The Abomination of Desolation




Appendix A - Common Objections

A.1: Where will I get my ____?

A.1a (Where will I get my) Protein?

A.1b (Where will I get my) Vitamin B12?

A.1c (Where will I get my) Iron?

A.1d (Where will I get my) Taurine?

A.1e (Where will I get my) Vitamin D?

A1f (Where will I get my) Calcium?

A.2 Meat is a better/more convenient source of essential amino acids/complete proteins than plant foods.

A.3 It’s okay to kill/torture animals because they’re not like us.

A.3a Animals lack consciousness (so it’s okay to kill/torture them).

A.3b Animals don’t feel pain (so it’s okay to kill/torture them).

A.4 If we’re naturally herbivores, why do we have canine teeth?

A.5 What will I eat?

A.5a (What will I eat), rabbit food?

A.5b (What will I eat?) I don’t know any good vegan recipes.

A.6 Not all animal farms are factory farms (i.e. I’m not responsible for their suffering, or, my food is nutritious and I’m safe from the adverse health consequences you’ve described here, because I buy local/humane products). What we need is the wider application of more sustainable methods of low-input (organic) animal farming.

A.6a Organic, grain/grass-fed meat/dairy is okay (or essential for human health).

A.6b Humane/kosher/halal is (morally) okay.

A.7 It’s a personal choice (or, God doesn’t care).

A.8 I’m just one person; my decision to become a vegan wouldn’t make a difference.

A.9 If eating animals is morally wrong, then so is eating plants.

A.10 We evolved from ancestors who ate meat, therefore we need to eat it as well, or we will be nutritionally deficient.

A.11 But meat makes you smart. You need meat for your brain.

A.12 If we didn’t eat animals, they would overpopulate, overrun our cities and consume all the resources.

A.13 I knew someone who ate meat and didn’t die from cancer/heart disease (therefore science is dismissible).

A.14 A vegan diet makes you fat because it’s high in carbs.

A.15 Vegans are unhealthy/boring.

A.16 Vegans are crazy/self-righteous/arrogant/condescending.

A.17 What about honey?


Appendix B - Objections from Christians

B.1 That sounds like Gnosticism (or New Age propaganda).

B.2 “Abstaining from foods” is Satanic (1 Timothy 4).

B.3 Creation exists for God’s glory, and no other purpose (so it doesn’t matter what we do to it, up to and including the senseless and willful destruction of it).

B.4 Ethical and environmental causes are not important enough to care about.

B.5 So what if the world is being destroyed? God will fix it, and don’t you dare try that because it’s his job.

B.6 What about the “sweet savor” (or “pleasing aroma”) in Genesis 8:21? That proves that God enjoys the smell of cooked meat, and that eating it is therefore acceptable and pleasing to him.

B.7 Jesus ate lamb, therefore it’s okay if we do.

B.8 Jesus ate fish, and even fed it to others, so it’s okay if we do.

B.9 Peter was told to kill and eat (Acts 10). (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

B.10 Ravens brought flesh to Elijah (1 Kings 17:6). (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

B.11 Animals don’t suffer because they’re not human, so we have no moral obligation to stop. Only humans have souls. (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

B.12 We’re all sinners, so if eating meat is a sin, the point is moot. It doesn’t matter what we do. (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

B.13 There will be animal sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom. (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

B.14 Jesus said “It’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of a man’s mouth that defiles a man.” Thus he declared all foods clean (Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:18-19).


Appendix C - Conversation With a Christian Author


Appendix D - The Community Rule (1QS)


Appendix E - Paths of Righteousness



Appendix A - Common Objections


The first thing any vegan is likely to hear when someone finds out he is a vegan is “Where do you get your protein?” with the implication that it is not possible to get a sufficient amount of it from a vegan diet—sufficient for what, no one knows. The fact that the person saying it has not actually arrived at this question due to his own reasoning is always immediately apparent. Given the context of animal slaughter, to a vegan, such remarks invoke the sentiment of Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

It is perhaps a set of completely baseless and ironic suppositions which would cause anyone to think that a vegan is necessarily deficient in anything, as though God would tell us to eat a certain way and only that way, and that that way would necessarily lead to illness or death. Even so, this is the conventional wisdom on both accounts, and we have made claims which are expressly to the contrary in both cases, so it falls upon us to explain in more detail how the common suppositions which might otherwise be thought to overturn these claims are invalid. The first part of this rebuttal (Appendix A) consists of questions and answers from the perspective of a skeptical omnivore; the second (Appendix B) tackles theological issues from the perspective of a skeptical Christian.

These are the objections (plus one question) we have met with or seen, or else imagined ourselves and thought reasonable enough to be addressed. In most cases, these are the actual, normal responses to the suggestion of the nutritional advantages of veganism over omnivorism (listed in relative order of frequency), and demonstrate just how pervasive the spirit of delusion really is when it comes to nutritional issues. We think it shameful that we should even have to address these kinds of questions, when they are selfishly motivated. The only thing that actually matters to us is the welfare of the animals, but we digress.

Also, right about the time the present book was ready for publication, our friends at Free From Harm published their article, “Eating Animals: Addressing Our Most Common Justifications,”863 which addresses almost the same number of objections. Their list is remarkably similar to ours, which shows that these objections really are common. Theirs should be seen as the more legitimate in terms of what objections are actually routinely levied, as the Free From Harm writers have more combined experience in dealing with these issues than we do. However, we have provided more depth to our answers here, so it should not be seen as a substitute for our answers, especially considering that they have not handled the theological issues, which are far more pertinent to our study and therefore to the defense of our position.

The reason we have included these objections, as well as our responses, is to leave no room for doubt that a well-planned vegan diet is by far the healthiest dietary option, as discussed in Chapter 2, because there is much disinformation out there and we do not wish to leave the reader without a compass to navigate through it. Not only that, but this information is also very useful for making the case for veganism, and we do feel that this falls under the mandate of 1 Peter 3:14-17: “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”

The first to plead his case seems right till the other party examines him. Proverbs 18:17


A.1: Where will I get my ____?

The notion that we must eat meats (or other animal products) because they contain nutrients that we cannot get elsewhere begs the question of where the animal (usually an herbivore) got these nutrients that are then imparted to us, if not from plants. If the answer is understood to be some sort of metabolic process, then it would need to be demonstrated that humans do not have metabolic processes that also lead to the formation of the same nutrients, which is, of course, absurd, because we, too, are animals. The real issue, therefore, can be reduced to the following questions:

  1. Is the human body capable of digesting the same plants as those of the animals we presume to take the nutrients from?
  2. Are the nutrients which humans acquire as tertiary consumers via meat found only in the feed of the primary consumers (i.e. not in our plant foods)?


No one will argue, of course, that the second question is not absurd. If you do not understand that the minerals comes from the soil, and that the vitamins are produced in far greater abundance in a variety of fruits and herbs than in grass or hay, then you do not understand food itself. So the argument in favor of meat is never reduced to acknowledging that there is anything special about the grass eaten by pasture animals, which humans have an awfully hard time digesting. Instead the supposition is that the way which animals metabolize these nutrients gives meat an advantage over plant foods.

Again, this begs the question of how it is assumed that we are so different from all other animals that we cannot produce the same vitamins from the same amino acids ourselves, in the right quantities (which begs the question of whether God really knew what he was doing when he created us and then told us what to eat to give us life), so the argument typically centers on those specific amino acids which the body does not synthesize, such as are only found in dietary sources. Then it is a matter of determining the right quantities, so that the plant-based diet can be rejected as insufficient for a particular need, which completely undermines the whole concept of adequate nutrition, which is a matter of richly complex, holistic processes which scientists are still trying very hard to understand, and only snake oil salesman could have the ignorance and audacity to claim to. And those are the ones making these objections, which then get repeated by everyone else and ingrained into their minds, and then eventually turned into labels on foods which are marketed to them out of sheer ignorance, such as the “gluten-free” and “soy-free,” and even, to a large extent, “non-GM” or “non-GMO” labels.

Absent an adequate scientific demonstration that humans do not have metabolic processes that also lead to the formation of the same nutrients as the meats which we think will provide them for us, the supposed nutritional need for eating meat (or even the supposed advantage, given the fact that it causes disease) is plainly absurd. Even the American Dietetic Association admits this much.864 Meanwhile, the real nutrients in animal flesh are in the internal organs, and who actually eats those? For example, the most pertinent objection to a vegan diet from nutrition is the B12 argument (see A.1b), and meat-eaters only actually have an advantage there if they are eating raw liver, which no one does. Yet the argument is still routinely made.

Let us be clear about this: poor health is not necessarily a direct result of eating meat, dairy and eggs. It is a result either of infectious disease, or else malnutrition or very advanced age. Malnutrition is more a matter of not getting the right things in a person’s diet than of putting the wrong things into it. We know what the wrong things are already; whatever causes inflammation and disease is not meant for human consumption, even in small quantities. That being said, a diet which is deficient in certain vitamins or minerals can lead to pernicious ailments, just as surely as eating the wrong things in moderation can. However, there are several faults with the typical employment of this line of reasoning, the first and foremost of which is the idea that eating meat and dairy is even safe, much less advantageous as a better source of any nutrient than a typical vegan diet.

Disease is what kills; a plant-based diet will not kill. However, for optimal health we must meet all the requirements as far as intake of vitamins and minerals is concerned, as well as of dietary fiber (for digestion) and calories (for energy). These requirements will necessarily vary from person to person, and cannot be scientifically evaluated, but it needs to be understood, based especially on these two facts, that the recommended daily allowance (RDA or DRV) of any given factor is set rather arbitrarily. In the United States, food labels are printed in a grossly misleading way, and this should not be a surprise, given what we have covered about the rampant corruption of the American government, especially in terms of the FDA’s dealings with Monsanto and the USDA’s dealings with meat producers and its food labeling policies.

For example, the RDAs for different types of fats are printed in percentages of what is deemed healthy, as are vitamins and minerals. However, fats of any kind are almost completely unnecessary for and counterproductive to health, and there is no scientifically-based consensus among nutritionists as to what quantities are even appropriate, nor as to what types of fats ought to be avoided. The only way to ensure optimal health is to eliminate them from the diet as much as possible, and to assume that anything more than the bare minimum increases the risk of inflammation in proportion with the amount. Furthermore, when we say “as much as possible,” what we really mean is to cut out all fats apart from those in plants. Consider that the ridiculously high figure of 30% of calories coming from fats is considered a “low-fat” diet in America, simply because it is not normal for Americans to eat less than that. Then consider that spinach—one of nature’s perfect foods—is 14% fat, and it should be self-evident that a strictly plant-based diet provides plenty of dietary fat for optimal health, and even that certain fatty plant foods like seeds, coconuts and avocados should be eaten in moderation, even though they are much healthier than animal sources. We might infer that something along the lines of 14% is optimal, or at least not hazardous to health (otherwise spinach would not have so much, because it was designed for human consumption), which leaves room for the addition of a little fat to a typical well-balanced vegan diet. However, it would be absurd to suppose that anything above the approximate value of 5% or maybe even 10% would be necessary for optimal health, so that a higher value would be found as a recommendation on all food labels, whatever the product.

Likewise, carbohydrates are given an RDA, but proteins are not. This is due partly to the influence of the food producers on the government, and partly to the fact that there is no consensus as to how much protein a person really needs, because there is no such thing as a protein deficiency, apart from kwashiorkor, which is a fancy word for severe malnutrition (starvation). If percentages of the RDA for protein (the main component of all animal products) were printed on food labels, then people would quickly wake up to the fact that they are already eating far more than is recommended, yet far less of just about everything else.

On top of this, other essential nutrients such as magnesium and silica are required to facilitate the absorption of others (a fact which is critical to understanding not only how much of any given thing is needed, but also whether you are actually getting enough of it by consuming the recommended amount), while disproportionate amounts of others such as iron and cobalt naturally inhibit absorption. Calcium in particular is insufficiently absorbed in all but plant-based diets, and this demonstrates how RDAs are insufficient and need to be adjusted according to the actual amounts available not only from the foods with the labels, but the combinations of foods which are being eaten throughout the day. That is, unless it is expressly stipulated that calcium absorption requires a certain proportional amount of magnesium intake, the label is misleading at best in ascribing any value to calcium, and actually counterproductively contributing a great deal to the misinformation of the public, as well as to disease, as many diseases result from inflammation caused by excess calcium in the blood stream.

These more essential dietary factors which are the things we really ought to be concerned with (such as magnesium and silica) have no obligatory place on the food labels, so food producers typically neglect to even mention them in any capacity. Without adequate labeling accounting for such variables, only the individual consumer can even know whether or not his diet is sufficient for him, and only if he is educated enough on matters of nutrition to plan it out himself instead of blindly following the advice of a label. Suffice it to say that, based on this alone, anyone who is not a vegan is probably malnourished in the sense of not even consuming the necessary amounts of the various nutrients, regardless of the inflammation factors.

This, the most common objection, really is the height of irony. Consider that, according to the Center for Disease Control, 72% of Americans do not eat enough fruit, and 68% do not eat enough vegetables.865 Likewise, the 2010 Food and Health Survey conducted by the International Food Information Council found that 72% of Americans are trying to consume more fiber, and 73% are trying to consume more whole grains, a fact which has been corroborated by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2011 Trend Survey.866 So it is no wonder that gluten would be the omnivores’ boogeyman and scapegoat, upon which the vague, unsubstantiated notion that eating plants leads to poor health has become predicated, because people are waking up to the fact that they need more of it. As long as the truth of the matter (that it is overly processed plant foods that are deficient in nutrients, not plant foods in general) is well understood, the inevitable conclusion is still that we need to be eating more natural foods (i.e. whole grains rather than refined flour products), not that we need to be eating animal products, which are unnatural to us.

This simple yet paramount detail is completely ignored by the omnivores, for the obvious reason that it completely undermines their notion that wheat or any other fiber-rich food makes an adequate scapegoat. As a result, meat-eaters are, on the whole, far more malnourished than vegetarians, and lacto-ovo vegetarians more than vegans. Yet these same people will routinely tell vegans that they are malnourished, without any consideration to their actual state of health, and will often even express sympathy for their plights and profusely encourage them to eat, in our experience, things like veal parmesan, with the pretense that you need it for your brain, or peanut butter cookies, because you are unhealthy if your body fat percentage is under 20% (i.e. if you are not clinically overweight). The truth is that even typical Americans already meet their calcium and protein RDAs from plant foods only, before meat and dairy, and despite not meeting the requirements of plant foods.867


A.1a (Where will I get my) Protein?

As discussed above, there is no such thing as a “protein deficiency” apart from severe malnutrition. (The only difference between kwashiorkor and marasmus, or starvation, is caloric intake.) The reason for this is that anyone who is getting enough food is getting enough protein, because we require very little protein for optimal health in comparison to carbohydrates, and all foods have proteins. So if you are consuming enough carbohydrates, then you are also getting enough protein. Anyone, including any vegan, who eats enough calories, gets enough protein in his diet.

The simple fact of the matter is that any nutrients that you got from a dead animal came from plants first, and protein is no exception: meat is a secondary source of protein, and much reduced from the primary source in terms of its quality. The real question here is not whether plant foods provide sufficient amounts of it, or whether the quality is sufficient, but rather, how much protein we really need, and how much is too much. This is a very serious issue, for as we already know from Chapter 2, eating animal proteins is what causes all degenerative diseases, and therefore what we need to be concerned with only in terms of what needs to be avoided, not whether we are getting enough.

The question of optimal protein intake was addressed by a joint panel of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations University. The findings were published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in an article entitled “Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition,” co-authored by Vernon R. Young and Peter L. Pellett.868 Requirements for various life stages were carefully examined, as were the differences between plant and animal sources of the so-called essential amino acids (those which the human body does not produce and which therefore need to be ingested). Based on the research that went into this report, it is recommended that adults, both male and female, consume 0.80 g (4/5 of 1 gram) of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. There are 2.2 lbs. in 1 kg, so the average healthy person weighing about 140 lbs. (approximately 64 kg) would need to consume approximately 51 g of protein per day. An example of a typical vegan menu would meet this requirement: 1 c oatmeal (6 g), 5 oz. tofu (11 g), 1 c broccoli (4 g), 1 c cooked brown rice (5 g), 4 tbs almonds (7 g), 1 c chopped kale (2.9 g), 1 c cooked beans (12 g), and 1 c avocado (2.9 g).869

The truth is that people commonly eat more animal protein than they can process. Even lacto-ovo vegetarians often consume far too much, even discounting the fact that milk and dairy products are even more toxic and harmful to the human body than meat is, and this accounts for why three-fourths of the population of North America, and over half the population of Europe (and one-third of the world), is overweight. If it was not for this fact, then vegans would not be regarded as underweight, but as normal and healthy—which they typically are, though many of us find it difficult to eat as many calories as we would like to, because the body only wants to take what it needs when it is actually given the right fuel. Only bodybuilders would not be so thin once all the excess fat is taken away. What is so precious about that extra 13-22% body fat which the average person carries around on him, anyway, beyond the essential 2-5%?

Plant sources of protein are always the same as (meaning they contain the same amino acids) or better than (meaning they contain more of what your body needs and less of what it needs less of) animal-derived protein, whether or not they contain as much. However, some plant foods have an abundance of protein in them. Just ½ c black beans contains 7 g of protein, 0.5 g fat (0 saturated) and no cholesterol, compared to one large egg which has 6 g protein, 5 g fat (2 saturated) and 211 mg cholesterol. Vegan-friendly imitation meats are just as good: One Lightlife Smart veggie dog has 7 g protein, 2 g fat (0 saturated) and no cholesterol, compared to one Oscar Mayer beef frank, which has 5 g protein, 13 g fat (5 saturated) and 25 mg cholesterol, while a serving of Boca Original Chik’n Nuggets has 14 g protein, 7 g fat and no cholesterol, compared to McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets, which have 9 g protein, 12 g fat and 25 mg cholesterol per serving.870

According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Americans tend to take in twice the amount of protein they need.871 So this is certainly not a matter of not getting enough, but of getting too much of it, and really it should be the vegan asking the omnivore, “What do you do with all that excess protein?”—except that the answer is self-evident in the omnivore’s excess bodyfat. Most omnivores who are somewhat health conscious will already be aware that what they are really deficient in is everything else, so they will follow up the question we have answered here with a post hoc justification which amounts to something like this: We need “complete proteins,” and plants are no good for getting them because they do not have all the essential amino acids (or it takes careful planning to get them all, especially in the right quantities, as though there is some sort of complicated algorithm behind the process, and it is beyond the capacity of mere humans to replicate what is already done for us in nature—by way of animal flesh). For our response to that objection, see A.2.


A.1b (Where will I get my) Vitamin B12?

Even as the question of where he gets his protein is the most common, the question of where a vegan will get an adequate supply of the vitamin B12 (cobalamin) is routinely levied as the most valid objection (by far) which a person can raise in regards to the idea that a well-planned vegan diet can provide all our nutritional needs, especially considering that B12 is thought to be the only vitamin which cannot be gleaned from a vegan diet, and as supplements are also typically made from animal carcasses. (By “well-planned,” we simply mean a wide variety of plant sources—it does not need to be meticulously detailed or constructed, only adequately informed, which takes minimal effort and minimal preparation time when it actually comes time to prepare the food.) So, as with anything, make sure you check the label before you purchase any supplements, to make sure they are suitable. And our final position is not that you should avoid B12 supplements, but that you do not need them—you just need to eat right. The only reasons we even condone them in this one case are that there is so much controversy over the issue that we do not wish to offend all the vegans who have already made up their minds about it, and that it is actually quite impractical for most people (omnivores, vegetarians and vegans alike) to get sufficient amounts for optimal health, short of eating dirt.

