetarians and still have" and hid "although many are meat eaters". In the last paragraph of the section Early Christianity, I hid "Vegetarianism is common among both Jewish and Gnostic forms of Christianity" and "Jewish Christians and Gnostic sects, such as the Cathars, have adhered to vegetarianism throughout history".

If anybody find references to the texts I have hid, ey must only remove <!-- and --> so that the texts be visible again. Also, somebody should find references for the assertion that Christian vegetarians interpret Genesis 9:4 as an invitation to necrophagy. 200.92.71.165 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Not sure why cannibalism is linked to from this article. I do not see the relevance and have removed it. Please discuss if you disagree. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it at least unfair to link Asceticism from the article, what is presently done, and ignoring Cannibalism. Almost all permanent Christian veg*ns follow that philosophy or lifestyle because they defend it makes them free. Indeed, veg*nism is followed in the West (much) more by the secular or non-Christian population than by the Christian one because the former does not link it to asceticism. The former population carries veg*nism on for the zestfull feelings or consequences of harmony it provides. (They have junk food too.) The article I recently linked from the Further reading section states (pp. 152–153):

this claim about the inherent relationality of human existence, and the inclusion of non-human animals in that relationality, grounds the claim that vegetarianism is not a form of selfdenial, abstinence, or physical mortification. Instead of vegetarianism symbolizing a lack or a deficiency, vegetarianism symbolizes a life of abundance and generosity—a life lived out of surplus, rather than scarcity. Understood this way, vegetarianism becomes a deeply spiritual practice springing from love, a sense of connectedness, and the experience of God’s grace. Marti Kheel writes that in adopting a vegetarian (or even more, a vegan) diet, “We are not denying ourselves the pleasure of meat, nor are we conquering our beastly nature.”²⁸ Instead, we are embracing what Carol Adams calls “spiritual vegetarianism. Neither joyless nor legislating. Neither spartan nor puritan, but joyful and free.”²⁹

If the Asceticism link has to stay, so much more does the Cannibalism one, which has much importance in understanding the motivation for (Christian) veg*nism. After all, veg*ns regard that nonhuman animals, like the humans killed and eaten on nonnecrocannibalism, are neighbors to a human too. Animal comes from the Latin anima, that means soul. Algorithme (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Its good to meet another vegan and thanks for taking an interest in the article. I would like to discuss the links to cannibalism and asceticism separately, if I may, rather than link the merits of their inclusion/exclusion together. Firstly, this article is discussing the Christian view on whether or not to eat animals. I do not believe there is any Bible passage which promotes or warns against the eating of our own kind. I guess this is because even back in Noah's/Abraham's time this was already understood to be a no-no. But if you know a source and believe it will enrich the article, please include a reference to it in the main article. At the moment it is not easy to see the relevance of the link under "see also". Secondly, veg*nism is practised by some Christian ascetics, like Saint David, so it is right to incorporate them in this article. I hear what you say about asceticism incorporating self-denial and therefore (on the face of it, at least) being a negative rather than a positive motivation for not eating meat. I agree there are more positives than negatives to being veg*n (vibrant health, sense of well-being, good karma etc etc) but many ascetics also believe that their self-denial is positive as it brings them closer to God in a mystical way, and therefore this vastly outweighs any temporal physical pleasures on earth. It is only one of the many diverse motivations behind Christian vegetarianism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Algorithme -- 1) What does "veg*n" mean exactly? Many people unfamiliar with your terminology will have little idea... 2) Cannibalism may be part of an extended metaphor sometimes used in general arguments for justifying vegetarianism, but that doesn't mean that it has any specific relevance to this article. AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I can answer your first question. Veg*n means either vegan or vegetarian. It is used in some vegetarian circles when referencing both groups together. Sorry for any confusion. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Brown-Driver-Briggs citation

The Brown-Driver-Briggs citation is not physically linked to the main text, so I have deleted it. Please reinsert linked to appropriate text in article, as per WP:INCITE. Nirvana2013 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Some readers may be confused by having just "BDB" as a reference for the definitions of paṯbaḡ and zērōʿîm, what is the present state of the article. Each reference to those words is linked to a different page of Brown-Driver-Briggs on Archive.org, so I think putting the citation after the references is clearer and-or simpler and-or more organized in order to know what BDB means (there is an example of the method on the article Boaz) than having to search its first reference (whith full citation, what is not the present state of the article) or than having the (simple) trouble of finding that information on Archive.org (what is the present state of the article). Algorithme (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the two citations need to cleaned up so the article Brown-Driver-Briggs is linked within them. I suggest using one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates, or any of the other link formats already in the article. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel and pagan sacrifice

