Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Would we have eaten animals had the Fall not happened?  (Read 2098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Would we have eaten animals had the Fall not happened?
« on: August 23, 2018, 06:12:05 PM »
I don't care if it's "God approved" to kill animals to eat them, the way things are right now in slaughterhouses, it's just brutal and horrifying to watch, and the mere idea of killing an animal to eat it just seems bad anyway.

So is this a punishment for original sin and something that wouldn't have happened?

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Would we have eaten animals had the Fall not happened?
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2018, 07:04:06 PM »
I don't care if it's "God approved" to kill animals to eat them, the way things are right now in slaughterhouses, it's just brutal and horrifying to watch, and the mere idea of killing an animal to eat it just seems bad anyway.

So is this a punishment for original sin and something that wouldn't have happened?

At least you admit that God allowed us to eat meat. That's a good start.

It's hard to say what life would be like without Original Sin. No suffering, having to study, aging, death -- if I could have all that, I'd gladly give up fried chicken. 

Even after Original Sin, the world was a VASTLY different place before the flood. There used to be a large water canopy over the whole earth, which blocked most UV radiation and regulated temperature. Imagine no temperature extremes at the North Pole or the equator! It allowed for larger land animals, and the higher pressure/oxygen level allowed everything to be larger, healthier, and more vigorous, including man. And with the increased protection from UV, man used to live to be 700 - 900 years. Plus less of the earth was covered with water, so travel was much easier.

But the world today is what it is. It's very hard to get around eating meat, especially if you do any physical work.

As for the killing of animals for meat, we're not supposed to be a bunch of squeamish SJWs about it. If we lived a more natural lifestyle, not separated from nature and reality, we would grow up around the small-scale, humane harvesting of animals and it wouldn't seem like a big deal.

Also, Disney has perpetuated the notion that deer (for example) are just like us, only with antlers. We've been anthropomorphizing animals utilizing a power (computers, TV, movies) that didn't exist 120 years ago.

Most conservatives (let alone Christians or Catholics) like them a good hamburger -- myself included. There's a reason why Friday (and other) abstinence is a work of penance. It's because meat is so good, wholesome, tasty, and gives a lot of energy and keeps you full for longer than 1 hour.

And I'll share another tidbit: there are some muscular/stocky (no, I don't mean "fat" -- if I meant "fat" I'd say "fat") individuals that really need meat to get enough protein and calories just to maintain their body. Each ounce of muscle on your body requires X calories per hour just to exist -- even more calories per hour if those muscles are used very much. Such individuals laugh at the notion of a few vegetables or a piece of fruit for breakfast.  
And furthermore, there are a bunch of other individuals who work hard physical jobs and thus require more calories/protein and can't be snacking on light, quickly digestable food all day long. And some fall into both groups.


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Would we have eaten animals had the Fall not happened?
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2018, 07:18:08 PM »
It’s my understanding that humans didn’t eat meat until after the Flood.  After the Fall but before the Flood, we still ate only plants.  ...The below article covers this and also the question of when animals started eating each other. 

https://creation.com/animal-carnivory-began-at-fall

Re: Would we have eaten animals had the Fall not happened?
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2018, 07:43:05 PM »
At least you admit that God allowed us to eat meat. That's a good start.

It's hard to say what life would be like without Original Sin. No suffering, having to study, aging, death -- if I could have all that, I'd gladly give up fried chicken.

Even after Original Sin, the world was a VASTLY different place before the flood. There used to be a large water canopy over the whole earth, which blocked most UV radiation and regulated temperature. Imagine no temperature extremes at the North Pole or the equator! It allowed for larger land animals, and the higher pressure/oxygen level allowed everything to be larger, healthier, and more vigorous, including man. And with the increased protection from UV, man used to live to be 700 - 900 years. Plus less of the earth was covered with water, so travel was much easier.

But the world today is what it is. It's very hard to get around eating meat, especially if you do any physical work.

As for the killing of animals for meat, we're not supposed to be a bunch of squeamish SJWs about it. If we lived a more natural lifestyle, not separated from nature and reality, we would grow up around the small-scale, humane harvesting of animals and it wouldn't seem like a big deal.

Also, Disney has perpetuated the notion that deer (for example) are just like us, only with antlers. We've been anthropomorphizing animals utilizing a power (computers, TV, movies) that didn't exist 120 years ago.

Most conservatives (let alone Christians or Catholics) like them a good hamburger -- myself included. There's a reason why Friday (and other) abstinence is a work of penance. It's because meat is so good, wholesome, tasty, and gives a lot of energy and keeps you full for longer than 1 hour.

And I'll share another tidbit: there are some muscular/stocky (no, I don't mean "fat" -- if I meant "fat" I'd say "fat") individuals that really need meat to get enough protein and calories just to maintain their body. Each ounce of muscle on your body requires X calories per hour just to exist -- even more calories per hour if those muscles are used very much. Such individuals laugh at the notion of a few vegetables or a piece of fruit for breakfast.  
And furthermore, there are a bunch of other individuals who work hard physical jobs and thus require more calories/protein and can't be snacking on light, quickly digestable food all day long. And some fall into both groups.
Yeah, I know that it was only after the Flood that meat was allowed.

I know it's morally good to kill animals and eat them, I would never say otherwise (like vegans etc.), but you have to admit it's not something anyone would truly enjoy doing if you never had to.

I've always thought it would be a lot better if you could at least kill the animals immediately and without making them suffer, but I know that's not the case and that the level of suffering they endure is just sickening. It's so sick I've never wanted to know the full details, but I do know that they bleed them to death, strike them on the head with hammers several times, drag them around etc.

Are you able to kill big animals quickly and without making them suffer, if they are harvested in a small scale, like you mentioned?  

P.S.: I know there are some vegan strongmen/bodybuilders who are very strong/muscular, but they have to eat a whole lot more to match the level of protein needed. Just saying it can still be done without meat.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Would we have eaten animals had the Fall not happened?
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2018, 07:55:29 PM »
Before the modern age, with hundreds of channels (or millions of channels, like Youtube) there were just two categories of people:

1. Those who butchered their own meat on a farm or worked in a slaughterhouse, and were used to it -- it didn't bother them.
2. The blissfully ignorant -- those who didn't live on a farm OR work in a slaughterhouse.

But here's the catch -- those in group 2 not only didn't know how meat was harvested, but they never did found out. There were no Vegan movements, no "Food, Inc." docuмentary, no Youtube channels, no leftist anti-meat or environmentalist propaganda, none of that.