As this is an issue which has garnered so much attention, the question of vegans being B12 deficient has been adequately dealt with elsewhere, and we defer to the article at lifesave.org872, 873 for the specifics of our argument against the premise that vegans are necessarily deficient. However, we will not neglect to address the underlying issue here, as it is predictably the source of much misinformation. As with other (alleged) deficiencies, most of the propaganda concerning B12 deficiency is just hype, driven by profit incentives, but for whatever reason there is not a lot of good information available to dispel the hype, and we really had to dig for it. So, given all these facts, this particular objection requires more explaining than the others.

B12 deficiency is quite a serious concern, as it is thought to result in anemia, heart disease, nervous system degeneration or amenorrhea (missing a menstruation, which commonly results from eating disorders, especially deficiency disorders like anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa). However, none of these conditions are actually fatal, as the diseases which eating animal products are, and some of which (like Alzheimer’s) are 100% fatal. The one which can become fatal is heart disease, when it leads to heart attacks and strokes, and we can just throw the risk of that one out in this context, as it is already established that heart disease cannot result from a diet that does not cause inflammation, so that vegans are least at risk of it among all demographics. This is true whether the blood cholesterol levels are elevated as a result of inflammation or dietary cholesterol intake. The only way for a long-term vegan’s cholesterol levels to be comparable to a meat-eater’s is by regularly eating foods which he is allergic to, such as someone with Crohn’s disease eating yeast or other inflammation factors. However, Crohn’s is a gastrointestinal disease; it is difficult to come up with a suitable comparison for the circulatory system in regards to how dietary animal proteins lead to heart disease. Theoretically, it is possible, through the right combinations of inflammation factors, such as a diet of nuts for someone who is allergic to them, but realistically it is impossible, because someone who was trying to subsist on something he was allergic to would have acute (rather than chronic) reactions, and would die without constant medical treatment.

So, heart disease aside, the fact that veganism actually helps prevent the blood-related disorders that are associated with B12 deficiency should be evident in the fact that the risk of each is not nearly as great among vegans as it is among milk drinkers. And, of course, regularly consuming milk/dairy is the surest way to give yourself heart disease, and animal proteins of all kinds which are the culprits of all nervous system degeneration (most especially of neurodegenerative disorders, which are a very serious and very common outcome of an omnivorous diet), as we have explained in Chapter 2. In all honesty, we really think that the risk of either anemia or amenorrhea is negligible in comparison with heart disease, which is the number one cause of death in Western societies. Amenorrhea, which cannot even effect men, nor women who are not of reproductive age, could just as easily result from being healthy as from being unhealthy, as it typically results from hormonal imbalances induced by the rigorous physical training regimen or professional athletes. And that really just leaves anemia as the major concern for vegans.

First of all, it is not actually B12 deficiency which causes pernicious anemia. That results, rather, from deficiency of the intrinsic factor secreted by the stomach, which is necessary for B12 absorption. In the treatment of patients with pernicious anemia, B12 is taken as a supplement or injected into the bloodstream in order to compensate for this deficiency (that is, for the deficiency of the intrinsic factor), in the same way that insulin-deficient diabetics inject insulin in order to compensate for their insulin deficiency, even though all it would probably take for most diabetics to cure their diabetes altogether is to become vegans for about three weeks. (B12, by this analogy, is comparable to blood glucose, whereas the intrinsic factor is comparable to insulin.) All that B12 treatment for anemia really amounts to is adding more of what is needed to compensate for the fact that the body cannot use what is there, because its ability to absorb it has diminished on account of chronic malnourishment. This malnourishment resulting in “B12 deficiency” (more appropriately termed ‘intrinsic factor dependency’) is actually the long-term result of insufficient intake of cobalt, which is acquired in livestock from the soil of the pasture. Consequently, B12 supplements are routinely given to farm animals that are not allowed to graze.

Secondly, the widely-accepted belief that B12 does not exist in (and therefore cannot be acquired from) plants, upon which the objection is entirely based, is not true. It is common knowledge amount nutritionists that vegans are no more B12 deficient than anyone else. And this is simply a matter of problems with absorption (i.e. not having enough cobalt in one’s diet). The Institute of Medicine recommends everyone over the age of 50 take B12 supplements (or that they eat B12 fortified foods) due to the problems with B12 absorption,874 but even this just shows how no one is looking at the underlying cause of malnutrition, and that supplements are only even advocated in lieu of a proper diet. In any case, vegans are not the only ones who are typically B12 deficient, and you will not find statistical analyses showing that meat-eaters are less likely to be deficient, because the numbers for both groups are the same.

As for the viability of a vegan acquiring this elusive vitamin in his diet, recent studies have confirmed that B12 is present to varying degrees in raw mushrooms, as presented by the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.875 In fact, shiitake mushrooms (perhaps the most commonly eaten mushrooms worldwide) are actually a more plentiful source of B12 than milk and fish. While mushrooms are not actually a reliable source, as it depends on growing conditions, this is still clear evidence that the need can be met by plant sources, provided that the soil is not destroyed. And, just to preempt the intuitive response that an omnivore might levy, this is not a matter of the “right type” of B vitamin, either. Researchers at the Centre for Plant and Food Science in Sydney have also recently concluded that B12 was present to varying degrees in the same form as found in foods traditionally known to be high in B12 (i.e. meats).876

The only known natural source of cobalamin synthesis (called cyanocobalamin) is in microorganisms that grow in species of plants such as mushrooms, algae and mosses. Neither plants nor animals produce B12, and this is exactly why both vegans and omnivores have a hard time getting it. By the same token, so do all other animals, and animal flesh is not actually a good source of it. Again, any animal source of B12 is only secondary, as with all other nutrients, but in this case, it is synthesized by microorganisms rather than plants. There is no practical difference, however, as the B12 which livestock ingest still comes from plants. Cyanocobalamin bacteria are aerobic, meaning they need air/oxygen and sunlight for their environment, and water and plants to feed on. Like other aerobic organisms, they do not survive in the anaerobic conditions of animal guts. When you eat animal flesh, the B12 you are getting is actually their excrement.

Still, the cuts of flesh which meat-eaters consume do not contain B12. What do contain it are the internal organs—particularly the liver, heart and kidneys. However, this is only because of the concentration of the bacteria; the vitamin is synthesized by the bacteria, not the animal itself. So the liver and the kidneys are good sources because the microorganisms have been ingested and entered the bloodstream of the victim, and its body is in the process of filtering them out—as waste. Obviously, these are not live bacteria at this stage, and we have cause to wonder why anyone would think that having an abundance of them in one’s bloodstream is a good idea. The fact that it is only possible to get them from animal products by way of blood, urine or feces ought to be a clue as to whether God intended it for us or not.

However, it will be argued that plants are an equally poor source of B12. This is generally true, but it also assumes that the plants have been washed, and that the bacteria are therefore removed from the source, which is not necessarily applicable to every situation, though it is perhaps still advisable to wash one’s food, especially considering that most produce is grown with sewage (and organic produce is grown with bone meal), and you just do not know where it has been unless you grew it yourself. But this only points to the fact that ideally, people should be gardening to grow their own food, and that even the act of washing one’s vegetables is unnatural and counterproductive to health.

Furthermore—and this is where the objection falls apart—we hardly need any of this vitamin at all to sustain optimal health. The RDA for vitamin B12 is only 2.4 (or 3) micrograms, and the body’s cells are extremely conservative and efficient in its use. Only waste bile actually disposes of the body’s B12 stores, meaning, essentially, that B12 loss only actually happens by way of consumption of animal proteins, as that is what causes excess bile production. Deficiency can also result from digestive disorders such as Crohn’s disease or celiac disease, but not simply from being a vegan. If anything, the opposite is true; carbon monoxide is known to inhibit B12 uptake, so avoiding oxidants is important for B12 absorption. And that necessarily means that the less antioxidants you have in your diet (which you can only get from plants), and the more ROS you have in it (which typically come from acidic foods), the more likely it will be that your body will not be able to make use of whatever B12 you consume.

Regardless of all the recent hype generated by the low-carb faddists, it has been known ever since its initial discovery that meat-eaters are more likely to be B12 deficient. The main problem is that the body requires so little of it that it could hardly be measured half a century ago, so there were no assays to determine whether foodstuffs in nutritional analyses contained sufficient quantities. The companies that are marketing their supplements now (and, therefore, that are informing the public) are relying on data which have literally been obsolete for decades. Due to advances in technology since then, current books on nutrition now state that there is B12 in any food that contains quantities of the B vitamin complex,877 and that includes most plant foods, including not just dark green or orange-colored fruits and vegetables, but things like beans and fortified cereals or milks, as well.

Even the 3 mcg figure is unreasonable, as it is taken not from scientific analysis, but from hematological data demonstrating a rough norm among omnivorous humans, which is anything but an indication of what the true amounts ought to be. Even still, the low overall requirement means an extremely low concentration of B12 is sufficient for our dietary needs, and for practical purposes, can simply be gained from eating the right mushrooms, or even things like corn or alfalfa. As a general rule, the more surface area of a particular that is consumed, or the more contact which this surface has with the soil, the more B12-producing bacteria can be assumed to grow on it. So we are once again led back to the conclusion that the ideal source is leafy green vegetables, or beats and carrots (especially if the greens are eaten or juiced). Also, cyanobalamin bacteria are destroyed by pesticides, so using organic vegetables is as essential as leaving them unwashed is, as the modification of the plants is done specifically to make them resilient to insects and bacteria. For these reasons, we believe that the best source of B12 is what livestock would normally get it from if left to themselves: grass, which should be juiced. On the other hand, many nondairy milks are fortified with vitamins B12 and D2, and with calcium, the other nutrients typically found in or used to fortify cow milk, so these provide a much healthier safer alternative.

The alternative, as we have stated over and over, is to get higher concentrations from the disease-infested corpses, breast milk and menstruations of shamelessly tortured sentient creatures, which inevitably leads to poor health, disease and premature, agonizing death. It is true that excessive consumption of B12 from highly concentrated sources like rat intestines and swine livers could potentially cover the loss attributable to malabsorption and inflammation factors like bile production and intestinal bleeding, but this in no way implies that even these, much less animal flesh in general, is a better source when all the other factors are considered. As with the role of insulin in glucose transport, the major factor to consider is not how much of the vitamin (or of the bacteria) is consumed, but how well the body uses it (how well the intrinsic factor is able to do its job, without encountering obstacles, such as damage to the pancreas, the presence of pharmaceutical chemicals, infection or internal bleeding).

In short, the principle cause for poor B12 transport (commonly mistaken for B12 deficiency) is the same as any other: inflammation due to the presence of animal proteins. So, without a doubt, the best way to make sure you are not deficient is to go vegan. Beyond that, if you want to take supplements to be safe, we do not see any harm in that. However, the necessity of such an act depends on how far removed you are from a decent food source, and if that is a real cause for concern for you, then B12 deficiency really ought to be the least of your concerns. Truly, if there was anything actually wrong or inherently dangerous about a plant-based diet, then the omnivores would have found a better objection by now. Their failure, after all, is not due to a lack of trying.


A.1c (Where will I get my) Iron?

Like the B12 issue, this is actually a fairly legitimate cause for concern among vegans. Iron is found in food in two forms: the heme and non-heme forms. Heme iron makes up 40% of the iron in meat, poultry and fish, and is well absorbed. Non-heme iron accounts for the other 60% (note that it is the majority), and for all the iron found in plants, and is less well absorbed. As vegan diets only contain non-heme iron, vegans should be especially aware of foods that are high in iron, and of techniques that can promote iron absorption. Recommendations for iron for vegetarians (including vegans) may be as much as 1.8 times higher than for non-vegetarians.878

It is often argued that vegans are prone to iron deficiency anemia due to the poorer absorption of non-heme iron. However, as with B12 and its corresponding myth, surveys of vegans have found that iron deficiency anemia is no more common among vegetarians than among the general population, although vegans tend to have lower iron stores. (Note that stores are not necessary, with adequate intake. This statistic is only relevant if there is inadequate intake, and then it is still only relevant to the health of the individual if there are insufficient stores to cover the insufficient intake. In order for an actual problem to be shown to exist, it would have to be shown that vegans suffer more from an iron-deficiency disease like anemia, and this is not the case.) The main reason for the lack of deficiency among vegans, despite this discrepancy, is that vegans evidently tend to eat foods which are far superior sources of iron than all animal-derived foods are. Cooked spinach in particular (to say nothing of raw spinach) has 15.5 mg per 100 calories, while cooked meats all have less than 1 mg per 100 calories.879 So there is certainly plenty of iron in food that comes from the soil. Go figure.

With this in mind, there is really no comparison; nor are vegans at risk of having too much iron in their bodies (which can be a serious problem), as evidenced by the relatively lower iron stores. It is just a matter of continually eating the right foods, which are dark green leafy vegetables and legumes. This is especially significant in light of the fact that vitamin C (which is abundant both in leafy green vegetables and in citrus fruits) increases non-heme iron absorption up to six times over, making it just as good of a source as heme iron, if not much better.880 Consumption of dairy products, on the other hand, has been strongly associated with iron deficiency anemia; what very little there is in milk cannot be properly absorbed.881

Once again, we are obliged to remind the reader that there is an imperative behind the consumption of blood, which is what the word ‘heme’ signifies, and that imperative is “You shall not” consume it. This is the command of our creator, the one who designed us and gave us life! If you think the blood in your diet is so precious that you are willing to trade your soul for it, then clearly it is not the iron you are worried about, but your attachment to your sin and to your demons that you are worried about, because it is not difficult to get adequate amounts of iron from plants that grow in the earth, which is where the animals that eat them get it from. And if you think the animals you are eating are deficient in iron because of their source, then how could you go and eat the deficient animals and still think that you will not likewise be deficient?


A.1d (Where will I get my) Taurine?

Meat-eaters sometimes argue that meat is necessary for adequate consumption of taurine because it is not found in plant foods, and vegans have been shown to have lower blood taurine levels, as well as negligible intake. Just as in the cases of protein and B12, standards are set by measuring the amount in the average person’s diet and body, rather than what is actually needed. Considering that there are no known adverse effects of a taurine-deficient diet, and that it is conspicuously absent from plants, there is no scientific or nutritional data-based reason to suppose that the ideal amount of dietary taurine is anything other than zero, or that the lack of taurine in human diets has any adverse repercussions. This is an objection based on paranoia, and devoid of substance.

For that matter, there is no established therapeutic benefit of taurine intake, either, even in energy drinks containing five to ten times the amount (per can) of the average meat-eater’s daily intake.882 This strongly suggests that there is no need for dietary taurine at all, and even if there were, every possible diet would be grossly insufficient for attaining it. That being said, prolonged absence of dietary taurine intake causes decreased plasma taurine and severely restricted urinary taurine output,883 which means nothing except that less taurine coming in equates to less taurine coming out. This is the extent of the argument, which obviously implies no detrimental health effects or causal relationship between deficiency and disease, or even to establish that there is, in fact, a deficiency of some kind, which requires necessity. On the other hand, markedly decreased urinary taurine levels in vegans884 implies that meat-eaters are getting so much of it that their bodies have no use for all the surplus, and therefore expel it. The fact that there would be any surplus at all in vegans, and that it is significantly less, suggests that vegans produce slightly more than they need, which means that all dietary taurine is already excess/waste when it comes in, that the body has no use for it.

This is an objection from sheer ignorance, which meat-eaters have latched onto simply because taurine exists in animal products and not in plant foods, and in the absence of any convincing arguments, they are groping at straws to find one. Taurine it is not even an essential nutrient. That is, the human body makes its own taurine, by synthesizing it in the pancreas from the amino acid cysteine. This seems to be a matter of design, evidencing the fact that humans are indeed natural herbivores; some carnivores such as cats are not able to make taurine, so it must be supplied by the diet in order to keep their retinas healthy.885 This is the only alleged necessity (and we are not carnivores!), and even this has been soundly debunked by studies done of the vegetarian cat we mentioned in Chapter 4, who has been found to have no problems with her eyesight, though the excuse has been levied to force-feed her the meat she refuses to eat.

As taurine is synthesized from cysteine, anyone who gets enough protein (and therefore, anyone who gets enough calories—see A.1 and A.1a) should have enough taurine in his body. Just like other nutrients, the animal sources are derived (if not directly, then indirectly) from plants, but in this case the animals synthesize it themselves, just as we do. So even assuming it is essential for health, there is no sense in which we need to consume animal proteins to get sufficient amounts of taurine, or even the cysteine required to produce it. Most vegans take no taurine supplements. Nor should they; a substantial increase in the plasma concentration of growth hormone was reported in some epileptic patients during taurine tolerance testing,886 which, given the information we have covered in Chapter 2, is all the reason we need to assert that it is not even safe to consume, even apart from animal sources.


A.1e (Where will I get my) Vitamin D?

This common objection is a perfect example of just how ignorant and depraved the meat-eaters’ mentality is. The supposition is that you need to drink milk to get this nutrient. Like taurine and the mistaken assumptions about B12, this assumes that an argument in favor of cow milk can be derived from its abundance in milk simply because it is lacking in plants. Yet vitamin D, like other nutrients, is actually destroyed by pasteurization, so pasteurized milk has to be artificially fortified with it in order to compensate and add at least some nutritional advantage to the milk, as there is no other, apart from calcium. (See A.1f for our reply to that objection) However, the very idea that we even need dietary vitamin D at all is totally absurd.

There are two kinds of vitamin D: D2 (ergocalciferol) and D3 (cholecalciferol). D3 is derived from sunlight; most dietary sources of D3 are animal-based (e.g., fish liver oils, fatty fish species, eggs and beef liver), while most vitamin D supplements, including those commonly found in fortified orange juice, use D3 derived from sheep wool. D2 is exclusively derived from plants (e.g., mushrooms, alfalfa). Several scientific studies have suggested that D2 is inferior to D3, while others have contradicted this. Not surprisingly, this has been used to criticize vegan dietary sources of vitamin D, including dairy alternatives, as most nondairy milk fortification is of the D2 variety. However, as with other nutrients like calcium and B12 it supposes a fairy tale land of make-believe where all the vitamins and minerals of any animal product are absorbed and used by the cells, regardless of whether or not the food itself is actually an inhibitor due to gastrointestinal and pancreatic inflammation, which we have sufficiently dispelled. Even so, the question is whether or not it is possible to get the desired nutrients from either animal or plant sources, and there are now several supplement companies that have created a D3 supplement from a plant base (lichen), so even the alleged superiority of D3 is moot, as well.

Robert Cohen argues that when milk has actually been put to the vitamin D test to substantiate the claims of the dairy industry’s marketing campaigns, it fails miserably. Only 12% of milk samples had the expected range of vitamin D content.887 Seven of ten samples of infant formula had more than twice the amount, and up to four times the amount, than what was reported on the label. Vitamin D is toxic in overdose, especially among those who are not lactose intolerant, as those people usually tend to be the ones with fair skin (who also metabolize vit. D more efficiently).888 So the fact that many nondairy milks, including soy and almond, are routinely fortified with B12, D and calcium effectively negates any nutritional advantage which cow (or goat) milk could possibly have over plant-based foods, without adding the disease factors.

