FAQs Index

Man's evolved design, 2

altho I believe that man was never designed as carnivore, at one point God or evolution HAS placed us somewhere in a "grey" area. Just the fact that mankind can even stomach the taste for consuming flesh is proof of this point. What other "herbivore" will consider eating meat? We even have 'canines' - just ask your dentist! What are these "mini fangs" for if not for tearing flesh?

As horrendous as this may seem to myself or others, we cannot deny that at some point, maybe from the very beginning, our bodies were designed or had changed to allow/accept minimal meat consumption - minimal being a key word. Altho I can decide for myself to stay away from such things; discuss the benefits of avoiding meat, milk, etc; and definitely point out the cons of eating too much of them, I have no solid argument for complete avoidance when confronted with the FACTS both within our own bodies and within the Scriptures where God has given us permission to eat animals, use them to clothe ourselves, etc.

Response:

The fact that man "can eat meat" is not relevant to the position taken by AR advocates that man "should not eat meat because it causes unnecessary harm". An analogy would be the fact that man "can rape". A man's capability to do something is not relevant to the moral question of whether he should.

There are many many Christians who feel that the bible does not endorse eating meat. It's the interpretation of ministers and other holy men. At the very least, the bible is not clear. For dozens of interpretations, visit this page: Relgiion for ARAs