The Purpose of Animals

[MonteRCMS]

Welfare[edit]
Since stress is highly correlated to carcass quality, reducing causes of stress during the slaughter process can drastically improve meat quality.[8] In addition, calmer animals will have a lower body temperature, which can help eliminate protein denaturation if no lairage time is allowed. In birds, improving environmental quality will help to eliminate wing flapping, vocalizations, and excessive movement as animals are transported from the farm into the abbatoir, which can reduce PSE incidence. Lower meat pH’s are correlated with the length and roughness of transportation.[6][7] Stress levels are also known to decline as human handling decreases.

As solutions, automatic loaders and unloaders may be useful for the poultry industry (although this topic is under debate due to high level of noise from those machines). Personnel training for humane catching by closing the wings, instead of grabbing birds by legs, is under review. It is thought that reduction of bruises, pain and fear (of humans or machinery) can have a positive effect on meat quality and welfare.[9] Following transportation and unloading, animals should be given an extensive rest period before stunning (referred to as lairage[8]) to allow animals to recover homeostasis, especially regarding lactic acid removal from tissues and glycogen reserves reestablishment. Stunning methods can play a large role in meat quality. Current research suggests that a two phase gas chamber may be best for minimizing stress.[3] During summer time or in hot countries, the truck design should be taken into consideration, and passive ventilation and water shower before leaving the farm can have a positive effect and reduce the occurrence of PSE by up to 66.3%, which can be done by costless modifications.[6]

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

This is contrary to what you said before: “IMHO it probably saddens God that we ended up killing and consuming His creatures, because it doesn’t seem to be what he intended.”

How is God sadden? What Bible or teaching does it say that God did not INTEND man to kill and eat animals. Gen 1:29-30 does not say or imply that God does not intend man to eat meat.

Ended up eating meat? That implies man ate meat on his own initiative contrary to God’s wishes.

God issues his commands according to and when it is His Will. How is God saddened by His own teaching? Does God permitting us to eat meat after the Flood contradict Gen 1:29-30? and pork after Peter’s dream?

Hi Brolgnatius,

I personally don’t see it as a contradiction, because I think man’s fallen state, and everything that has happened as a consequence saddens God, but he has adapted to it and allowed for certain things that he himself didn’t intend.

An example would be when Jesus said that Moses allowed for divorce, but in the beginning, it was never what God intended. In saying this, Jesus wasn’t condemning Moses, but recognizing it as a consequence of men’s hardened hearts.

So God is not saddened by his own teaching, but by man’s non conformance to His perfect will.

Genesis 1:29-30 says that God has given fruit and plant life to be for food. It doesn’t mention killing another creature and eating it, so it would seem to be, that at that time, before the fall, this was excluded.

It also seems that after Jesus returns, everything will be in accord with God’s will once again, and every creature will return to a vegetarian state once again. Thus we have Isaiah 11:6-9 ‘‘In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all. Also the cow and the bear will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord.’’

(Bolding is mine)

 

[Mary_Ellen]

We are rather new on the scene even though the apex of creation from our perspective

Hmm, my cat seems to think she is the apex of creation.

This has been an interesting, though winding thread. I believe God created animals to serve Him simply by being, and then made them subject to us, in all things, when man was created. As all gifts given to us, we are responsible for them and it is a great responsibility. Yes, they are our food, our workers, our pets. We enjoy their flesh, their labor, their companionship, and their beauty. We, in turn, are responsible for their environments and, for those which are domesticated, for their ethical treatment. We can and will continue to debate about what those responsibilities specifically entail.

Be at peace.

 

[BroIgnatius]

BroIgnatius:

I agree, but that is a separate subject, an important subject, but different than the “sadden” comment that was made and that we are discussing.

How is it a seperate subject? I would say it is a constructive developement of the subject.
I thought the purpose of animals was the subject. Also, we are morally accountable for how we treat animals we eat. Causing an animal unnecessary suffering is sin. More grave than over eating it I think.

Topic #1: Do we eat meat at all. That subject is independent of how we produce the meat. The production horrors are mostly an invention of the last 100 or so years. Such things were not a problem for the previous 10,000 or so years of civilization. Thus, for most of the history of mankind the questions were, “do we eat meat” and do we eat all types of meat?" Question one was answered by God after the Flood. Question two was answered at first by Levitical dietary laws, and then revolved by St. Peter’s dream.