Without a doubt, the answer to this question in terms of dietary vitamin D is ‘from plant sources.’ The alternative, as with all the other objections, is to starve, or to malnourish yourself through the consumption of animal products which cause disease. And there is nothing marketed as food for humans that is more adept at causing chronic inflammation and disease than milk and its derivatives, the range of dairy products, without which it cannot be said that there is any animal-based food source that is advantageous in regards to vitamin D.

However, this discussion is not even relevant to overall health, as it ignores the fact that we are not vampires, who burst into flames, or the carnivorous cave trolls in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth who turn to stone from a moment of exposure to sunlight. One can simply get adequate levels of vitamin D by absorbing sunlight through the skin for just fifteen minutes per day, two hours either side of noon (i.e. between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.), assuming that one is at the proper latitude. (The further north/south from the Equator you go, the more time you will need to spend in the Sun in order to get adequate exposure to ultraviolet light. This is the common rule; White people need even less than this, as we metabolize sunlight much more efficiently, and even need to be wary of how much exposure we are getting.) During the winter months it would probably be wise for everyone to supplement vitamin D, but given the lack of easily obtained dietary sources of vitamin D, this points to the fact that we were designed to spend a good amount of time outdoors, in the Sun. It is good for us, in more ways than one; for instance, it is essential for melatonin regulation, and therefore for regulating sleeping patterns, energy levels and moods. Even so, modern technology affords us the means to even forego this requirement and still obtain what we need without inflicting harm upon other sentient creatures.

Furthermore, sunlight actually destroys excess vitamin D,889 so it is not even possible to have too much of it from the Sun, even if there is too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation, causing sunburn. Knowing this, could you really ask for any more incentive to get this vitamin from the Sun, instead of digging into fish livers to produce expensive oils and pill supplements? Perhaps it is the fact that sunlight is as consistently appearing and freely available as it is renewable and sustainable that has got food and pharmaceutical manufacturers trying to get you to think the vampire way, because if you are using the Sun, then there is no profit in it for them. Incidentally, this also means your bank account will be a bit healthier if you do things Nature’s way instead of theirs, just as your body will be.


A.1f (Where will I get my) Calcium?

This issue has been covered quite thoroughly in Chapter 2 due to the role of excess calcium intake and malabsorption in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis and atherosclerosis. However, we have not addressed the question of what a good source of calcium actually is, apart from the catch-all “leafy green vegetables.” Considering that the body actually needs far less than is commonly thought (i.e., that you do not need to go out of your way to consume foods that are high in calcium if you are eating a healthy plant-based diet, and that supplementing it is actually extremely dangerous and counterproductive), the best way to accomplish this to demonstrate that plant foods are much richer in calcium than meat and dairy products. Cow milk, of course, is the one food that is promoted for this purpose, to the extent that most nutritionists see it is the best source of dietary calcium, with no other health benefits except, perhaps, growth hormone, which we have identified as the main cause of degenerative disease. To debunk the supposed calcium advantage of milk is therefore to debunk its nutritional benefits altogether.

First of all, as with protein deficiency, there is no such thing as dietary calcium deficiency apart from severe malnutrition. Calcium deficiency is caused only by loss due to the presence of sulphur-based animal amino acids and other proteins (particularly hormones), and by other toxic agents—namely salt, caffeine, refined sugar, alcohol, nicotine, aluminum-containing antacids, steroids and antibiotics, and vitamin A supplements.890 Humans are actually the only animals with an osteoporosis problem,891 yet it is only prevalent among the nations which rely on milk and dairy products for calcium intake, despite the fact that most of the world’s population only ingests 300-500 mg daily. (The RDA for adults between 19 and 50 in the US is 1000 mg!)

One farmer says to me, “You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with”; and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. Henry David Thoreau892

Calcium absorption is inhibited by iron (especially heme-iron, i.e. blood/meat) and phosphorus (i.e. soft drinks, as well as salty, high-protein foods, such as seeds, meat and dairy products). It is aided by magnesium (i.e. plants), which also aids insulin reception, as we have explained in Chapter 2. The body treats iron and magnesium roughly the same way apart from this one difference, because hemoglobin and chlorophyll are nearly identical, apart from the fact that hemoglobin has iron at its center and chlorophyll has magnesium at its center.893 So the difference between milk’s roughly 25% absorption rate (what is retained is actually closer to about 10%—there is just more of it) and kale’s roughly 50% is clearly attributable to the fact that kale has an abundance of the other nutrients necessary for your body to utilize it, while milk does not (nor does whatever else a typical dairy-eater is likely to consume), and the body has to pull magnesium (and silica, etc.) from other dietary sources just to absorb the 25%.

Now consider that a single cup of cooked collard greens has the same amount of calcium as a single cup of milk, and the amount actually available for the body’s use from the collard greens is more like five times that in milk.894 Alternative milk sources are even richer in calcium, whether or not they are fortified, as most are. For instance, a cup of unfortified hemp milk contains 460 mg (about half the RDA for adults, and more than double the amount actually needed, even for pregnant and nursing mothers), while a cup of cow milk contains only 300.895 Just 2 tbsp. of blackstrap molasses contains 400 mg,896 which is about all you really need in a day, as the cells will not reject this calcium and pull more out of your bones to compensate, thus leading to many of the diseases which milk causes.

Apart from the role of animal proteins in calcium depletion, there is no need to supplement a normal diet with calcium. If you are drinking milk for its calcium content, you are only aggravating the deficiency by facilitating further calcium depletion, thus requiring even more calcium absorption (as opposed to intake) to compensate. That is, when you drink milk or eat dairy products, your body needs even more chlorophyll to make up for the calcium depletion.

Calcium is essential for bone density and for preventing bone fracture. While reversing bone wasting is probably a lost cause for most people, because it takes such a long time for bones to build themselves (or to rebuild, which they simply cannot do if there is no structure, as in the case of amputees), anyone who is concerned about osteoporosis merely needs to make a permanent switch to a competently nourishing plant-based diet to stop and prevent it outright. Such a diet will necessarily contain adequate amounts of dark leafy green vegetables, but no more calcium. Calcium supplements only cause harm, whether or not you are eating a healthy diet. (If it is healthy, the added intake is excess, and will lead to inflammation. If it is unhealthy, your body will not be able to absorb it. This, too, will lead to inflammation, to heart disease, formation of stones, renal failure, etc.)

Understand that vegans do not have a reduced need for calcium just because they are vegans. They just need less of it to get the required amount, because their bodies should theoretically be absorbing more of it. The point here is to say that the amount of calcium recommended by regulatory guidelines is greatly exaggerated, and that, as far as it relates to how the body uses calcium, it is vastly more important that animal proteins be cut out of the diet than that sufficient quantities of calcium are ingested. The supposition here is that the vegan is eating a diet which is rich in magnesium. We cannot stress enough that if there is no regular (daily) intake of green vegetables in your diet, then you are by no means in a good state of health. You may look it—you may even feel it, for now—but you are not healthy. Your cells know the difference between iron and magnesium, and so do your circulatory system and your internal organs. Eventually, they will fail you, and when they do, you will die, unless you are saved temporarily because you have had an organ transplant or have been hooked up to a machine that performs the same functions that your organs once did. But no one in his right mind will say that he is in good health because he had an angioplasty or bypass surgery, while his disease continues to progress because he’s continuing to exacerbate it. Only a healthy plant-based diet can cure and prevent diseases related to hypocalcemia and hypercalcemia.

That being said, if you are still concerned about not getting enough calcium in your diet and you want to supplement it, we do not recommend fortified orange juice (an otherwise excellent source of calcium), simply for ethical reasons, unless the manufacturer has specified that the calcium is not derived from bone meal and that the vitamin D is not derived from wool or other animal hair. Fruit juices are usually pasteurized, and therefore not nearly as nutritious as raw fruits, and the calcium and vitamins C and D are readily available from the combination of sunlight and the vegan super-foods: blackstrap molasses, tofu, collard greens, kale, Chinese cabbage, bok choy, okra, broccoli (an excellent source of vitamin C, but not so much of calcium), turnip greens, mustard greens, soybeans, tempeh, tahini and almonds. The other main vegan super-foods (spinach, rhubarb, chard and beet greens) contain oxalic acid, which binds with calcium and therefore inhibits its absorption.897 (This does not mean that these foods are in any way bad for you, or even for calcium absorption, only that you would have to eat more of one of them than of the other vegan super-foods in order to get the desired amount of usable calcium.)

So it is as important to eat these foods for their calcium as for other reasons, and therefore, for instance, to balance out consumption of spinach and beet greens with consumption of kale and collard greens, rather than relying on a single item for all nutritional needs. The main thing to remember here is that calcium is one of the easiest nutrients to get adequate amounts of, and that its absorption is inhibited by animal proteins and other toxic substances, and that too much of it is a very bad thing, just as too little of it is—but getting too much is easier than getting to little. As with all things, what you ought to be striving for is balance and moderation. Too much calcium will clog your arteries, and too little (from depletion) will cause your bones to break. Both of these are outcomes of drinking milk and eating butter or cheese, but both are easily prevented by eating kale and okra, etc.


A.2 Meat is a better/more convenient source of essential amino acids/complete proteins than plant foods.

This is the objection which often follows A.1a (“Where will I get my protein?”), proffered mainly by fitness enthusiasts who read it in bodybuilding magazines’ paid advertisements for whey protein supplements, or from articles written by the same after they have become convinced of its nutritional quality based on observation of the results (hypertrophy). What it is not based on is science. Like the objection which usually precedes it, it fails to take into account that what bodybuilders are aiming for is not natural health and fitness, but the unnatural result of tricking the body into producing too much growth hormone, which happens by way of the same combinations of hormones and overconsumption of dietary enzymes which produce sickness and death.

The term ‘complete protein’ does not come from science, nor even from nutrition. In fact, there is no such thing. It is commonly known that your body breaks down all the food you are eating during digestion, so that it needs to be reassembled before the body can use it, anyway. If a protein (“complete” or otherwise) survives digestion, it is safe to say that it was not supposed to, because this is precisely what causes inflammation, yet this is exactly what hypertrophy-obsessed bodybuilders are all aiming for, and why milk and whey (which not only save the proteins from digestion and enable their absorption in the small intestine, but, in the case of milk especially, and even more so when the whey supplement is added to milk, also covers the other food particles and buffers the gastric pH to cause the digestion to fail utterly) is so helpful in building muscle mass. Anyone who does not understand that hypertrophy consists of inflammation and scarring of muscle tissue, and that GH and IGFs are counterproductive to health has no concept at all of what is and what is not good for the human body. The last person you want to seek advice about health from is a bodybuilder.

In terms of whether or not the reasoning behind the protein myth outside the context of high-protein diet fads is based on actual nutritional requirements, the negative assumption implied by this objection is that plant foods lack the “essential” amino acids, which are in (over)abundance in animal flesh. Regarding this issue, the science behind the myth firmly rejects the most common justification for it—namely, the notion that you need each and every amino acid in your body all the time in order for any of them to have their desired effect (so, within a period of a day or two). The actual basis for the argument lies in the fact that it is easier to get all the “essential” amino acids from animal proteins than it is to eat plant-based foods which contain all of them by researching which foods have which acids, and then preparing them accordingly.

So the real question, then, is how much you actually value your health. A few hours of education on nutritional issues would be enough to design an appropriate dietary protocol that could be applied for the rest of a person’s life, so it is obvious that anyone who devotes several hours, or even just a few minutes a day to physical exercise, is simply too lazy and too unreasonable to think. Does it really seem right that fitness enthusiasts are too lazy to figure out whether their plan for becoming fit actually works or not, when all the evidence points to the contrary, except where it concerns the size (and not even the tone) of their muscles? Most fitness enthusiasts come to inquire about diet at some point, but are led astray by all the disinformation, because it is directed by the companies marketing their whey (a waste by-product of milk fat) supplements, and reinforced by the mob mentality at every gym whose patrons simply do not know any better than to associate the hypertrophy which they have observed from their bodybuilding efforts with better overall health or fitness.

That being said, if your health is truly your main concern, then you really do not want to get too much protein (more than vegetables and legumes would afford you) in your diet. Even if hypertrophy is, plant proteins are certainly still a better source of it, as they are cheaper (which, if you eat as much as a bodybuilder does, makes a big difference, especially considering the differences in the price of “organic” meats and regular no-pretense-that-it-is-terrible-for-your-health meats), and always have far less calories from fat (which, again, works to your advantage if you are a bodybuilder, as it means you can use more of what you eat for building muscle). If you are really so vain and stupid that your main concern is having big muscles, then the only thing about the vegan diet that is actually to your disadvantage is the fact that plant proteins do not produce the immunological response which animal proteins do, which means it is harder for you to damage your muscles—and without tearing them, you cannot force them to grow beyond what Nature intended. This is certainly in your best health interests, and it also means you will be stronger, pound for pound, if you do the exact same exercise; it just means you will not have as many pounds. Furthermore, any athlete or anyone who wants to have an athletic body has an interest in the pound-for-pound muscle strength, which is exactly why the protein myth is so critical to understanding why vegans have advantages over omnivorous cross-fit, wrestling, boxing and mixed martial arts competitors, because these sports are all dominated by the “paleo” and low-carb diet faddists who, having spent all their time at the gym, have neglected to develop their minds to discern between fact and fiction. In the words of one medical doctor:

Myths about amino acid shortages and food combining were put to rest decades ago by experts and researchers in protein nutrition. Every plant food that provides protein—which includes all grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, and vegetables—contains all of the essential amino acids that are needed by humans. Individual plant foods have lower percentages of some of the amino acids relative to needs, but it doesn’t matter for those who eat a healthy vegan diet. For one thing, the body maintains its own temporary storage of amino acids. And amino acids from different foods work together throughout the day to produce the right amounts and ratios of these protein building blocks. Virginia Messina898

Bottom line, the protein myth is just a myth, regardless of the form it takes. As long as you are consuming a variety of plant-based foods that includes a few servings of legumes (beans, peanuts or soy foods) and/or protein-rich grains every day, you will have no trouble meeting protein requirements without animal foods.899 But anything beyond that threshold of roughly 12-15% of calories from protein sources (that being what is necessary for sustained body growth in humans), necessarily leads to inflammation, and therefore disease … if you are consuming animal products, that is. No one really knows if there is a similar threshold for vegans, because we do not actually experience heart disease and cancer, but we think it is safe to say that the Creator never intended us to.


A.3 It’s okay to kill/torture animals because they’re not like us.

Obviously people do not actually have this opinion when it comes to animals which are not routinely tortured, which is to say, pets, animals in captivity (zoos, theme parks) or even wild animals—i.e. all animals that are not chopped up and served on their dinner plates. This difference alone ought to demonstrate how absurd the premise is, because animals are all fundamentally alike, and which animals are protected is dependent on societal differences rather than differences between species. Some cultures eat dogs, while others find this to be detestable and even have laws restricting their abuse, without creating similar laws to protect other animals from far greater forms of abuse, because canines are “man’s best friend.” All that really means is that the society which befriends one species and tortures, maims and destroys others for consumption is hypocritical to an unthinkable extreme.

Such arguments have become a focal point of much vegan literature, as evidenced by the initial focus of the speciesism of the film Earthlings, and more recently, the film Speciesism. In fact, animals are a lot more like us than most people would be willing to believe or accept, and every pet owner can attest to the fact that they have their own individual personalities. It is known now that animals are not just intelligent, and that the brains of mammals (even small birds, like chickens) are hardwired like ours, but that they even have morals, as well. Author Dale Peterson has covered this in his 2011 book The Moral Lives of Animals.900

What this issue really comes down to is the matter of vivisection, which is to say, experimental surgical testing on living animals for human purposes. Without vivisection as a justification for violence toward animals, the question of the morality of animal farming and other forms of animal abuse has no scientific grounds. ‘Vivisection’ is clearly just a euphemism for ‘torture,’ however one looks at it, so without a logical basis for it, it is simply unethical, and the ethical foundation of human violence toward other species unravels. The basis is that, theoretically, we can see how the effects of a particular product will effect humans by testing it on other animals. However, it does not actually work this way in reality, so the product will still need to be tested on humans, in the United States, before it passes the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. This is due to the fact that treatments tested on animals are routinely found to not work on humans.901

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is “Because the animals are like us.” Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because the animals are not like us.” Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. Charles R. Magel902

Vivisection is just plain stupid, and utterly barbaric and inhuman by any standard of civilization, and of humanity. Technology has sufficiently advanced to enable other, more useful forms of research, and promises better results than vivisection, but conservatism within the academic establishment has not allowed the practical application side of the technology sphere to catch up. What we really need is to disestablish the bureaucratic stranglehold of corporate dominion over government regulations, in the interest of scientific progress.903

In any case, this is basically a moral objection from a theological position (animals do not have “souls” like we do) rather than a logical one, because there is no logical basis for advocating the killing or torture of other animal species apart from the nutritional ones already refuted here, so we have put our refutation in the next appendix. (See B.11.) However, as it pertains to the strictly moral (as opposed to the scientific) basis of this objection, a simple demonstration of the logical absurdity of this position may be just as appropriate: The same logic is easily applicable in the opposite direction. God (or, some sentient alien race, if you prefer—just imagine whatever “higher power” you accept as an appeal) is not like us. Is it therefore okay for him to kill or torture humans? It is true that we have been created in his image, yet he is not a man (Numbers 23:19), whereas the very word for ‘man’ in Hebrew (ha’adam) has its root in the word for ‘blood’ (dam). He is spirit rather than flesh (John 4:24), and his ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

You will recall our discussion in Chapter 4 where it is pointed out that one of the words rendered “blood” in English translations of Genesis 9 actually means ‘the poor’ or ‘the lowly,’ God says “like you.” The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom, in God’s eyes, is practically just a matter of which day he made us on. But the gulf of difference between God and humans is incomprehensibly vast. Most Christians axiomatically believe that God treats us with an incredible amount of dignity and love—enough to kill himself for our sake—but then they also fail, epically, to realize that he also cares about the rest of his creation. Whatever suffering he does allow us to endure, it can only be that this is for our own best interest in the long run.

Imagine how different our existence would be if God adopted the same attitude towards us that we have toward other animals. Clearly this sentiment much more closely matches that of Satan, who, whatever Christians might imagine him to be, can certainly be said to be rather different from us. There can be no doubt that Satan espouses the viewpoint that he is justified in doing whatever he pleases with humans because he is superior to us. While it is true that humans are superior to animals in many ways, God has modeled the appropriate behavior for such circumstances: rather than arrogantly concluding that superiority warrants conquest and exploitation to the end of self-glorification, we are obligated to use our gifts to serve other creatures. This is a general theme in the present book, so we are not obliged to elaborate more on it here.


A.3a Animals lack consciousness (so it’s okay to kill/torture them).

See B.11.


A.3b Animals don’t feel pain (so it’s okay to kill/torture them).

Not only do nonhuman animals feel physical pain (and this is a matter of scientific objectivity and certainty, not conjecture), but they also feel emotional and psychological pain, as well—to no less a degree than we do. Have you ever seen a helpless animal crying (sobbing) out of sadness and despair because of what humans have done to him? We have.904 And it is no less heart-wrenching than when a human does. If anything, it is more so, because we all know that the animal is innocent, a mere victim of Man’s merciless, pitiless brutality.