Pffft. I came to Daniel 1 looking for some misinterpretation by my Seventh Day Adventist relative, however, what he says is clearly supported. Daniel came into the King's court and rejected both meat and wine - specifically requesting "pulse" (legumes). This is consistent with any extant puritan vegetarian, trying to prove a point about vegetarian superiority. The verse is not worded in any way which suggests that Daniel rejected the meat (or wine) because it wasn't kosher. He doesn't ask for kosher meat. When he gets his way, the king then continues to give him legumes. The whole scene is one of respect, not contempt for pagan sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.126.83 (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Clement of Alexandria Quote

Under Patristic evidence Clement of Alexandria is quoted as saying: It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals with a reference to 'The Instructor 2.1; Richard Young, Is God Vegetarian, p96.' Because I thought the quote was pretty cool I tried to look it up in primary sources, and it seems to be spurious. It's origin is Paedagogus 2.1.15.4. I've accessed the text from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae but links to identical Greek text and translation can be found on the wikipedia page for the book.

The Greek text (transliterated) reads: Ameinon de pollō tou daimona ekhein sunoikon eudaimona genesthai. Eudaimonia de en khrēsei aretēs exetazetai.

A standard translation (taken from here) would be: It is far better to be happy than to have a demon dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.

Here Clement is describing Gluttony as being like a demon which possesses you, by contrast the word for happiness in Greek translates to something like "having a good demon", so he's making a pun.

I can see how someone could have tried to stretch "daimon" ('spirit'/'demon') into "[animal] soul", and "sunoikos" ('living together with')into "being inside" and try to make out that he's referring to a graveyard, but it's a real stretch and makes no sense in the context, where he's spent several sentences talking about demons living inside people's stomachs. If someone can find evidence of a variant manuscript supporting the other translation, it can be put back in obviously.Fievos (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul swore off meat

Paul: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." 1 Corinthians 8:13 (NIV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Flatley (talk • contribs) 04:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Too bad that you ignored the fact that Paul was speaking very specifically of meat which had been part of a sacrifice to a pagan deity. The passage Romans 14:2-3 would appear to be much more relevant to Paul's opinions of vegetarianism in general.. AnonMoos (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What Christians believe humankind began with

For Christians, in Genesis its very clear that man was intended to be a vegetarian, as what was given in the Garden of Eden shows. If you are going to make this article based on Christian beliefs that is the starting point, and then you show what was given to man at Creation.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be widely-accepted standard or "orthodox" doctrine in the mainstream of Christian thought, and so should not be presented as such... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who have basic understanding of the Bible, what Simbagraphix claims is already implicit in the article: "in the beginning, before the Fall, human and nonhuman animals, which are beings that have or are an ānima, Latin for soul, ^[3] were completely vegetarian, and "it was very good"". According to the Bible, human and non-human animals were perfect at Edenic times. That includes ethical perferction. It was better than "utopia". Earthlings did not know any violence, that is why they did not eat, consume or exploit themselves or any sentient being. There was no slave — no matter of which species, gender or race. The Fall is a huge, cataclysmic, catastrophic separator in the history presented on the Bible. Does the Creator have double standards? See Hebrews 13:8.

The matter is not a diet. The fact that a balanced veg(etari)an diet is healhy (and tasteful) is very secondary. The matter is social justice.

Perceive that I am not saying that a nutritionally balanced diet that includes animal products is less healthy than one that does not. The question is: why to choose a diet that exploits sentient, innocent beings, existing a healthy way of feeding themself or living without taking someone's freedom? None of us sentient beings asked to be born.