Topic #2: If we do eat meat, what are the moral ways we produce that meat. We first have to decide whether or not it is moral to eat meat, THEN we discuss how that meat is produced (which it does not have to be produced immorally).

 

[Shakuhachi]

Man has dominion over the animals as shown in the Creation story of Genesis. Adam was given the task of naming the animals. To name something, in biblical economy, means that one has domination over it. This is why in exorcisms the priest asks for the name of the demon.

We name just about everything we see including The galaxy MACS0647-JD over which we clearly have no “dominion”.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But since 1951, the movement morphed into a philosophy that is decidedly contrary to Catholic teaching. Veganism as become a pseudo-religion today.

Because of that, Christians really cannot be vegans philosophically. Thus, Christians ought not to use that term due to possible misunderstanding and scandal.

Those Christians who eat no animals products at all are better to call themselves “Strict Vegetarians.”

I find these statement truly puzzling. Care to provide some rationale?

 

[Shakuhachi]

As an athlete I don’t think it would help my performance either.

You might do better.

Great Vegan Athletes

Great Vegan Athletes - Vegans Thriving. Elite Vegan Athletes

www.greatveganathletes.com

 

[AdamP88]

You might do better.

I doubt it. The energy and nutrients from meat are hard to supplement. I’d say most vegan athletes just have to train harder and work hard to find a diet to fuel their lifestyle.

In any case, as the O’Donovan bros said (Irish rowing silver medallists in Rio), there is nothing like a good steak after a race!

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

AdamPeter:

As an athlete I don’t think it would help my performance either.

You might do better.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/

The ordinary person without a plethora of medical nutritionists and near infinite income at their disposal is not likely to feel these effects.

Truly healthy veganism is only feasible in modern times, with careful, directed dieting, supplements, and a decent cash flow. It is dependant on a year-round food system and availability of foods not native to an area as well as highly processed soy proteins. Consuming too much soy has been show to interfere with testosterone levels.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Shakuhachi:

AdamPeter:

As an athlete I don’t think it would help my performance either.

You might do better.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/

The ordinary person without a plethora of medical nutritionists and near infinite income at their disposal is not likely to feel these effects.

Truly healthy veganism is only feasible in modern times, with careful, directed dieting, supplements, and a decent cash flow. It is dependant on a year-round food system and availability of foods not native to an area as well as highly processed soy proteins. Consuming too much soy has been show to interfere with testosterone levels.

That is an exaggeration. It is nowhere near as troublesome nor expensive as you seem to believe. And soy is not the only source of protein. Sure, if one eats mindlessly ill health results. But that is true of carnivores also. That is why there is an epidemic of diabetes and heart disease.

26 Delicious Vegan Sources of Protein (The Ultimate Guide!)

You can get more than enough protein eating plant-based foods and all the amino acids you need. Here's 25 rockin' sources of plant-based protein!

www.onegreenplanet.org

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

3 of those 25 are soy. And many of the fresh veggie examples–spinach, artichoke, asparagus are only available seasonally to a majority of the US, Canada, and Europe. The remaining things–besides maybe lentils and oatmeal–are only available to the northern part of North America through large distribution food chains.

IE not local.

Obtaining these foods, therefore, is a privilege only a wealthy nation can support.

 

[Shakuhachi]

3 of those 25 are soy. And many of the fresh veggie examples–spinach, artichoke, asparagus are only available seasonally to a majority of the US, Canada, and Europe. The remaining things–besides maybe lentils and oatmeal–are only available to the northern part of North America through large distribution food chains.

IE not local.

Obtaining these foods, therefore, is a privilege only a wealthy nation can support.

You want to make this about local food sources? You believe your meat sources are local? And that supports the contention that animals were mainly created for humans to eat?

As for affordability. Do you know how many people eat a lot more rice and beans than meat?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

3 of those 25 are soy. And many of the fresh veggie examples–spinach, artichoke, asparagus are only available seasonally to a majority of the US, Canada, and Europe. The remaining things–besides maybe lentils and oatmeal–are only available to the northern part of North America through large distribution food chains.