See B.11.


A.4 If we’re naturally herbivores, why do we have canine teeth?

The argument, apparently, is that we would not have evolved teeth which are capable of ripping into flesh if they were not needed for that reason. The main problem with it, other than that there is no scientific basis whatsoever for the postulate of macroevolution by selective mutations accounting for the emergence of Earth’s myriad species (i.e. Darwinism), is that no matter how one looks at it, our digestive systems are not suited to a diet of meat. Having teeth which could possibly rip into flesh could only be taken as evidence that we are suited to it overall if we were also endowed with the physical characteristics of other predators which would make hunting easier; however, we are not. If the “canine teeth” argument is to be taken seriously at all, and isolated from other characteristics of the human anatomy, then it must be concluded that we are certainly not natural carnivores or omnivores, because our “canine” teeth do not give us the capacity to rip into flesh. Try running up to a bison or a zebra and biting into it, either to wound it so that your human allies can do the same until at last it is downed, or so that you can rip a substantial portion of flesh off for your dinner, and you will see how absurd the notion truly is. We think that anyone who really wants to use this argument is obligated to try it at least once.

There is nothing “canine” about “canine” teeth. Virtually all mammals have “canine” teeth, which is a subjective description of them, anyway. Even canines (dogs) are not carnivores; they are omnivores, and they do not need to eat meat for optimal health. Here are some examples of real canine teeth from a few selected herbivores to demonstrate how illogical this argument is.905



Our canines are there for a reason: to tear hard fruits, such as apples and quinces, not for tearing meat. If we had evolved as omnivores, then we would have completely changed our anatomical design by now, and we would now be able to tolerate high levels of cholesterol and animal protein. We have not, and cannot. Our anatomical design is that of an herbivore in every respect (long intestinal tract, alkaline saliva, weak stomach acid, etc.), of which our “canine” teeth is just one tiny aspect. On the other hand, the presence of our molars and wisdom teeth makes for an awfully hard sell that we are not actually herbivores, as it necessarily means we were designed to grind our food, from which it is only a small step to realizing that this is the principle action of the design of our mandibles, unlike those huge, powerful jaws of the herbivores posted above.

We are not lions; we are men. Canine teeth are called such at our discretion only, not according to any law of Nature. Likewise, humans are labeled “omnivores,” by humans, based strictly on the dietary habits of most people in rich countries, not based on anatomical design, and this argument from canine teeth demonstrates just how baseless the subjective attribution really is.


A.5 What will I eat?

Considering that this entire treatise has advocated ethical veganism, we cannot let this objection pass without an appeal to that ethic. Thinking of our tastes and cravings first, to the point that these take precedence over the suffering and death of other creatures, is precisely the mode of thinking that has led to the present fallen state of the world. There is no way out of that state save eradicating the roots of this selfish worldview and replacing it with one of compassion. Until humans are convinced that the well-being of animals is always more important than self-gratification, this world will continue to be wicked, depraved and filled with blood.

That being said, any “suffering” endured by switching to a vegan diet is purely psychological. Tastes change with time, and it does not take more than a year or two of eating well for the body to adjust and heal itself. We have heard from people we have influenced to become vegans that it takes a lot less time than that. We have never seen a testimony from anyone who has said that he has regretted the decision, that it turned out to be harder for him than thought it would be, or that he tried and could not manage it, unlike the large majority of attempts by smokers and heavy drinkers to quit their habits. Many vegans become so disgusted as to actually feel physically ill at the scent or even the thought of foods they used to consume on a daily basis, and not just because it is associated with murder; it is rather like taking a whiff of diarrhea and then imagining it on your dinner plate while everyone around you gorges themselves on it with big, eager smiles—except it is more revolting than that.


A.5a (What will I eat), rabbit food?

Yes! Actually, what you might expect a rabbit to eat may as well be called ‘human food.’ Rabbits like to eat grass, and flowers, which we are not adapted to. However, if a rabbit goes for the food in your vegetable garden, then you can assume that what you are growing is good for you.

It is appropriate, then, that God saw fit to make rabbits one of the most adorable of all land animals, as a testament to what we would be eating if we “followed the rabbit” by imitating its diet; anyone who could look at a baby rabbit and think its value is in how it will taste for dinner is a truly depraved excuse for a human being. A vegan, on the other hand, will see the beauty in every creature, not just his own pet or the subject of a particularly opportunistic photograph. That appreciation for life is priceless; it is the primary reason why the vast majority of vegans are unlikely to ever go back on their commitment to the vegan lifestyle. If it was not truly rewarding, then many would fall away from it, as they fall away from religion and other forms of social and political indoctrination.

Sadly, rabbits have become symbolic both of the extremely unethical human abuses of animals, as one of the two kinds of animals that are regularly featured in representations of laboratory studies (the other being rats, or mice). However, they have more recently become symbolic of the vegan movement as well, which vegan certifications on products typically depicting a cartoon rabbit face, rabbit ears in the shape of a ‘V,’ or a leaping rabbit. It is no wonder; rabbits are peaceful creatures, and as such, signify the “Christ consciousness” in the language of synchromysticism (discussed in The Hollywood Agenda), just as the Holy Spirit is represented by a white dove, the universal symbol of peace. To say that we ought to be eating “rabbit food” is a gross understatement, as it entails the imitation of Christ—the bread from heaven.


A.5b (What will I eat?) I don’t know any good vegan recipes.

This is the last thing you should be worried about. You would not have lived this long if you had never eaten any vegan food. Never forget that the non-vegan foods you have been eating your whole life are not food at all, and that your sense of taste is tailor-made to consume the same things that the rest of your body was. If you have made the decision to become a vegan and have just never taken the time to expand your horizons, then you are in for a real treat.

Plant foods are not just nutritionally superior to animal foods. They are superior in every way. They taste better, are generally more affordable, and take less time to prepare. That they are more appealing to human tastes is attested to by the fact that they are so frequently used as condiments to improve the taste of flesh, which is always cooked as much to mask the taste of death as it is to make it edible. There are literally hundreds of vegetarian and vegan cookbooks available and in print, with thousands of recipes, and many more are coming. The real pleasure of eating human food, however, is in knowing that your conscience is clean. This is undoubtedly why Josephus reported that the food of the Essenes was “abundantly sufficient for them.” Clearly, it did not matter to them what they were eating, so long as they were not partaking of what was sinful. Recall our quotations of Porphyry, Plutarch, Paul, Seneca, Clement, Tertullian, John Chrysostom and the like. If your God is your belly, then you seriously need to realign your priorities.

However, there is nothing wrong with enjoying your food. One does not have to investigate the matter a great deal to understand that certain fruits are designed to appeal to us both visually and in terms of their tastes, as if to inspire us to keep eating them. There is actually a scientific basis for this, in that the specific health benefit of the fruit is determined by the very thing which gives it its color, so that one can see instantaneously what the advantage of the item is, if one just knows the value of antioxidants. Experimenting with new varieties and combinations of food is a luxury, as it is not essential to our well-being (as eating various fruits is), but not one which we are obligated to forgo. Once they are no longer inundated with salt and vinegar, taste buds and the nervous system both get acquainted with the more delicate senses. After some time, you may find that you no longer need to add peppers to your food in order to make it appealing. If laziness is a factor, and you do not want to prepare meals, then imagine the luxury of trying one new kind of culinary fruit every day; there are hundreds, and it would take you years to accomplish this feat!906

Any assumption that converting to veganism would condemn one to a life of tasteless salads and an unsatisfied stomach is nothing more than the fear of change, and of combating one’s habits, providing a convenient but thoroughly unwarranted excuse to maintain the status quo. Who has not looked back at a major life change after sufficient time and realized that it was not nearly as hard to handle as he thought it would be? So, too, with switching to a vegan diet: before long you will wonder why you ever thought it would be so difficult, and your only regret will be not having made the change sooner. Certainly this particular objection (or question, depending on how it is phrased) begs of an adventurous spirit, which is about to discover a whole new cuisine. If all else fails and you discover you cannot cook, you can always buy ethnic foods. There are even fully vegan grocery stores beginning to open now, like Viva La Vegan in Rancho Cucamonga and Santa Monica, California.907


A.6 Not all animal farms are factory farms (i.e. I’m not responsible for their suffering, or, my food is nutritious and I’m safe from the adverse health consequences you’ve described here, because I buy local/humane products). What we need is the wider application of more sustainable methods of low-input (organic) animal farming.

Is it economically viable to allocate half the nation’s food surplus to livestock which are meant by nature to be grazing, in order to produce a few pounds of flesh? Is life so lacking value that it does not demand protection from cruelty? Or is the point to say that murder is not murder, or perhaps that it suddenly becomes morally appropriate, if it is wrapped up with a pretty bow (a convenient lie)? What, exactly, is the argument being made here, so that we might address it properly? In what sense is eating organic, grain/grass-fed animals supposed to be “okay,” or even economically viable, once the numbers have been crunched and you have realized that the meat industry is singularly responsible for every aspect of environmental destruction around the world, as well as world hunger? More to the point, who cannot see that this whole idea is just a ridiculous marketing gimmick, because flesh fetches a much higher price when the vendor calls the murder “humane,” because the buyer is paying not just for meat, but also for peace of mind?

By now it should be apparent that this fraud cannot possibly be legitimate, ethically speaking. Meat-eating apologist Michael Pollan has said, “There are farms in this country, and more of them all the time, where animals lead very happy lives, and have one bad day.”908 We could hardly ask for a more succinct example of the spirit of delusion. Clearly, those who have bought into the “happy meat” mythos feel that they are morally justified because they abstain from the products of factory farming, but they are not even remotely justified by any ethical standard, and have only convinced themselves that God will not punish them severely for the triple dose of sin—murder, adultery, and now hypocrisy. Recall what Scripture has to say about this type of unadulterated malice.

This is the way of an adulterous woman: She shall eat and wipe her mouth, and say, “I have not done wickedness.” Proverbs 30:20

“Even on your skirts is found the blood of the lives of the poor innocents. You did not find them breaking in, but in spite of all these, you say, ‘Because I am innocent, certainly His displeasure shall turn from me.’ See, I shall bring judgment on you, because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’” Jeremiah 2:34-35

If factory farming is appalling because, in its quest to maximize efficiency and profits, it so bluntly attests to mankind’s unquenchable lust for flesh, then small-scale, organic, grass-fed beef peddlers who tout their product as humane and sustainable for marketing purposes are all the more detestable precisely because they cater to customers who wish to delude themselves into thinking that the lesser of two evils is somehow something other than evil, when in fact it is more evil precisely because of its rank dishonesty and hypocrisy. We have already dedicated several pages of this book to demonstrate that the propagandists promoting “organic” meat, “raw” milk, “humane” slaughter and “local” or “sustainable” agricultural systems based on animal farming are all evil, ignorant liars. We had it in mind to summarily label people pitching books promoting “low-carb” diets as “snake oil salesmen,” only to find that we had been beaten to the punch by the authors of The China Study. So while we might be criticized for having an overtly hostile tone, this is the tone which the Prophets use when delivering God’s judgment. And while we might be criticized for name-calling, we have not arrived at our conclusions or fallen back on any ad hominem reasoning to support our position, or presented any labels which had not already previously been awarded by the world’s leading epidemiologists. At some point, we need to just call these people what they really are: deceivers, frauds, profiteers, murderers.

Much more could be said about this, but it should just suffice to say that anyone who has read this book and not already determined that there is something seriously unacceptable about the business of murdering innocent animals has no conscience. Even supposing that there is a “humane” way of going about it (a conundrum if ever there was such a thing), without any biological or economic incentive whatsoever, just because you like the taste of its flesh, this begs the question of whether or not it would be acceptable to “humanely” murder humans for the same purpose, and to develop a system of enslavement, breeding and slaughter of the same. The groundwork is already laid by the recognition that these creatures deserve better than they get.

Many people believe that the problem with meat, dairy and eggs is factory farming. They have an idealistic vision of small family farms that is not actually accurate. For instance, on an organic dairy farm, of any size, the cows still need to be impregnated. The process is brutal—it entails someone shoving their entire arm into the anus of the dairy cow while another shoves their arm into her vagina to implant the bull’s semen. The tool used to keep her in place is called a rape wrack [sic]. This is an industry term, not coined by animal activists. The bull is held in place and masterbated [sic] to collect his semen. When she gives birth, she is only allowed to feed her calf for 24 to 48 hours. The only reason they allow for that is that the calves have a higher chance of survival so that they can be sold for profit. The mother bellows for days or weeks in sadness at her stolen baby. The female calves are relegated to the same miserable life of being hooked up to metal machines to be milked for four to five years until production slows and they are killed for cheap meat for hamburgers and leather. The males are either sold at auction and killed when still young or live in crates for weeks, are fed poor diets to cause anemia so that their flesh remains white and sold as veal. This is not idealic [sic] and happens on all farms.

Piglets are castrated and have their tails torn off, all without painkillers. Calves are branded and have their tails cut off. Turkeys are debeaked, meaning their beaks are burned off and many have their toes cut off. Same happens to days old chicks on egg farms and broiler farms. All male chicks are suffocated or ground up alive at hatcheries because they have no economic value to industry. The small, organic family farms are buying their hens from the same hatcheries as factory farms.

And all of the animals will eventually be killed, in a violent manner. For taste, pleasure and tradition.

I share this information to better help you understand that all use of animals is unethical. All farms torture, mutilate and ultimately kill the animals that they exploit. Sure, there are degrees of violence, but all unnecessary violence is unethical. The Thinking Vegan909

As long as we’re willing to treat sentient individuals as units of production, and numb ourselves to the fact that we are inflicting gratuitous violence and death, then we’re doing nothing more than reaffirming the core values of factory farming: that animals’ lives have no intrinsic worth, and that it is okay to exploit and kill them even when doing so is not necessary to our survival. As historian James McWilliams has written:

“Supporting alternatives to the industrial production of animal products serves the ultimate interest of industrial producers. The decision to eat animal products sourced from small, local, and sustainable farms might seem like a fundamental rejection of big business as usual. It is, however, an implicit but powerful confirmation of the single most critical behavior necessary to the perpetuation of factory farming: eating animals. So long as consumers continue to eat meat, eggs, and dairy—even if they are sourced from small farms practicing the highest welfare and safety standards—they’re providing, however implicitly, an endorsement of the products that big agriculture will always be able to produce more efficiently and cheaply. And thus dominate.” Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary910


A.6a Organic, grain/grass-fed meat/dairy is okay (or essential for human health).

First of all, ethical quandaries aside, if you honestly believe this, then you have been deceived, in a profound way. You need to go back and read Chapter 2 again. Besides this, we have already refuted every objection we have seen suggesting that there is any nutrient lacking in all manner of plant-based diets which is necessary to human health, and found in the flesh, lactations or menstruations of certain animals. On the contrary, human health necessarily requires abstinence of such unnatural foods, as surely as it requires abstinence from chemical poisons, radiation and other pathogens. The only thing which animal proteins are necessary for is pathogenesis of disease—all disease, in fact.

As for how the objection fits in with the previous section (A.6), the burden of proof is on the meat pundits to explain, scientifically, how their ideas controvert the huge mountains of scientific data which have been accumulating over the course of the last century to show that fats and dietary animal proteins cause disease. At best, the only argument you will ever find in any of their literature that has any merit is that things that are added to animals prior to slaughter, or to treat the meat after, are toxic. However, this is entirely moot, because it has no bearing on any diseases other than possibly acute inflammation, or, more likely, cancer, in the long-term. You simply cannot avoid getting cancer, because you cannot avoid carcinogens. You already have it—you, the reader, have cancer. Therefore, the only question you need concern yourself with is what causes tumors to grow and to spread, and the only answer to that question is animal products. You can reduce your exposure to carcinogens all you want; it is still the meat and dairy that will kill you, and some other thing that you were exposed to a long time ago that initiated the process. Calling it “organic” or “grass-fed” has no bearing on that whatsoever.

As for the notion that organic, grass-fed beef is safe for human consumption, it is a widespread belief in the low-carb, “paleo” diet world that any link between meat consumption and heart disease, cancer, etc., if acknowledged at all, is due solely to the unhealthy diets and treatment of the animals that live out their lives on feed lots. We are compelled to ask, what is “grass-fed beef,” anyway? Does someone feed beef, or is this just a casual denial of what it is (a cow, who has been brought into the world with the intent that it would be murdered by the very same people who forcefully impregnated her mother in order to steal the milk which by right of nature belonged to her) in favor of the view of its value to the consumer (as packaged meat)? Do we really look at animals this way, as cuts of meat just waiting to happen? Do they not have the natural, inalienable right to eat whatever God has given them to eat (grass), so that it is not a gift or a privilege when they are “allowed” to do it at our discretion, as the word ‘fed’ implies? Just who the hell do we really think we are, to be overriding God in such a dramatic way?

So we see that both of the words comprising the very term that is used to justify the process of “humane” murder is nothing more than a euphemism used to hide the nature of the thing in question, rather than to justify it, because we all intuitively understand that there is no justification for it. If there was truly nothing wrong with it, then there would be no need for such trickery. But even the most ignorant fool has a conscience, and can see (hopefully) that putting ‘humane’ and ‘murder’ together constitutes an oxymoron. Even if he has not already arrived at this conclusion, he might easily be led to it. Just look at how much the lives of these babies are cut short, according to this infographic from,911 and the supposition of “happy” animals should unravel:



According to this reasoning, if these animals were simply allowed to live out their days “naturally” before being killed and processed, their flesh would be perfectly healthy for humans to eat. While we could raise many objections to this reasoning (and it has certainly already been thoroughly debunked in Chapter 2), it is clear that most people subscribing to this viewpoint will always demand empirical refutation of their claim, only to alter it later, once it has been refuted (a logical fallacy called ‘moving the goalposts’). The basic premise is essentially that a man (Weston A. Price, a dentist) once observed that people in indigenous societies are healthier than people living in Western civilization, and this proves that meat and dairy are healthy, and necessary for adequate human nutrition and for preventing disease, because these societies typically eat animal products as staples of their diets. Of course, there is no scientific reasoning behind this claim, but the people making it appear to believe that if they refer back to some remote tribe in some remote part of the world, then their claim is unfalsifiable, because no one is going to go through the trouble of extensive study of the groups they name as more idyllic than most, which would be necessary to debunk the claim.

The problem with this supposition is that someone already has. We do not even need to fall back on the China Study as both the largest and most comprehensive study of human nutrition ever conducted and the most definitive endorsement of veganism within the world’s medical community. We are able to point to the most relevant study ever performed in relation to what the “grass-fed” community considers the idyllic conditions, which should, theoretically, be a ringing endorsement of the views of the Weston A. Price Foundation and everyone else laying claim to Price’s legacy. Suffice it to say that they are not.