Indeed, AnonMoos, being vegetarian for ethical reasons is not an "orthodox" practice in Christianity. Algorithme (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never come across a church that bases vegetaianism on 'effecting the compassionate teachings of Jesus', so that really needs some references and better explanation or take it out. Most Christian ideals of the perfect diet is what man was originally given at the Garden of Eden and scripture bares that out. Simbagraphix

Wikiquote gives a few examples, such as Bruce Friedrich. Nirvana2013 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you find it as I checked his page and didnt see anything on it.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikiquote. Perhaps there is not "a church that bases vegetaianism on effecting the compassionate teachings of Jesus", but there are various Christians that do. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

These are examples of "a church that bases vegetaianism on 'effecting the compassionate teachings of Jesus'", that is, Christian congregations that defend veg(etari)anism for ethical reasons. I never came across a true veg(etari)an (that never consumes any kind of flesh or other animal byproducts) that was Christian that did not base their veg(etari)anism on ethical reasons. 189.70.253.164 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So there is not "a church that bases vegetaianism on effecting the compassionate teachings of Jesus", so then its just a few individuals. I dont think you can make a claim on that.Simbagraphix (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Simbagraphix, you completely ignored the other people that commented on the issue. It is not an organization that holds the definition of a principle. Why do you insist on putting such an emphasis on nutrition right on the first paragraph, whereas the article already comments, and comments well, the Edenic diet? And that very paragraph already informs that "Alternatively, Christians may be vegetarian for [...] nutritional or other spiritual reasons." The article also says that "The Seventh-day Adventists present a health message that recommends vegetarianism". The text is one article, not one paragraph; those who are interested on the subject will read one article, not one paragraph. The Edenic diet, as exposed by other user above, is an elaboration of the subject. If you take the time to consult the relevant literature about the subject (by actual Christian veg(etari)arians)(Leo Tolstoy, Keith Akers, Andrew Linzey...), you will verify that the main reason, century after century, millennium after millennium, by which one (Christian or not) becomes a permanent (true) vegetarian is cruelty to animals or ethics. I read on your profile that you are an Adventist. I have watched a video series in my native language by Adventist leaders (not Reform) 'recommending' vegetarianism (youtu [dot] be /QAPl9jBGfwk ). It deeply disappointed me that they said at the end, 'You can eat a fish or some white meat sometimes; it is not a problem.' So I realized that they did not recommend vegetarianism on an ethical basis, but on nutrition per se. The lecturers did not even care to say that a vegetarian eats no flesh at all -- even at Christmas. In the town where I am typing this, a "vegetarian" restaurant run by Adventists serves meat (wikimapia [dot] org/18459845 ); it is so sad. Basing vegetarianism on nutrition per se is selfish and does ignore the big harm that speciesism is. 189.70.231.127 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the change made by Simbagraphix is redundant and unnecessary. And it misses the main, altruistic point of vegetarianism. Besides, their reference does not name its author, year of publication nor ISBN. The current ref #22 has a dead link. That user's ref, if fixed, could be useful in replacing it. Algorithme (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ellen G. White, one of the founding members of the Seventh-day Adventists, very much promoted an ethical message. "Think of the cruelty to animals that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard these creatures of God!" (see Wikiquote). All churches seem to be founded on radical principles but are eroded over time back into the mainstream. The Seventh-day Adventists are no different. The Adventist Ronald E. Osborn, makes a similar observation in his essay The Death of a Peace Church (2003), in which he states that the Seventh-day Adventists have moved away from their founding principles of pacifism and nonviolence with members now commonly volunteering for military service. Hence in terms of vegetarianism, it is left to Christian individuals to take up the mantle.

Just to go back on my last comment, I believe the Quakers (certainly in the UK anyway) are one church that promote vegetarianism for ethical reasons and as part of a general embracing of nonviolence. Vegetarianism is not compulsory but it is certainly looked upon as good practice. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all informative, but in wikipedia it has to be supported, not just opinions on what people think they know or heard, or thought they saw. Can you find something we can look at on the Quakers, thanks...Simbagraphix (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few websites [1] [2] [3] Nirvana2013 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have started an article for the Bible Christian Church (vegetarian). To join the church, members had to sign a pledge that committed them to a vegetarian diet.[4] There is/was "a church that bases vegetarianism on effecting the compassionate teachings of Jesus" after all. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Christian vegetarians

Please note that Category:Christian vegetarians and Category:Christian vegans have been nominated for deletion. Comments would be appreciated here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)