IE not local.

Obtaining these foods, therefore, is a privilege only a wealthy nation can support.

You want to make this about local food sources? You believe your meat sources are local? And that supports the contention that animals were mainly created for humans to eat?

As for affordability. Do you know how many people eat a lot more rice and beans than meat?

My grocer only sources locally, everything that is not from a tri-state area is labeled so, at least for veg and meat.

And yes, rice is cheap, but it is NOT local. Eating rice and beans in much of the US is ONLY a modern invention of globalization. That, and rice and beans alone do not make a healthy diet.

 

[Shakuhachi]

And certainly eating meat alone is not a healthy diet.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

And certainly eating meat alone is not a healthy diet.

No one said that. I stated far up thread that to meat daily needs only 4-6oz of meat is needed daily, with an additional few ounces in animal products. That’s not much, and that’s all that’s needed for the average person to retain good health and get the vitamins not found in their startches or veggies or fruits.

 

[De_Maria]

I lean toward Veganism for all sorts of reasons from health to compassion for the animals.

Lean toward? Does that mean that you’re not a vegan, yet?

When I share my views I often hear religious people tell me that God created them for human use.

Not just for consumption.

That sounds too anthropocentric to me, as if all things were created just for humans and have no innate God given value.

That is their God given value. God provided them for us.

It seems to me that all creation and all creatures give glory to God and that is their purpose…

That is certainly part of their purpose, as it is ours.

to give glory to God simply by being as God created them to be regardless of their usefulness or hindrance for human well being.

They give more glory to God when they are useful to us, since we are made in God’s image and they are not.

I was wondering how many here feel that animals were created mainly for humans to eat.

I don’t think anyone will agree with the way you worded that question, since we have many uses for animals, besides eating.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Shakuhachi:

And certainly eating meat alone is not a healthy diet.

No one said that. I stated far up thread that to meat daily needs only 4-6oz of meat is needed daily, with an additional few ounces in animal products. That’s not much, and that’s all that’s needed for the average person to retain good health and get the vitamins not found in their startches or veggies or fruits.

Can agree with most of that although I have not needed meat for my daily nutrition requirement and it has not been difficult at all. And as a culture we have con meat and daily overboard else we would not need factory farms. I feel better in every way since taking this direction and have the blood results to back it up. So while animals certainly can be useful in many ways I do not think God created them specifically for us to eat especially if we do not have to. So enjoy your 4-6 oz daily but I say, “No thanks.”

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Shakuhachi:

And certainly eating meat alone is not a healthy diet.

No one said that. I stated far up thread that to meat daily needs only 4-6oz of meat is needed daily, with an additional few ounces in animal products. That’s not much, and that’s all that’s needed for the average person to retain good health and get the vitamins not found in their startches or veggies or fruits.

Can agree with most of that although I have not needed meat for my daily nutrition requirement and it has not been difficult at all. And as a culture we have con meat and daily overboard else we would not need factory farms. I feel better in every way since taking this direction and have the blood results to back it up. So while animals certainly can be useful in many ways I do not think God created them specifically for us to eat especially if we do not have to. So enjoy your 4-6 oz daily but I say, “No thanks.”

Again, you’re free to say ‘no thanks’ but you also need to do that with the understanding that you live in an incredibly privileged time and place to be able to do that and maintain health.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Lean toward? Does that mean that you’re not a vegan, yet?

Not just for consumption.

That is their God given value. God provided them for us.

That is certainly part of their purpose, as it is ours.

They give more glory to God when they are useful to us, since we are made in God’s image and they are not.

I don’t think anyone will agree with the way you worded that question, since we have many uses for animals, besides eating.

I do not look very closely to see whether something contains milk or eggs and I have been known to eat a bit of animal flesh from time to time if the situation seems to call for it. I am mainly talking about animals for eating not other uses. But in all cases they must not be abused or maltreated. I think they give plenty of glory to God without our involvement.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Again, you’re free to say ‘no thanks’ but you also need to do that with the understanding that you live in an incredibly privileged time and place to be able to do that and maintain health.

Yes, I am incredibly privileged and take none of it for granted. If I am fortunate enough that I do not have to eat animals and still maintain the best of health I am grateful as well as happy that no animal had to suffer for me.