“[T]hese studies indicate that the Mongolians habitually eat a diet based on grass-fed animal products, those who eat in the most traditional pattern have an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and early mortality, and those who eat more whole plant foods and less of traditional animal products have less obesity.”912

“‘These findings resemble the Kuczynski’s report in 1925, who observed that the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who habitually consume a diet with large amounts of organic meat and milk from grass-fed livestock had a high incidence of obesity, premature extensive atherosclerosis, contracted kidney, apoplexy and arcus senilis, which was not exhibited by their urbanized counterparts who consumed a more varied diet.’”913

“You can’t blame the obesity and poor health of nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen of 1925 on late-20th century processed foods or urban sedentary lifestyle. The only dietary factors in common between the Kirghiz and the Mongolians are the grass-fed animal products.”914

As for why eating “grass-fed beef” is not any more an environmentally conscious decision than eating the stuff everyone else is eating, see what the experts have to say.915 In fact, it is so obvious that it is even worse for the environment than animal farming in general (if that is even possible), that some environmental experts have even been forced to admit as much, in spite of clinging to the belief that it is still better for human health.916 Of course, by “better,” what we really mean is ‘the lesser of two evils,’ where ‘lesser’ has the connotation of ‘the same, but more unapologetic and hypocritical.’


A.6b Humane/kosher/halal is (morally) okay.

Anyone who accepts that it is okay based on such criteria deserves the death he will get from his failure to adhere to the principles of reason, of reasonable moral standards, and of ethics. The more one knows, the less likely he is to still maintain this view. Hopefully no one with a conscience will still cling to it after reading this book, knowing that, in God’s eyes, the economy of animal slaughter is the most detestable thing we can possibly accomplish, or even upon educating himself for ten minutes about the subject. The Jew or Christian who reads it should already understand this well. The Muslim must realize that, according to his own faith and its holy text, the statements of the Prophet of Islam in regards to how the Jews and Christians have strayed from the one true faith according to their own standards (i.e. the Talmud, the Tanakh, or Old Testament, or the Pentateuch, depending on which version of Judaism is being examined, and the New Testament, respectively), all center around this very issue, and that Muslims are therefore no less in error, according to their standard, if they have not reconciled themselves to these conclusions, because the Qur’an itself declares the conformity between the texts of each faith.

Beyond all this lies the question of morality itself, and whether it is a common virtue to all men. If so, then we are bound by conscience to justify humane slaughter, and this cannot be done because the idea of “humane” slaughter is a lie. Even an atheist will loudly proclaim that atheists can have morals, and perhaps even that atheists tend to be more virtuous than adherents of the major world religions. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant; what matters is that all humans are imbued with conscience, and we all know that some things are wrong from a very early age. Among these things are murder, rape, theft, exploitation, slavery, torture and abuse, which necessarily always exist on animal farms, and in every case where an animal is killed for the sake of feeding a human appetite. (Besides, carrion meat is also forbidden by the Bible.)

The notion that we can be “kind,” “compassionate,” or “humane” to the animals whom we bring into the world to slaughter and eat is one of the most profoundly perverse and delusional ideas in the history of human thought. Gary L. Francione917

This idea that there is anything morally acceptable about meat-eating rests upon a logical contradiction. Is it humane to artificially impregnate a cow, and steal the baby away the day after it is born to murder it for its flesh, so you can steal its milk while the mother bemoans and cries over the loss, only to take the mother’s life when her usefulness begins to wane? Is it humane to take a pair of scissors to cut off their teats (without anesthetic) so that the milking machine fits onto it more snugly? Is it humane to castrate the males (without anesthetic), to debeak chicks (without anesthetic), and haul off the male chicks to be senselessly murdered by the thousands so you can have a hen’s eggs, after which she will be similarly hauled off to slaughter for the value of her flesh on a dinner plate? Is it humane to genetically engineer these animals so they reach full maturity when they are just a few weeks old, but can barely stand up, just so we can get the most flesh out of murdering them a little sooner while eating their waste products in the meantime?

These things still happen routinely on “humane” farms, as surely as on “industrial” farms. This is the sad reality behind all the sales gimmicks and red herrings of the organic/local/humane industry intended to disarm your conscience and repackage the death they are selling in a more favorable light. There is simply no humane way of murdering someone; whether it happens “locally” or not is totally irrelevant and only even based on the consumer’s blatantly misinformed perspective of the product, not on the animal’s life. No animal will ever think, “Because the person who intends to eat my flesh lives within a 100-mile radius, I have no problem with dying, but otherwise I would. And I am happy to die now, because I had a good life, because I ate grass instead of grain or corn or beans, and I am honored to know that the person who is going to eat me and then throw my bones in the trash cared enough about his own well-being to choose me over one of the alternatives. This is great! Let’s get on with it, now. I can’t wait!”

Vasile Stănescu addresses this question in his aptly-named paper “‘Green’ Eggs and Ham? The Myth of Sustainable Meat and the Danger of the Local.”918 In it, he argues that the “locavores” have not been subjected to the same scrutiny they have applied to the agricultural industry at large, and if they were, they would be found guilty of the same crimes against humanity, if not the animals they purport to regard with sanctimoniousness. Having reviewed their material, we think Stănescu has been far too kind to these monsters in his appraisal, as they routinely, openly slander anyone who dares to criticize them based on the presumed validity of their position. However, this unwillingness to address criticism is only evidence of their malice (which really ought to be evident in the fact that they are in the business of murder, though somehow this seems to be lost on all but the vegetarians and vegans among us); it does not address the issue of whether or not they are right in point of fact. There are many people who are actually serious about sustainable agriculture and implementing a global system; in Stănescu’s mind (he is one of them), the “locavores” are doing as much to detract from that as anyone, via the creation of their fairy tale where everyone can feel a little better about their murderous appetites.

I fear many locavore advocates, including [Michael] Pollan in his own text, suffer from the same flaws of creating an unrealistic literary pastoral, which he attributes to the free-range organic farmer. Hence, as a literary critic, I hope to provide to the locavore movement what they have given to others and to view their work as a text in order to reveal the manner in which they too, create an idealized, unrealistic, and, at times, distressingly sexist and xenophobic literary pastoral which allows them, much as with the first organic dairy farm, to seem to raise the issue of care for actual animals even as they elide the issue of the animal herself. My intention is not to discount the possibility of a more natural, environmentally sustainable food system—a goal I deeply support—but instead to reveal the potential dangers that focusing purely on the “local” at the expense of the global, can contain for both the human and non-human animal alike. Vasile Stănescu919

Stănescu’s work is competent, but it is by no means the only place that a concerned skeptic can look for answers to the moral conundrum (and oxymoron) of the humane slaughter myth. This movement is just a subculture of the animal farming industry; as the industry’s response to criticism from animal rights activists, it has drawn its own fair share of criticism from the same. Our position and the reasons behind it are clearly stated throughout this treatise, but we do not wish to leave it at that. Robert Grillo, the founder of Free From Harm, has summed up his arguments against the “humane” myth in the following articles, which we endorse: “The Search for Truth in Humane Farming,”920 “12 Reasons Why I Don’t Believe in Humane Slaughter,”921 “Comprehensive Analysis of the Humane Farming Myth,”922 and “What About Humanely Raised Milk and Dairy Products?”923 We also found the article on “The Humane Farming Myth”924 (cited above in A.6) useful in the course of our research.


A.7 It’s a personal choice (or, God doesn’t care).

See the closing argument of Chapter 3 (the citation from Grillo) for the first part of this objection. The rest of the book deals with the second part, which is predicated on one or more of the following notions: 1) that ethical and environmental causes are a waste of time or attention; 2) that the only thing that matters is whether you believe in Jesus (or possibly that you have a “personal relationship” with him, whatever that means); 3) we are all sinners, so sinning is okay because there is nothing we can do about it, and trying to eliminate one sin or another is an exercise in overall futility, or worse, a contravention of God’s will that we remain humble and admit we are sinful. For our response to 1), see B.4. For our response to 2), see B.5. For our response to 3), see B.12.


A.8 I’m just one person; my decision to become a vegan wouldn’t make a difference.

Everyone is just one person. If this is an objection which you agree with, then ask yourself if there are any causes you do support. Are you against human slavery? If so, then it cannot be that you own or have you sought to own any slaves, otherwise you would be a liar. Even so, emancipating them would not actually end slavery, though it would end your part in it; yet you would still be obligated by the terms of your ideology to do so. Are you against murder, and would you report a murder or turn a serial killer in to the civil authorities, knowing that he is just one person and that murders will continue after he is put away, so that you only saved a few lives, rather than the whole world? These are exactly the questions which the nature of this objection pertains to; the only difference is that it is humans that we are speaking of, rather than nonhuman animals.

Whether or not you understand all the intricate little details of the global economy, one simple truth lies at the heart of all capitalist economics: The buck stops at the consumer level. Let us assume it is not actually you who is operating the machine that has animals murdered by the thousands every day. Let us assume that you do not work anywhere in the production facility or the corporate headquarters building of the company that packages and distributes the product. Let us assume that you do not even eat it yourself, and are actually a vegetarian who buys it for your children, because you lack the courage to confront your spouse about the grisly nature of the industry. If you are buying the product, then you are exactly the reason it is being produced.

While one person changing his habits will not, in and of itself, bring humanity’s abuse of the animal kingdom to an end, to contend that this would not make a difference is patently false. First of all, there are others, numbering in the millions, who have already made the decision, and you will be added to their number. Secondly, it will make a world of difference to you. Even with no consideration to anyone other than yourself, there is no decision that every individual can make than to adopt the vegan ethic and lifestyle. It could very well save your life without you even knowing it.

But you are not the only one who will benefit from the change. No single decision can so rapidly and reliably reduce worldwide suffering as the choice to go vegan. Therefore, if there is any cause that you deem to be worthy of your support—be it world peace, ending world hunger, human progress, or whatever—then the vegan cause already has precedence over it, and you are obligated to make it your first priority. And if you think you have any love for animals but still eat animal products, or if you think your actions are truly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, then consider that according to calculations based on numbers from the USDA, the average meat-eating American will consume 10.8 cows, 31 pigs, 17 turkeys, 1700 fish and 2147 chickens over the course of a lifetime.925

That does not even include the rest of the animals that die in the process, and as we have already seen, it takes five pounds of farmed fish to produce one pound of fish meat for the consumer. Nor does it include the calves which were killed to provide you your milk and dairy products, or the chicks that were murdered by the egg industry, or the suffering all these animals went through before they met their grief-stricken ends. You have probably never stopped to consider that unless you change your ways, before your time on Earth has come to an end, you will have been directly responsible for the senseless murder of nearly 4000 creatures. Your commitment to change, then, will make an undeniable difference to every animal you spare from such a fate.

In any case, fatalism is the very worst basis for any ethical position. (We have dealt with the philosophical side of the acceptance of suffering, which we call the fatum Christianium, in The End of Learning. See that book for an explanation.) This is a matter of conscience, not of making a difference. It is true: you cannot make a difference—the kingdom of heaven is going to happen whether you like it or not, and whether it happens by a strictly human mechanism or by divine intervention, because in the end, humanity is a feature of what it is to be human, and someday a vastly greater number of human beings will make sure that we finally evolve to fulfill the mandates of Scripture and of common sense. If that does not appeal to you, then eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die. In fact, your end cannot come soon enough.


A.9 If eating animals is morally wrong, then so is eating plants.

Some will say that plants have emotions, or that they can feel pain, so they, like animals, can (and do) suffer at our hands. Are meat-eaters really so depraved as to make this argument, whether out of malice or caprice, or out of sheer stupidity? We believe it to be sarcasm only, but the fact that it is even used at all is evidence both of how deficient the carnist agenda is in excuses, and of how unwilling those who invoke it are to take ethical considerations seriously. If nothing else, it is evidence of the fact that they will resort to anything to justify their decisions, but not to actually think about what they are doing, or about the consequences thereof.

Veganism is about causing the least amount of suffering possible, based on the decision not to participate in industries which cause and perpetuate the suffering of animals. It is a negative premise; no decision to cause any harm to plants is necessarily implied (a person who never ate any organic materials for ethical reasons would still be a vegan), and this is obviously just a baseless attack on vegans and veganism. However, it is not possible for humans to live without eating plants. So we might suppose that a person who eats only fruit is still living according to the vegan ethic, even if it is applied to plants, and that the higher his fruits to vegetables ratio, the more in accordance with the ethic he is, because fruits do not by themselves constitute the life of the organism (the tree or bush) which they come from, the way a vegetable does.

Either way, the argument is an affront to reason. To kill is to end a life. Plants do not have lives, as life in this sense consists of consciousness, with continuity of awareness, or memory, as well as the ability to suffer, which means both physical and emotional pain. Plants have neither nervous systems nor the capacity to reason or suffer. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply unscientific and untrue.

As this is a question of morality, we must appeal again to Scripture as the common authority. In the context of Scripture, it was animals only (and all animals, at that—hence the term ‘animals’) that were given the breath of life, not plants, and the same which we have been forbidden from eating. Scripturally speaking, something cannot even be said to actually be alive, and therefore cannot be killed, if it does not have the breath of life.

In spite of the fact that it is actually one of the most common arguments against veganism and vegetarianism in general, we do not even feel obliged to address this issue any further. It hardly deserves that kind of attention. For a more thorough rebuttal, see “What About Plants?” by Gary L. Francione926 and “The Plants Feel Pain Argument” by Gary Yourofsky.927


A.10 We evolved from ancestors who ate meat, therefore we need to eat it as well, or we will be nutritionally deficient.

There is a lot that we could say about this one, and many scientific studies that we could invoke to establish an argument. Yet the fact that it is a statement of fact only merits one response, which is to say that it is simply not true. Every relevant archaeological survey to date has failed to corroborate the premise that our ancestors ate anything other than mostly plant-based diets (and even this supposes a rather ridiculous homogeneity in the human genome of both the present and the past, as though we are all the direct descendants of whatever Neanderthal is supposed to have lived in some cave somewhere), and the whole idea behind the evolutionary hypothesis leads to all kinds of absurdities. For instance, “paleo” faddists often say that we need to be eating more like our “ancestors” because we have not evolved to process certain foods, pointing to celiac disease and lactose intolerance as evidence, in order to establish that we need to eat meat like our supposed ancestors supposedly did, but then they will also turn around and tell us that we evolved from primates, who do not eat meat.

The thinking goes like this, and we hope the absurdity is self-evident to the reader: We have the physiology of evolved primates, and were therefore once herbivores; therefore we are not herbivores. In other words, our ancestors (who were closer to the source of the evolutionary origin) evolved from herbivores; therefore, they were omnivores—and because they were omnivores, we should be eating meat, because we have not adapted to a plant-based diet.

Apart from the obvious fallacy of supposing that herbivores became omnivores without any sort of explanation as to how or why that happened, and without any significant changes in our anatomies during the transition from ape to human being, the emphasis here is on the idea that the relatively recent ancestors from whom we supposedly evolved did eat meat, and therefore we must eat as they did. It is outside the bounds of the present book to debunk the Theory of Evolution, but know with certainty that this is not just a matter of religious belief, but of science. The Theory of Evolution needs to be rejected on scientific grounds as an outlandish and despicable fraud. Genetic mutations are inherently harmful to any species, as information is only ever lost, not added, and organisms therefore cannot become increasing complex and refined without the aid of an outside intelligence. However, the point of our gradual genetic mutation is uncontended, and we have referenced the genetic manipulation of the Watchers many times to evidence how consumption of animal proteins has led to the degradation of our species.

That being said, the point of this objection is to suggest that what is natural to us is what our ancestors ate. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth, both because we do not need to speculate to know that what people eat now is what kills them, being both unnatural and harmful to our species, and because it also killed our ancestors when they ate it (and usually much sooner). However, the entire argument is moot, seeing how archaeological evidence points to the fact that the “paleo” diet of today is a farce, nothing like what it is arbitrarily thought to have replicated, and that our ancestors ate far less meat and dairy than the fad insincerely attempts to reconstruct. This is an argument from blind ignorance, and does not overturn the fact that there is no biological or nutritional need for any humans to eat any animal product in any amount.

It is beyond merely evident that we and all other creatures have been designed, with such exact specifications as that we still have yet to uncover all but the clues as to how our bodies actually function. To abandon the perfectly valid argument (whether based on Scripture or on science) that we are “meant” to eat meat, as many vegans do, is to allow omnivores to advance the opposite agenda—which they often do with all an almost admirable degree of religious fervor. This is not to anyone’s benefit, for even those who think they are winning an argument, when they are not, are still getting sick and dying.

As for specific scientific research which has been performed, the only sure way to know exactly what people were eating in our prehistory period is to examine their teeth. And you may as well throw out all your assumptions about this, because even dinosaurs were all vegetarians. The only debate is that some928 argue that even the T-rex was a vegetarian (vegan, actually), as was the velociraptor, while others929 say these two were the exceptions, and that the rest were.

Anyway, tooth enamel analysis of fossilized teeth of our ancestors confirms that our ancestors ate a mostly frugivorous diet (starch, fruits), while meat was just a small part of their diet.930 So we clearly did not “evolve” as omnivores, as some experts claim; we “evolved” (were designed) as frugivores, just as our closest living relatives (primates) are herbivores, and our ancestors were frugivores as well. That is to say that what they ate was closer to the original blueprint than any “paleo” diet. If we really wanted to know what we are evolved to eat, we would have to look at the former group first, but as it is, the evidence leads to the same conclusion on both accounts.

The best thing a vegan can do to advance his own agenda is learn about “creation science,” and especially about “out of place artifacts” (which demonstrate the high level of sophistication of our ancestors), if only to detract from the argument from evolutionary theory and convince his opponents that there really is no biological need to consume the thing which passes for food in our society, but is extremely toxic to our bodies. Our ancestors were a lot smarter and a lot more technologically advanced (a requisite for agriculture and settled civilizations, as opposed to nomadic hunter-gatherer societies) than the stereotypes depict.

The very notion that we are evolving, or that we have evolved and will continue to, begs the question of what this evolution actually consists of. Even Darwinists must confess that what we have allegedly become is a race of highly evolved thinkers with the capacity to reason. Veganism is just the inevitable conclusion of reason (morality), of the essential characteristic which makes us “human” (compassion)—as well as the other characteristics which we might associate with the neocortex, and which therefore define us as “human”—and of technological progress which has enabled us to acquire vast amounts of huge varieties of fresh foods from all around the world. Anyone who still identifies with this obsolete notion of hairy men running around in tiger skins, beating women with their clubs in order to drag them back to their caves and breed with them, and then adds false notions about what these nonhuman “men” ate, needs to stop watching television and “evolve.” We provide a few links to articles here which should help, by addressing the issue of what are “cavemen” ancestors really ate.931, 932, 933


A.11 But meat makes you smart. You need meat for your brain.

We already know that the exact opposite is true—that consumption of animal proteins actually destroys neurons. In fact, almost every type of encephalopathy (brain degeneration) can be traced back to the origin of dietary animal proteins, with the main exception of chronic trauma encephalopathy, which is caused by multiple head injuries (concussions) such as boxers and football or hockey players might endure. We have shown how scientists are coming to understand that Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS are all caused by the same thing that causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and simply variants of it, which itself is the human form of Mad Cow Disease, and caused by transmission of prions (misfolded proteins) from dietary sources. We have explained the processes sufficiently to have already soundly refuted this objection, so all we need to do in order to seal the argument against meat being good for the brain is demonstrate the origin of this supposition and then debunk it. It presumes a logical argument, rather than a moral or ethical one, so our appeal is once again to science.

This objection actually ties in with the last one, because it is based on the false notion that meat is what made our brains bigger, according to the evolutionary hypothesis. Despite this particular aspect of the evolutionary hypothesis having been thoroughly debunked (as many others have), many proponents of evolutionary theory, including doctors, still literally believe that meat (especially red meat) was what made the human brain bigger, as we allegedly evolved from our simian ancestors. This theory came from what was called the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH), which even the researcher who came up with it later admitted was a mistake. The human brain, according to the prevailing scientific literature expounding on the evolutionary theory, actually got bigger due to the cooking of plant foods, such as starches.934, 935

Humans have multiple copies of a gene, called amylase 1 (or AMY1), found in human DNA, which is designed for digesting tubers (starches, like potatoes).936 Ptyalin, a form of amylase, is also found in our saliva, and in the saliva of other frugivorous (fruit-eating) animals, which proves that we are designed to eat carbohydrates, as saliva is intended for digestive purposes. According to scientists, the salivary amylase gene has duplicated itself during evolution. DNA hybridization studies demonstrate that many people have multiple tandem repeats of the gene, and the number of gene copies correlates with the amount of salivary amylase, and thus with apparent evolutionary exposure to high-starch diets.937

This is actually something that can be empirically evaluated, and which has been. For example, research has been performed to measure the traditional Japanese diet against that of the Biaka (a rainforest hunter-gatherer tribe), because the former contains large amounts of rice starch, while the latter is a low-starch diet. One Japanese person was found to have fourteen copies of the amylase gene (one allele with ten copies, and a second allele with four copies), while one of the Biaka carried six copies (three copies on each allele). Researchers have speculated that the difference in the number of copies of the salivary amylase gene may have enhanced survival during the transition from a frugivorous to a starchy diet during human evolution.938

So there are some people who believe that eating meat over a long period of time does not actually affect brain function. This is wishful thinking, because it certainly does—it causes you to lose brain cells and impairs cognitive function, and ultimately leads to certain death. And then there are those who acknowledge that it does affect brain function, but believe the effect is beneficial. This, too, is wishful thinking. One Dutch study revealed that cognitive function in males aged 69-89 suggests that a high intake of omega-6 fatty acid, which is found in red meat, is positively associated with cognitive impairment.939 We have explained in Chapter 2 why this is generally the case, particularly with milk and dairy, so we will not belabor the point here.


A.12 If we didn’t eat animals, they would overpopulate, overrun our cities and consume all the resources.

Do you mean like we do now to them and their habitats? Apart from the “If eating animals is morally wrong, then so is eating plants” argument, this is probably the most stupid thing we have ever heard. Once again, the fact that meat-eaters can even say this just demonstrates how little substance there is for them to fall back on in support of their paradigm.

This “us vs. them” mentality is utterly asinine. Most animals are afraid of us—and rightly so. Vegans have a saying that goes, “All monsters are human.” Think about that for a moment and you will realize why it has caught on.

There are several species which humans have deliberately driven to extinction,940 and many more which are threatened. Just this fall (2013) the majestic American buffalo, once hunted to near extinction, hit grocery stores as packaged meat. Less than a week ago, from the time of this writing, the Western black rhinoceros—another truly majestic creature—was officially declared extinct after years of poaching, for nothing more than the use of its horn in Traditional Chinese Medicine (i.e. absurd superstition and sorcery).

The fact is, the animals that are bred for slaughter are also genetically engineered to reach full maturity as soon as possible, which makes them weak. They would not survive long, but letting them die, or perhaps even killing them or letting them live out their natural lifespans and preventing them from breeding, would still be the humane thing to do, rather than constantly breeding more and more generations for torture and slaughter. Yet meat-eaters have the audacity to declare that these feeble and already naturally benevolent babies would turn on us and overrun our civilization if we did not enslave and abuse them for our pleasure. Are we really so weak that we cannot defend our cities against chickens (which are native to rainforests, and which we liken to humans only when denoting cowardice), pigs (which can eat practically anything organic, and therefore have no need of making an attempt on our resources) and cows (which are among the gentlest, most docile creatures on the planet)? If that is really what would result from the end of this apartheid, then we say, “Good, let it happen.” The kingdom of heaven, wherein the stewards of Creation begin to protect and tend to Creation, cannot come too soon. City life is overrated, anyway, and most of us would rather live in harmony with the land—some to the point of fantasizing about it while we sit at our desks.

Then there is the notion that hunters are aiding conservation efforts by keeping numbers down, so that they do not exhaust their food sources. This has been addressed already, sufficiently to preempt and debunk it, in the discussion of trophic cycle. The people making this argument would hunt humans for sport (and that includes you), if it was only allowed by law or social convention. Better yet, they would prefer to sit back and have the carnage performed for them by getting the victims to fight each other. After all, that is exactly how their ancestors amused themselves in the past, how modern sports competitions are arranged in the present (only not to the point of death), and how science fiction and dystopian dramas in film and literature have forecasted the future return of Western civilization to its ancient roots.

Honestly, even if you want to save a species, or even your own hide, then find a better and less hypocritical way than poaching, and animal farming. We all know that what you are really doing is excusing your inexcusable behavior. These excuses will not save you from the death which you have wrought upon yourself, or from the judgment. Stop pretending like you care about anything other than destruction and find a more direct way of saying “I like death.”

In case it is not already apparent, the best of the common objections to veganism have already been refuted here, and we are tired of dealing with the ones that are levied from a position of incredulity, cynicism and sarcasm. For further examination of this topic from a different perspective, see Robert Grillo’s article “With an End to Animal Agriculture, What Happens to the Animals?” at Free From Harm.941


A.13 I knew someone who ate meat and didn’t die from cancer/heart disease (therefore science is dismissible).

If you think this constitutes a rebuttal of the information and the arguments presented here and elsewhere in favor of the vegan ethic, then you have obviously made your choice based on what you want to believe, and not the truth. There is not even a pretense of scientific reasoning for us to debunk—no inference from clinical study or allowance for other factors, and no falsifiability—just a single conclusion which does not follow from the circumstantial, highly subjective data. This is what we call the spirit of delusion.

In light of just how many people die from cancer and heart disease on a yearly basis, combined with how assuredly these diseases have been linked with the consumption of animal products, it is hard to believe that anyone would raise this objection with a straight face. Yet it is quite common, and has even been invoked by a participant in a famous public debate about animal rights (albeit by a chef, whose living therefore depends upon perpetuating the status quo—we can only speculate as to what he was doing as a participant in this debate).942 As with the last objection, given that there is really no argument from nutrition, nor any from any ethical point of view, the fact that this objection was ever brought into the public consciousness in the first place demonstrates how utterly devoid of reason the lust for animal flesh really is.

Although it really ought to go without saying, the existence of an exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. This is exactly why scientists avoid coming to conclusions based upon even a preponderance of data which necessarily inclines toward certain associations. They say things like “regular smoking of cigarettes may lead to lung cancer,” because it is a given that in some cases it does lead to that, but not in all cases. The correlation (as measured by statistical probability) between consuming animal products and significantly shortening one’s lifespan and/or reducing one’s quality of life is so great that no reasonable person would ignore these risks and maintain that he will be one of the lucky few who suffer no obvious and immediate adverse consequences from his diet.

The reason we say it does not follow from the data is that your grandma (or whoever) did not live out the natural lifespan of 120 years. If she lived to 95, and you think that is a really long time and the full extent of the natural lifespan, then you are lying to yourself and basing this conclusion on a comparison with the norm, which constitutes premature death. Imagine adding another half century to the average life expectancy and making that result the norm; a death at 95 would be considered a tragedy, as a death at 40 instead of 65 often is. It is, after all, the same difference. Nor is our suggestion of adding another half century at all unreasonable, as we are actually designed to live that long.

If you consumed nothing but animal proteins, you would be very lucky to survive infancy, which would probably require medical intervention. Even getting off the diet, a single bottle of milk or formula will still make a person more likely to die of sudden infant death syndrome than living to 100. The fact is, everyone who eats animal proteins develops cancer cells early in life (no later than mid-20s for certain). Given enough time, the person you based your conclusion on would have died from it, had he or she continued to consume hormone-releasing factors. That is simply beyond dispute. Even a “natural death” is caused by disease; “death by natural causes” is recorded on death certificates for diseases caused by consumption of animal proteins ranging from infections (i.e. compromised immune systems) to heart attacks. “Old age,” on the other hand, is not even recognized scientifically or medically as a cause of death,943 because no one dies of old age, so if your grandma’s death certificate reads “natural causes,” then that necessarily means she died from eating meat/dairy.

In any case, we are not saying that meat or even dairy causes death by disease (directly). What causes death by cancer and heart disease is overproduction (or overconsumption) of hormones. Eating these toxic foods only facilitates these processes. Risks are increased by rates of consumption, and reduced according to local production factors. It could simply be that your grandma lived to 95 instead of 85 because her endogenous hormone levels reduced after she hit menopause. She still died decades before her allotted time, as a result of eating animal proteins.

When placed in the context of the Bible’s testimony, there is nothing impressive about living a long life by today’s standards and dying of “natural causes.” A long life by the Bible’s standards, after all, would be over 900 years, and it seems safe to say that prior to the Flood, the average lifespan was at least 500 years. So while in some rare cases, people are able to eat significant amounts of animal products without being killed by a major disease, given what we know about the cumulative effects of cancer and heart disease on the human body, it is certain that no one could eat such a diet and ever come close to living what was an average lifespan prior to the apoptotic modifications made to our species. We are meant to live 120 years, and designed to live 1000 (maybe even indefinitely), not merely a few more beyond the lowest common denominator. (Keep in mind that two out of three Americans are obese, and therefore demonstrably and chronically malnourished. If you are an American, then this is the standard you are judging by.)

At some point—that point being before the termination of your natural lifespan—unless you are a vegan (and even then, because you were not always so), you will die from a disease brought about by your diet. It is inevitable. If you want to live longer, your best (and perhaps only) chance is to adopt a plant-based diet and to give your body a chance to heal itself of the damage you have already done to it, by intermittent fasting.


A.14 A vegan diet makes you fat because it’s high in carbs.

This would actually be a relevant objection if there was any truth to it. Anecdotal evidence should suffice to show that vegans actually have a hard time putting on weight when desired, and that plant-based diets are the most effect at achieving healthy weight loss. In fact, this makes us the subject of both intense envy and ridicule.

First of all, there is no nutritional incentive for anyone to eat huge plates of pasta, vegan or otherwise, and vegans typically refrain from doing so because they are more aware of their food options and less inclined to eat things that are so unrewarding nutritionally and taste-wise. (Some of us literally never eat pasta, not as a matter of sticking to a more beneficial diet, but of mere preference.) On the other hand, because vegans do not consume the foods (especially dairy) which stimulate the production or the binding and absorption of growth hormones, they are the only people who can say that their diets do not increase their body fat, unless they are simply eating too many calories. Most vegans have the opposite problem: they cannot get enough calories, because the feeling of fullness depends on volume and level of energy, not on caloric intake. (Vegans do not get that feeling of tiredness after meals that contain large amounts of tryptophan.) So it is hard for a vegan to overeat.

Basically, this argument is bunk because of the differences between different types of carbohydrates. It is little more than propaganda from the agricultural establishment which has decided that the real culprit of malnutrition is gluten sensitivity rather than lactose intolerance and insulin resistance. Refined, bleached flour and sugar are the chief antagonists of this paradigm, and by calling these things “carbohydrates,” an implicit and rather spurious association is made with fruits and vegetables. However, a vegan, by definition, is actually prohibited from eating refined sugar because it is bleached with bone meal!

It is not carbohydrates that make you fat, but fat that makes you fat. Low-carb diets only work because they stimulate glycogenolysis, which is your body’s response to starvation. In other words, they only work for people who are already fat, who got that way from eating things other than carbohydrates. These diets also slow your metabolism and therefore make you gain weight as soon as you start nourishing your body again, which could even very well be at the same time as you are dieting, such as when someone eats an otherwise-healthy salad with meat or cheese. (Multiple digestive processes could result if the components take different amounts of time to digest.) Consider the following tables from for disease markers comparing vegans to lacto-ovo vegetarians, pescatarians and non-vegetarians (last updated December 2009), with statistically insignificant data (e.g. differences between men and women) omitted:944








Take a moment to let these data sink in, as they are truly remarkable, especially in regards to LDL cholesterol levels and the fact that lacto-ovo vegetarians are shown to be no healthier than omnivores in some respects. Even so, this objection presumes that being overweight is more important than health (though, to be fair, the two are certainly related), and more than disease prevention. This clearly works to the advantage of the vegans. The ideal body mass index (BMI) is generally considered to be between 20 and 24.9, though this is subjective and somewhat arbitrary, and based on norms rather than on actual physical health, as a person is not underweight (and is therefore still in the ideal range) until his BMI drops to about 16 or 17 (the cutoff is usually considered to be about 18 or 18.5). In any case, of the five groups sampled, only vegans fall into the ideal category. Even the average lacto-ovo vegetarian is overweight.

BMI is quite literally the common means of determining whether or not someone is overweight. The 8% for vegans in the 1990 US study (and the test subjects were older than their counterparts) is so ideal that it is not even reliable data. However, in all cases of these and other studies, the data are clear: vegans are not overweight, and certainly not nearly as fat as people who consume animal proteins in any capacity. Furthermore, the more types (and therefore, presumably, the greater the volume) of animal products that they do consume, the more likely they are to become overweight, as evidenced by the progression from the vegan ideal to the norm which borders on obesity. This really ought to be common sense.

A 1996 letter to the editor of the British Medical Journal from the authors of the EPIC-Oxford study reported BMI according to the time on current diet (less than or greater than 5 years). The number in each group were: •

1,652 Vegan •

8,827 Lacto-Ovo •

3,776 Pesco •

6,850 Non-Veg

The actual BMIs were not given, but a graph was provided (which can be viewed at /7060/816/F1). The graph shows that those on a vegan diet for more than 5 years had the lowest BMI, followed by those on a vegan diet for less than 5 years, for both men and women. This is impressive, as most weight loss is not sustained for more than one year. Of course, weight loss can sometimes be difficult even for vegans, and some people actually gain weight after becoming vegan. But, on average, the evidence supports the notion that becoming vegan is conducive to permanent weight loss.

In 2006, a report from EPIC-Oxford showed that over a 5 year period, vegans had the lowest weight-gain compared to meat-eaters, fish-eaters, and lacto-ovo vegetarians. The group who had switched to a diet of eating less animal products had the lowest weight gain of all. The group of people who reverted to a diet of more animal products had the most weight-gain, but this was not statistically significant. All groups had some weight gain over the 5 year period. Jack Norris945

If you really want to know what kinds of differences being a vegan makes, you have to ask a vegan. Janice Stanger, author of The Perfect Formula Diet, holds a Ph.D. in Human Development and Aging from the University of California, San Francisco, one of the country’s leading health sciences campuses. Her 2011 report Vegan From the Inside: Why People Love Plant-Based Diets946 is based on a survey of 2068 vegans which debunks six common myths about the vegan diet.

In this survey, 42.1% of respondents said they lost the weight they wanted to lose after switching to a plant-based diet. Another 36.3% started at their ideal weight and stayed there. Only 5.3% stated they gained weight after starting a vegan diet.

Furthermore, it could not be more apparent that the large majority of these vegans were happy with their decision for reasons other than fitting into their clothes, looking a little better in a bathing suit, or even easing their conscience. 73.4% said they enjoy cooking more. This is an important factor in weight loss because dieters generally have better control over food ingredients and the amount they eat when they cook it themselves.947

Some will say that metabolic efficiency is genetic. However, as with all matters of medical observation, the question of genetic inheritance is controversial in and of itself. It is usually a negligible amount (less than 2%) of cases of any particular disease that can actually be attributed to genetic factors. Obesity is so clearly linked to overeating and other lifestyle traits that genes should only even be considered if they these other factors have already been accounted for. Typically, it only looks as though fat people breed fat people because parents are giving their kids the same things which they themselves have been eating from an early age, and this leads to insulin problems early on. It is widely understood within the medical field that weight gain amongst immigrants where high-fat Western diets are prevalent demonstrates lifestyle rather than genetic factors.

Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that long-term vegetarians have lower levels of oxidative stress, body fat and cholesterol.948 The science behind the phenomenon is fairly simple and straightforward: anyone who eats a plant-based diet causes his body’s cells to be more receptive to insulin, which means he increases his metabolic efficiency with every meal. That is, vegans burn more calories as body heat than omnivores and lacto-ovo vegetarians do, rather than storing them as body fat. (If you are cold all the time, then you definitely need to eat more plant foods.)

In short, it is not fair to group vegans in with lacto-ovo vegetarians and then make judgments based on anecdotal evidence, because the statistics show that vegans are healthier than all other dietary groups, in terms of all the disease markers. Vegans are necessarily more informed and conscious on nutritional matters, unlike lacto-ovo vegetarians who have typically made their decision to abstain from meat on ethical grounds, but demonstrated a lack of understanding (or perhaps commitment) to the ideal by their failure to include dairy for the same reasons. It is true that there are many overweight vegetarians, because they consume too many calories from things like pasta and cheese. It is even true that some long-term vegans might eat the same things, replacing the dairy products with non-dairy alternatives, or that they might not experience a sharp decline in their body fat percentage over time. However, they are the rare the exception, not the rule.


A.15 Vegans are unhealthy/boring.

Given everything we have covered in Chapter 2, as well as everything we have covered in this appendix, it may as well be said that all humans are unhealthy, because vegans are by far the healthiest dietary demographic—even where it concerns professional and Olympic athletes. Clearly, the notion that vegans are boring is entirely subjective. One could argue that not going out and getting drunk every night, or gorging on flesh, is evidence of a greater degree of happiness and self-confidence, as though abstinence is a sign of having something better to do than engaging in escapism via intoxication of depressants. Nothing is more stimulating than simply being human, especially in areas that vegans naturally have advantages in compared to non-vegans: their mental faculties, energy levels, physical activities, sex lives, etc.

Ethical and nutritional considerations aside, vegans have more fun; they enjoy their food (much) more than omnivores, they experience less fatigue, and they have more energy and more libido. Hardly anyone goes vegan and regrets later it. Those who do are typically misinformed, having been led to believe that they have nutritional deficiencies and failing to recognize that if they do, they are easily solved by changes to their diet, not their ideology. (Such people are not vegans, but people who have eaten plant-based diets.) Far more likely is that a vegan will regret accidentally biting into a hamburger thought to be an imitation product, or something along those lines. Steve Jobs was convinced by his doctors and by his wife to stop being a vegan in order to save his life, which failed, and he spent the last few years of his life regretting that decision, dying an unhappy man because he had been pressured into betraying his own morals.

Obviously, vegans are neither unhealthy nor unhappy by virtue of their compassionate lifestyle, apart from whatever animosity they feel for the violence they see around them, which is the hallmark of all righteous people. And what is better—to gratify oneself and be happy, or to be righteous? Even that has nothing to do with any sort of problem emanating from them, but rather from society as a whole, because enough exposure to violence will break any otherwise sane mind. In a very real sense, vegans are the only sane people on this planet.

The objection that vegans are “boring” is subjective, and ignores the fact that there is an extremely disproportionate number of celebrities in the pop culture of Hollywood and the mainstream music industry who are vegetarians, and especially vegans, compared to the general population. If they are so “boring,” then why are they paid so much attention? Moreover, what is it about them that is so appealing—their good looks, their success, or their charming personalities? All are directly or indirectly related to their decision to practice compassion. If rich and famous celebrities have no trouble investing themselves in the vegan lifestyle, then we might say that the average vegan eats like a king; the fact that you can, too, on about $5/day, means you can treat yourself like royalty every single day of your life, starting right now.

Maybe your lifestyle is unhealthy and boring. Maybe when you wake up with a hangover or with constipated bowels and promise yourself you are not going to do again what you did the night before, you ought to take the hint and follow through. It should not take a near-death experience to realize that, boring or not, the difference is between having “a life” (which is no life at all) and having life, i.e. between life and death. If you cannot even see what is so appealing about the alternative, it is only because you have not tried it. So, once again, you need to ask someone who has.

In Stanger’s study (cited above, in A.14), 96.7% of vegan respondents said they enjoy the food they eat on a plant-based diet. How many omnivores can say that? A whopping 94.4% said they intend to stay on a 100% plant-based diet for the rest of their life, which would not be the case if they were not happy with it. As far as health is concerned, 68.6% of respondents noted they got healthier after starting a 100% plant-based diet, yet only 1.6% said their health declined. Most of the other respondents said they had excellent health before the switch, and that their health continued at that same desirable level. 64.3% regarded improving or maintaining good health as a very important reason to remain vegan. 55.2% said their energy level increased, as opposed to only 2.2% who said their energy level decreased. 44.2% said they enjoyed increased physical activity.949

But vegans are unhealthy and boring. Okay. And your mom smells.


A.16 Vegans are crazy/self-righteous/arrogant/condescending.

In the course of writing this book and discussing the ideas contained herein with many people, we have observed the tendency to deal not with the facts and arguments in favor of veganism, but rather to raise personal criticisms. Ad hominem arguments, of course, are prevalent in many places, but nothing seems to manifest them more swiftly than questioning dietary habits. It has been observed by members of all concerned parties that people who otherwise profess to be experts of nothing suddenly seem to be M.D.s or to hold Ph.D.s in nutrition as soon as the topic comes up. So while we admit that there is a certain amount of substance to this objection, which we will address more specifically in a moment, it must first be answered by being clear that however distasteful a person may find a vegan’s manner of presentation to be, this does not constitute a refutation of his paradigm, by any means. We cannot even relate how quickly the branding of “cult” gets applied to us, complete with all its negative, stereotypical associations, for no other reason than that we have published material informing the public about the Bible’s position against the eating of flesh!

Have you ever noticed that while human rights activists are generally respected and even lauded, when the victim being defended is a non human animal, the activist is often attacked and dismissed as “pushing their agenda,” “holier-than-thou,” “extremist,” “purist,” “cultish,” “forcing his ideas down your throat,” “evangelical,” etc.? Have you ever heard a member of Amnesty International campaigning to save a human life accused of one these? I bet not. Why is that? When a conflict arises between otherwise progressive people and the animal foods they like, they can completely abandon their belief in social justice and—ironically—and aggressively defend the opposite, the very systems of exploitation and violence against people, the environment and animals they claim to oppose. Free From Harm950

Veganism is not a belief. It is a movement based on facts. We’re not all a bunch of Jehovah’s Witnesses going door to door telling you what to do. Veganism is not a religion or a cult. An omnivore can argue whether or not it is morally justifiable to kill an animal, but they cannot dispute the facts. I don’t think of myself as “morally superior.” I will say that I hold myself to a higher code of ethics.

I don’t think veganism speaks to any religion more than the golden rule: Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Respect. Coexist. If that notion of equality and non violence makes me an extremist, then I guess that makes me an extremist. Why should that be a bad thing? I’m not some drone who goes along with what the man tells me to do. It’s healthy to question authority. If we didn’t, imagine what kind of world we’d live in.

I believe in veganism, as much I believe in science and evolution. If that makes me “preachy” then tough. I became vegan because of the facts, not faith. How is a vegan outreach pamphlet more “preachy” than the bible? It’s not. VegansofIG on Tumblr951

The fact that some vegans will resort to doing things that you do not approve of, just to get your attention, ought to indicate not only that it is important to them, but also that they have concluded from previous experience that such drastic means are necessary just to get through to you. If, in spite of that, you still cannot be brought to listen or to act reasonably on your own, then the problem is obviously on your end, and only on your end. Imagine trying to talk a serial pedophile rapist out of molesting children, only to be met with sneers and verbal abuse. What would you do—would you simply leave the discussion and let him carry on? It is far worse than that for vegans, who know that they are in the right and that meat-eaters are far more immoral and disgusting in their actions than any serial pedophile rapists.

Obviously God not only agrees with this sentiment, if we are to take Scripture seriously, but is actually the author of it. We have said that one only needs to pay minimal attention to the words that come out of the mouths of meat-eaters intent on justifying themselves to understand what Yahshuah meant when he said, “It’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of a man’s mouth that defiles a man.” Here are some examples of responses to vegans’ pleas for compassion; there are plenty more in Appendix C. Notice the persistent repetition of logical fallacies (especially the ad hominem fallacy) to substantiate the premise.

[re: “It is mad not to be vegan.”] You need to get over yourself. If you want to deny your own biological functionality and deprive yourself of the most delicious foods available, fine, that’s your call. But the chip on your shoulder is completely unwarranted. Face it, people like you don’t want everyone else to become vegan. In reality all you want is to have something to feel smug about, something that you can hold in front of everyone and tout as being morally and intellectually superior. But the truth is that if everyone became vegan, you’d be miserable because you couldn’t feel smug about anymore. Get a life. Meanwhile, I’ll go get a steak.952

The third-lowest level on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement is “Responding to Tone,” which is described as “Criticiz[ing] the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument.”953 There is plenty of that in the common response. In fact, the first (and, to date, the only) objection which the present book ever met with prior to publication was that the “tone” is “offensive.” As with virtually all negative responses to arguments in favor of veganism, what is conspicuously lacking in this criticism is any kind of information relevant to the issues raised herein, or anything substantiated by empirical data.

Veganism seems to be an extremely close-minded group of individuals who shut out the natural eating habits of mankind and have a condescending attitude when viewing others lifestyles.

No thanks.954

The second-lowest level on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement is “Ad Hominem,” which is described as “Attack[ing] the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.”955 Hence the common assertion that we, the authors, constitute a “cult” because we have taken the time to educate the public about the most widely published book in human history, which also theoretically serves as the basis of several of the world’s major religions. Or did you think we just came up with this and the other objections in this appendix in order to debunk straw man arguments, to make the task look as easy as it really is? In truth, all we have done is cut out some of the more explicit verbiage in order to make it suitable for a general audience. Suffice it to say that regardless of what the average person is actually thinking when he hears our message, the common response is meant to offend, on a personal level.

Some of these posts on here just add proof to the stereotype that vegans are self-righteous a-holes.956

The lowest level on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, “Name-calling,” is self-explanatory. This is where we typically find ourselves when we try to make our voices heard on behalf of the suffering animals. To be fair, though, the Christians typically respond with the second-lowest level, rather than the lowest, so we think there is hope for many of them, provided that they can actually be brought to listen, due to their notion of the Bible being an absolute authority, by which they are absolutely obligated (by their own standard) to listen and obey. Their problem is usually their desire to sin, because in Christians, this creates cognitive dissonance; they want to sin, but at the same time, they want God to like them.

This is the origin of the rather ironic “self-righteous” condemnation. In order to resolve the dissonance, it must be accepted either that God has no authority to judge (which is not a problem for someone who does not believe in God), that the speaker has no authority (which is impossible, without denying the Bible’s authority, if the argument is presented from the Bible), or that the standard which is applied to them does not actually come from God (which requires total rejection of the text, à la “That’s just your interpretation”). The only one of these that actually works is the “That’s just your interpretation” fallback, which often comes in the form of sheer denial and refusal to examine the text (while simultaneously pretending knowledge of it), but usually comes out as an accusation of self-righteousness. The implication is that the standard of righteousness has been set by the one quoting the text, rather than God or tradition, and that it is therefore necessarily illegitimate. Ironically, the same logic does not hold true whenever someone intentionally distorts the meaning, as evidenced by the fact that there are so many people who put their faith in the Church, and in evangelical charlatans who have no desire whatsoever to see you uncover the actual meaning. Without the tacit approval which this argumentative tactic gives to the accuser, his paradigm (which is already fragile due to the mandates of his conscience) will not withstand the judgment of Scripture and reason.

Anyone who has been charged with being “self-righteous” and has done enough introspection to discern whether this charge is true or not has likely discovered that the crux of the matter depends on whether or not his moral imperatives are grounded in reality. The difference between being righteous and “self-” righteous is a matter of being correct. The charge levied against vegans is only warranted if it is true that their arguments are invalid, as implicitly alleged; otherwise they are righteous, not “self-“ righteous. And this is God’s perspective on it, not ours. We have already seen that Scripture is extremely one-sided in its condemnation of the practice of eating meat, so anyone who examines the same material is obligated to rescind both the accusation of self-righteousness and the malicious spirit which invoked it. The Christian, moreover, is obligated to accept correction and further instruction in gratitude, meekness and humility. (The case for veganism or against eating flesh is not the only point of Scripture.)

There are no grounds whatsoever for criticizing righteous anger. This seems to be the whole point of objections like the one above. Firstly, to denounce a person who speaks the truth warrants the label “persecution,” whether any religious connotation is implied or not, and such actions are obviously motivated by the extreme discomfort that comes with having one’s cherished self-image called into question. This is not rational, and no good results from obstinacy.

Secondly, the meat-eater, unable to see beyond the emotional furor elicited by vegan provocations, only ever projects onto his intended enemy (no vegan sees himself as the enemy of other men) the same qualities which he despises about himself. The vast majority of ethically-motivated vegans do not endure the difficulties imposed by a world that stands sternly against them for no better reason than to validate their own superiority. Rather, they have a vision of what is right that is so clear and immediate that it demands loyalty no matter how difficult the struggle.

That is to say that when someone says, “It is mad not to be a vegan,” to then respond by saying, “You need to get over yourself” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and lack of will to understand what is being said. The point is not to proclaim one’s personal superiority to all other people—that is not the point at all. Rather, the point is to communicate that it is simply unfathomable that the ethical standards of the vast majority of the world’s population are so low that it is still accepted practice, even in the Information Age. Meat-eaters who respond this way seem completely unable to grasp that in the mind of a person making such statements, there is no fundamental difference between saying, “It is mad not to be a vegan” and “It is mad to be a serial killer.” The disgust apparent in such a statement stems both from the low standards that most people exhibit, and the ferocity with which they defend these deplorable standards.

Consider, then, the vegans’ point of view: What could be more arrogant than for a living organism to have no respect for other life forms, for the Creator, or for life itself (Creation), as though he, a mere man, is anything but a chemical accident or a speck of dust that is destined to perish, with no entitlement of any kind? What could be more condescending than to think that the only value of any other life is in how it tastes? What could be crazier than autointoxication that is deliberate, frequent and systematic (even habitual), leading directly to disease and death, without even allowing for periods of recovery? What could be more self-righteous than telling the world that God approves of such horrendous behavior, and that it should adopt their standard of (im)morality, in spite of the obvious moral conundrum and the dictates of conscience?

If vegans are any or all of these things, then at least we are not “normal,” evil, weak-willed and stupid. The fact is, we are humans, just like the rest of humanity, and if it ever seems like we are pushing our views on everyone else, just imagine how we feel when we are constantly bombarded with advertisements and other forms of propaganda which literally lie and distort the truth just to sell products that have no value. These things are everywhere in society, and the train of indoctrination and abuse never stops.

Like it or not, vegans are the ones who are living according to their own sense of morality, which is to say, according to conscience. If the standard of self-righteousness is indeed internally generated, then blame God for imbuing us with conscience. Either way, the implication that we are righteous is well received, and the tacit admission that you are not necessarily begs the question of why.

So you cannot pull out the “we’re better than you” card, however it is dressed up (e.g., “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” therefore there’s nothing wrong with sin—only in not sinning and telling others that they shouldn’t sin). That is not even logical, given that your claim to being better is based on the fact that you are willfully evil, whereas we are not, and that is the one thing that commonly defines and differentiates us. There is nothing wrong with charity, nothing wrong with compassion, and everything wrong with practicing neither of the two. Surely, we who are not sociopaths can agree that the world needs a lot more of both. That is exactly the basis of the vegan ethic.

I don’t feel superior because I’m vegan. The truth is I am vegan because I don’t feel superior to others. Michele McCowan957

The fact of the matter is that vegans are better than other people. Far from being delighted with this state of affairs, we lament it every single day. It makes us absolutely miserable to know that hundreds of millions of sentient creatures are suffering and dying every day at the hands of members of our own species, for no reason whatsoever and with no end in sight, and that there is next to nothing that we can do about it. Vegans are not terrorists who go around hurting others in order to push their views on them. That is what meat- and dairy-eaters do. Vegans are those few who wish that other humans would stop doing it, and have taken responsibility for themselves enough to not participate in this type of terrorism and genocide.

What vegans despise is not even the meat-eaters’ failure to achieve perfection; in that regard they are no different than vegans. Even Yahshuah did not claim to be “good” (Mark 10:18), in spite of having identified the goal as perfection (Matthew 5:48). What vegans despise is the meat-eaters’ failure to strive or even to allow for perfection, but instead to persecute the righteous and destroy their work. To declare perfection impossible and use this as an excuse to allow and even indulge in the very same sin which the Bible indicts as the root cause of suffering for all humans and nonhuman animals alike is absolutely reprehensible, and precisely why vegans know that they are “better” than others—not, ultimately, for what they have achieved, but for what they strive to achieve: righteousness.

Now, lest anyone dismiss this as violating the principle of “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” to say that we are not allowed to "judge" others in the sense of making determinations about their character is to undermine the foundation of righteousness itself. Yahshuah also commanded us to forgive a person seventy times seven times (Matthew 18:22), but in order to be forgiven (i.e., in order for him to be in a state of having been forgiven), one must first recognize that he has done wrong. We are also commanded to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), but this requires recognition of an “enemy” first. Most importantly, we are to beware false prophets and teachers, yet this begs the question of how we can avoid such perils without making numerous judgments.

It is as evident that the 1st century Christians would have earned the contempt of both modern Christians and meat-eaters for being judgmental, arrogant and condescending, as it is that they were as undeserving of such vitriol as we are now. It is the true Christian’s duty to judge others precisely because we are commanded to be righteous and to “make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey” everything which Christ has commanded. In order to obey the commandment to be righteous, as well as the more specific commandments in general, we must know the difference between right and wrong. This is impossible when someone turns a blind eye to sin and pretends that it is not actually sin, or that it matters not, due to “good intentions.”

Anyone can repent. With repentance comes forgiveness, and what is certain is that vegans would love nothing more than for meat-eaters to repent of their ways so that the world we live in can be filled with peace and compassion instead of suffering and death. Unless and until that happens, it is a vegan’s sacred duty not only to judge, but to vociferously warn anyone who will listen of the need to repent. Though this is undoubtedly interpreted to be an act of hate and arrogance by all those who are unwilling to receive the message, it is, in fact, an act of love, for it is impelled by the desire to save others from the consequences of their actions. So the righteous will continue forth, enduring persecutions for their acts of love and selflessness.


A.17 What about honey?

One honey bee produces 1/12th tsp of honey in a lifetime. So that’s 12 lives for 1 tsp which you use in your tea without a second thought. They work so hard for their food which you steal. 12 bees = one teeny spoon. Give them a break. Let them have what they make for themselves. Stop stealing, enslaving and killing! Bee vegan. Nik Anti-Speciesist958


Appendix B - Objections from Christians


For you, brothers, have been called to freedom, only do not use freedom as an occasion for the flesh, but through love serve one another. Galatians 5:13


B.1 That sounds like Gnosticism (or New Age propaganda).

Why are all Gnostics decidedly holier than all Christians, by the Christians’ own admission? This is truly indicative of just how obstinate and irredeemable the large majority of mainstream Christians really are, because it demonstrates that a religious view which they utterly detest, having been identified by no other association than a plain reading of Scripture, is more in line with Scripture than their own beliefs and ideals are. It is these same “Christians” who have made a mess of everything, and the Gnostics who have been persecuted. Yes, ethical vegetarianism is certainly a core tenet of Gnosticism. However, the reason is that it is a core tenet of the Bible and of true Christianity, of which Gnosticism is one derivation, though mainstream Christianity is not, except in name only.

There is, however, nothing “New Age” about veganism or vegetarianism. The New Age Movement has no central teaching regarding morality, and even if it did, it would not be inclusive of the vegan ideal. The closest influence which could be said to have had an impact of the New Age Movement is ancient Christianity itself, and then Hinduism, which generally regards all life as sacred. It is true that there are many Jews and Illuminists who are vegetarians and vegans, and even some notorious Satanists (e.g. Aleister Crowley) have been, but again, this only demonstrates that these religions so far removed from the ethics of the Bible are still more in conformity with it than mainstream Christianity, being, as they are, based partially on the laws of conscience, while mainstream Christianity is not.

There is nothing inherently morally repugnant about the view that the wholesale murder of innocent creatures is unjust, in any paradigm. Those who would resort to loose identifications to ascribe guilt by false association (i.e. bearing false witness), only theoretically justifying the position of the murders, also implicitly espouse it themselves, and have therefore taken sides against God and his holy prophets. This objection is simply a cross between the lowest (name-calling) and second-lowest (ad hominem) levels of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and does nothing to detract from the truth of the arguments from a plain reading of Scripture, such as we have presented in the present book. The main Scripture-based argument in support of this objection is from 1 Timothy 4, which we have addressed as the following objection (B.2).


B.2 “Abstaining from foods” is Satanic/Gnostic (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

We have touched on this briefly (Chapters 4, 5 and 12), and given the full explanation of the meaning of this passage in our discussion of Romans 14 in Chapter 10, where it is related to 1 Timothy 4:2. However, this may be seen as standing alone from the rest of the context of Scripture, so as to be employed as a seemingly disparaging remark about vegetarianism or any other dietary restriction. Of course, this is how the Christians typically read it, so it certainly deserves more attention than we have given it so far. The passage reads as follows, according to the NIV:

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Our main premise, first of all, is that humans were led away from their original vegan diet by evil gods. This needs to be understood before a realistic interpretation of the 1 Timothy passage can be gained. We already know that the word translated as ‘thanksgiving’ here (εὐχαριστίας, G2169) is a reference to the Eucharist, whence that term comes. We also know that the Eucharist is the same thing as the agape feast, though the connotation is generally the agape feast of the Passover, specifically. The literal meaning of this passage, then, is that no part of the Eucharist is unclean, and the intent is to say that all that is eaten at the table of Christ is acceptable for food, so if anyone despises a certain item, he is in error. This necessarily only applies to whatever has been blessed by the Eucharistic rites, which literally rules out everything that any “Christian” ever eats.

The only reason we have not addressed 1 Timothy 4:3 directly in this book is to give it its own place here, seeing as it is probably the most common (and by far the best and most reasonable) objection levied by Christians who have a basic familiarity with the Bible. Frankly, this is an ironic outcome, because it demonstrates how true Yahshuah’s remarks are concerning the standard that people are to be judged by (i.e. their own). We can understand how what is being described in this passage is difficult to make out, due (only) to the cultural barriers between the ancient Christians and the modern ones. The ancient Christians kept to themselves for the most part, so their views and their lifestyle are enshrouded in mystery, and they left no explanatory notes with their writings to aid succeeding generations in interpreting them. So this passage will only be understood at first glance by someone who already knows that the early Christians were all (necessarily) vegetarians and that they did not consider poisonous organic compounds which commonly pass for “food” as actual food. It is actually very important that we realize that the word ‘meat’ was not even in their vocabulary, and that when they spoke of βρῶμα (broma), they never meant ‘meat.’ Without this understanding, the passage is necessarily read with the meat-eaters’ bias, even when the word in question is properly translated as ‘foods,’ because animal flesh passes for food in our society, though not in our bowels or in our cell nuclei.

What makes no sense, based on this passage, either in isolation or in the greater context of Scripture, is the notion that everything is acceptable as food. The main source of confusion seems to be that the word for ‘foods’ in v. 3 (βρωμάτων, G1033) is rendered ‘meats’ in the KJV, a mistake which is repeated by the other versions of the KJV (including the ASV), the ERV, Darby, and the Catholic Bible (i.e. the most subversive of the English translations, minus the NIV). We have covered the issue of the actual meaning of ‘meat’ in KJV English, so we will not belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that the word should be ‘foods’ in modern English, not ‘meats.’ And we know that God did not create animals as foods to be received with thanksgiving, so even if we erroneously suppose that he was not making reference to the early Christian Eucharist, this could still in no be interpreted as meaning that animals are allowed, especially in light of the rest of Scripture.

When the rest of Scripture is taken into account, which thus negates the possibility that Paul was sanctioning meat unless he was deliberately contradicting himself, the meaning of the passage is necessarily understood as pertaining to dietary differences between different classes of vegetarians. In other words, this is the only passage in the whole of the Bible which could actually be invoked to justify a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet instead of making veganism a mandatory rule for all Christian communities, yet the Christians have not even employed it to this end because doing so would still necessary constitute an admission that it mandates vegetarianism, though not necessarily strict vegetarian. Even then, the present incarnation of the Eucharist is necessarily a vegan meal, because all true Christians of the present era are vegans, without exception. (Only he who obeys the commandments is a true disciple of Christ.)

The debate which Paul is settling in this passage is between the Christians, and those among them who got their views from the Essenes who were not necessarily Christians. Consider that he modifies his allowance with the phrase “by those who believe and who know the truth.” It ought to be understood by now that “belief” in the Bible consists of obedience, rather than simply designating oneself as a disciple of Jesus or whatever. This is the clearest indication we could possibly have that the very allowance being made here only applies to people who have already been set-apart from the world and are already rigorously practicing a vegetarian lifestyle. So to call us “heretics” based on this is to concede that we are the ones for whom the passage was written, being those who know the truth and practice faith, in contrast with the “orthodics.”

Moreover, the fact that Paul describes the foods he is allowing as “consecrated by the word of God and prayer” necessarily means that they are foods which have been regarded as suitable according to both Essene custom and the rest of Scripture! He is not making an allowance for new foods, but simply reiterating that the customs which are in place—being fundamentally vegetarian—are enough, and that no new rules need to be applied. The hypocrites, then, are clearly those bringing in “destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1), which entails condemning certain foods which God made an explicit allowance for in the Garden of Eden. We think there is plenty of cause to wonder whether this could possibly apply to anyone more than Christians who eat or advocate low-carb diets.

Furthermore, the blind association with ancient Gnostic sects which typically characterizes this objection is completely arbitrary and based on ignorance of both the Gnostic and the Essene/Christian beliefs and practices. Paul is a describing a particular group which both shunned marriage and celebrated the Eucharist and/or the agape feast. Therefore, it is not a general statement that anyone who advocates any one of the things he describes is a damnable heretic, rather than a concise description intended to help Timothy identify the differences between the two groups. If it was actually the case that it was a general statement, then no 1st century Christian would pass his test, for they all celebrated the Eucharist and partook in the agapē feasts as essential characteristics of their faith! They were, in fact, more serious about these observances than Christians today are about their own Eucharist and the so-called holidays.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that the contention is between the Christians and the general Essene population, which also forbid marriage (as discussed in Chapter 11), as both issues are expressly covered right there in the passage in question. We have already established that the question of marriage was actually the major point of contention between the major sects of Essenes—they being, essentially, the Zealots and the Christians, respectively. So the condemnation here pertains to the various people who would later be loosely associated with the Zealots, as “hypocrites” (v. 2, rendered “hypocritical liars” in the NIV), a word which means ‘actors’ in Greek, and which Yahshuah also employed against the Pharisees (out of whom the sect of Zealots was sprung). In other words, they had the appearance of godliness, which, if we are to take the description Paul gives in his other epistle to Timothy (3:2-8) seriously at all, can only possibly mean that the one thing they had right was their commitment to a vegetarian diet.

In other words, it is not their diet that Paul is condemning, but their hypocrisy. This really should be common sense. The fact that the Zealots ultimately sought restitution and continuation of the Temple sacrifices demonstrates just how hypocritical they really were, as well as how they had the “form of godliness,” as their justification was that they aimed to strictly adhere to the Law of Moses.

Paul is clearly not equating abstinence from meat with doctrines of devils, but rather insisting that Christian fellowship be based on mutual obedience to Yahshuah’s teachings and to God’s law in general, which necessarily entails vegetarianism as a cardinal rule. The point is that attempting to make further specifications about what is or is not to be eaten, in a way comparable to the specifications of the Law of Moses, is a wasted effort, because all foods that were part of the Eucharist were allowed, as nothing was part of this meal if we were not designed to eat it. (In the modern application, the condemnation would apply to no one so much as those advocating gluten-free diets.) He also condemns obsessing over genealogies for the same reason (1 Timothy 1:4)—the difference being that he does not call the issue about diets a “foolish question” as he does the latter (Titus 3:9). The alternative, to suggest that Paul identifies vegetarianism as a doctrine of devils, is to suggest that he himself (e.g. Romans 14), and every other prophet and apostle espoused demonic doctrines, and that the Bible is little more than a book chock full of heresy.

We concede that the Bible does not explicitly and consistently mandate veganism, necessarily, though it certainly does advocate what would essentially constitute a plant-based diet (just not a strictly plant-based diet). What it proscribes, in a nutshell, is violence (especially killing), and therefore animal slaughter, and therefore meat. The confusion which the early Christians experienced concerning the difference between what would today be called veganism and what would today be called vegetarianism is therefore understandable, even as many vegetarians are similarly confused now (presumably because they do not understand that they are directly contributing to the suffering of dairy animals by consuming dairy products, or else have chosen vegetarianism for other reasons), and there is ambiguity as to whether it is necessarily wrong to do other things that are related to this matter, which could be seen as inflicting harm on animals to a lesser degree than killing. There would be no room for confusion, however, if the difference was simply between eating meat and abstaining from it; anyone can see that an animal must be dead to be eaten, and that the difference is vast, and not open to interpretation.

1 Timothy 4:3 definitively establishes that Paul did not require the members of his congregations to be raw vegans, or fruitarians, or that they eat only vegetables instead of a variety of vegan options. What it does not do is establish that he made allowances for all types of “foods” which are not foods at all. If anything, this shows the wisdom of the Bible, because variety is essential to proper nutrition. It also shows the compatibility between Paul’s view and the mandate of the Garden of Eden, wherein meat was proscribed, but everything else was allowed. (The common perception that the Garden of Eden diet is frugivorous is mistaken, as herbs were also prescribed, first and foremost.)

In any case, what the Bible condemns, implicitly or explicitly, is only an afterthought to what it mandates, which is the ethical spirit of veganism. Due to the present conditions of animal farming, this mandate does not allow for consumption of dairy products any more than it does meat, because animals on dairy farms suffer far more than others, and still wind up in the same place, as do the calves from whom the milk is stolen, or the chicks that are born male and therefore have no value to the farming industry. Suffice it to say that regardless of whether or not he ever drank milk, Yahshuah would not condone or even make an allowance for the products of the modern dairy industry, and neither do we.


B.3 Creation exists for God’s glory, and no other purpose (so it doesn’t matter what we do to it, up to and including the senseless and willful destruction of it).

Does deliberately destroying God’s creation glorify him? If so, then why does he say that he created the earth to be inhabited, not to be laid waste (Isaiah 45:18)? To glorify God is to serve him in the capacity he wants: as a steward of the natural environment. This is the very purpose of our existence.

The unspoken assumption held by most humans, and especially Christians, who believe that their own kind (conveniently) is the pinnacle and centerpiece of God’s entire creation, is the idea that being the most powerful and the most valuable in God’s eyes equates to freedom to do whatever they want with all lower beings within his creation. However, as we have shown throughout this book, the real “dominion” over our world belongs to God, and is delegated only to those who do his will. Yahshuah taught, personified and exemplified this will above other humans, and has been given dominion over the rest of us because of his obedience, so it is his teachings to which we must appeal and aspire. What he taught is that the servant is not above the master, and that to become a master, one must act in the role of a servant, in love and humility. It is not the proud and foolish who hold the earth in their possession, in this system, but the meek and reverent.

The principle that ‘might makes right’ is as dangerous to the one who espouses it as it is illogical and counterproductive to every facet of well-being. To make enemies of every other species just for the sake of food preferences is to make oneself an enemy of the master of those creatures—God. Those who reflexively give all their allegiance to their own kind, without thought or consideration to the fact that the collective will and behavior of that species is evil, will not be chosen out of that species to rule God’s kingdom. Should we desire to be chosen for this, then we are obligated to judge so objectively, and simultaneously love so magnanimously (‘great’ + ‘spirit,’ or, alternatively, regarding ‘all souls’), that we will give favor to those outside our own species if they are more righteous and innocent, and we will not be automatically predisposed to counting them as less important just because they are weaker, as if this justifies trampling upon them to whatever extent we only think we can get away with it. Either way, God will hold each and every one of us to account for our willingness or unwillingness to be obedient.


B.4 Ethical and environmental causes are not important enough to care about.

In other words, “Do you believe in Jesus?” (or, “I believe in Jesus”). “That’s all that matters. Don’t bother me with this stuff. You should be focusing on more important things, like telling the world about Jesus. You obviously don’t have the spirit of Christ.” That is the extent of the preprogrammed response; whether “You’re going to hell and leading others astray” gets thrown in there as well depends on the individual.

Consider the base hypocrisy of this line of reasoning for a moment. The same people who employ it will typically give a great deal of attention to small and personal matters, especially in grave matters. For example, if a Christian’s friend’s relation gets diagnosed with cancer, he will say something like “I’ll pray for you both,” and the supplication will inevitably entail a miracle cure. Moreover, the closer it hits to home, the more likely the Christian will be to get personally involved, and to attempt to involve God, who obviously neither delights in sin and its consequence (death), nor listens to such supplications. If you care so much about people who get sick, then why are you so averse to giving the illness a proper diagnosis, rather than eagerly hoping and begging God for a miraculous cure, when he is the one who designed it to work this way?

“What would Jesus do,” as the Christians like to say? Upon the testimony of Scripture, Yahshuah would act like a doctor. He would tell you what you did wrong, chastise you for taking it as far as you have, make an attempt to get you to heal yourself or perhaps even force a recovery himself, and then tell you not to persist in the cause from that point on. At best, the prognosis will be, “Your faith has made you well. Go and sin no more.” Without this faith, there is no cure for the disease, and without repentance, there is no salvation from its consequence.

Yet when we try to advocate the very same things as Yahshuah, and for the very same reasons, we are hated, mocked, ridiculed, and in other ways persecuted by those who claim to be following Yahshuah’s teachings and commands. How logical is that? Moreover, this happens for no other reason than that these people do not want to admit that ethical and environmental causes are important enough not just to care about, but to obsess about. A true Christian knows that establishing the kingdom of heaven on Earth through the dissemination of “the truth” is the very reason Yahshuah came into this world, that he preached no other gospel while he was here, and that it is also even the purpose of the Christian’s own existence.

As for the ridiculous notion that something as important and absolutely essential to life as diet would not be that important to God, especially in comparison with “more important” things like the mainstream Christians’ notion of “salvation,” “Jesus dying for our sins” and other devilish doctrines, consider that until only the last 100 years or so, groups of humans have not been able to take for granted their food supply like they can now. Maybe what we put into our mouths does not seem important because most people have no understanding or appreciation of how many resources, both material and human, go into producing enough food for 7 billion humans (or 6 billion plus billions of livestock, seeing how 1 billion are chronically malnourished due to animal farming). Even given that this level of ignorance and lack of compassion directly results in the suffering and death of millions of humans and hundreds of billions of animals each year, to say that this issue “isn’t important” is to choose death over life, while believing, in mere pretense, that God approves of such a decision. Christians may object that to care about the matters of “this world” is “fleshly” and therefore unbecoming of a proper Christian, but this world is actually all about eating flesh (is flesh not “fleshly,” you hypocrites?), and veganism, far from a dietary protocol (it is the flesh-eaters that are obsessed with food!) constitutes concern for matters of the other world, the one to which Yahshuah directed us—the kingdom of heaven.

We must wonder as to the integrity of a viewpoint which would appeal to focusing on higher ideals in order to defend practices that are altogether carnal. Is it in keeping with the spirit of Christ to fight for killing and gluttony, to resist progress and compassion in favor of wanton violence and debauchery—both physical and spiritual? Did Christ really come to free Christians from the Law, so that they could not only revel in whatever amount of sin and unrighteousness they see fit, but even to declare that such freedom was his main purpose in coming to Earth, and thus constitutes the essence of Christianity? At what point does God get to tell us what God thinks about what God thinks? Truly, we say, it should be at every point.


B.5 So what if the world is being destroyed? God will fix it, and don’t you dare try that because it’s his job.

This specific objection is addressed many times throughout the present book. However, it certainly is important enough to merit a succinct answer here. For starters, you will recall that it is not actually God’s job to fix it, because he is not the one who broke it, and he has told us explicitly and emphatically throughout the ages that we must do it ourselves. Justice demands that those who destroy also make reparations. It is not as though God is a physical being, as we are, so that he could simply pull off such a miracle without violating this rule, and we know that the gods who fashioned this world are seeking out those who, like themselves, are concerned enough with the Restoration that they would make concerted efforts to see it through.

The main problem with the reasoning behind this objection is that if we do not stop and begin to undo the effects of the Fall, then we will never create the kingdom of heaven. Of course, it is inevitable that we will do this at some point, or else that we will come to our end, because the system that is currently in place is anything but sustainable. Anyone who claims to have no interest in the future state of the world is either insincere (especially if he has children of his own) or is overtly malicious and unscrupulous, and has no cause to argue about ethics. So much for the “So what?”

Now, if it is acknowledged that our planet’s ecosystem has been imperiled (and no one will protest otherwise), then it must also surely be acknowledged that the only responsible party for its present fragile state is mankind. The majority of ecologists and environmentalists agree that Earth’s ecosystem is so precisely and delicately balanced that the extinction of any one species or the destruction of any one habitat can have far-reaching repercussions, possibly even resulting in total system failure (at least in some cases). The only species that our planet can certainly do without is our own. In fact, at present, we are the only one that poses any kind of a threat to it whatsoever. Even the deadliest known viruses and bacteria have nothing on us in terms of how we constantly, systematically extinguish life, all in the name of putting pork chops and chicken wings on our dinner plates.

This is not just hyperbole. Ecologists and environmentalists also agree that mankind’s removal from Earth’s ecosystem would result in immediate and dramatic improvements to its conditions. This demonstrates that God designed our planet to be self-sustaining, with mankind’s role being not to merely preserve but to improve upon the gifts he has given us. This can only be accomplished by studying his principles and methods of creation and then mimicking them. Clearly, our planet was also designed to withstand mistakes on our part, but it was also clearly not designed to withstand the persistent, extended state of outright rebellion against God’s will that mankind has waged for some 6000 years now. Moreover, the objection is aimed at asserting that the only thing that matters is the destination of the individual soul, so the fact that no sinner will inherit all this needs to be accounted for.

Whatever responsibilities God will have for salvaging our planet will only exist because mankind has completely forfeited any and every responsibility God ever placed upon it in the first place. Therefore, to say that he is pleased with this situation and would be enraged by any attempts on the part of humans to forestall or interfere with his prophesied need for intervention is to say either that God delights in sin or that he never really meant for mankind to treat this planet as anything more than its playpen, contrary to the plain testimony of Scripture. To put it bluntly, only those who care enough about ethical and environmental issues to at least live in accordance with the most reasonable expectations of stewardship will ever be part of the system he intended, which we call the kingdom of heaven. The “plagues” of God’s wrath are for those who resist the necessary changes—especially the Christians who invoke this objection in order to teach others to be as lawless as they are, in the name of the lawgiver himself.


B.6 What about the “sweet savor” (or “pleasing aroma”) in Genesis 8:21? That proves that God enjoys the smell of cooked meat, and that eating it is therefore acceptable and pleasing to him.

This is actually a fairly reasonable objection, so if you have ever thought this way, then know that there is no cause for antipathy in that. In fact, if you find the sentiment revolting, then it is safe to say that you are likely to find the actual mandates of Scripture to be in agreement with your conscience. This is a tough question, but fortunately it can be cleared up with a little examination of the scriptural context.

There are actually two possible interpretations of this peculiar passage, and therefore two ways which we need to debunk the premise of the objection in order to dispel all doubts about the veracity of our position. The first relates to the greater context of Scripture. The second, which is the one we have presented briefly in Chapter 6, relates to textual analysis of the term in its own context, in isolation from the rest of Scripture.

The term in question isהניחח (hanîhoah, H5207) ריח (rêah, H7381). Twenty-six of the thirty instances of ריח (‘odor’) in the Hebrew Tanakh are in the Pentateuch. Only five passages use it at all apart from the description of הניחח (‘soothing’), and this one uses it both ways, so we can infer from other passages that it is meant to say ‘soothing smell,’ the way it is used twenty-two times in Leviticus and Numbers alone, always pertaining to sacrifice. The fact that it is meant to apply to Noah’s sacrifice is evident both in the context of Genesis 8, and in its use elsewhere in Scripture, so this is not in question.

Of the remaining four instances, two are in Song of Songs and used poetically to describe Solomon’s sexual escapes, and are therefore irrelevant to us. The other two use it with הניחח (hanîhoah) —particularly in the forms ניחח (nîhoah) and ניחוחיהם (nîhowehem). This last one is particularly problematic, as it has significance to both possible interpretations. Both of these instances are in Ezekiel, so these are the key to understanding what was inferred from the Pentateuch in later generations, while Hebrew was still a living language, and therefore what the actual meaning in Genesis 8 is.

Genesis 5:29 explicitly states that Noah’s name derives from the same origin as H5207. Of course, that was not really his name, and the much older neo-Sumerian texts refer to him as Utnapishtim, which means ‘he found life,’ the Hebrew equivalent of which bears no resemblance to Noah in terms of its pronunciation or its meaning. Whatever Noah’s real name was, we simply are not privy to that information, so we are left to infer that the writer of Genesis gave him the name of Noah on account of this episode, as a way of associating the sacrifices described in Numbers and Leviticus with him, for he is the one who evidently instituted the practice, or is at least the first who is recorded as having performed it. This fact is the best substantiation we have for determining how the sacrificial system developed under Moses’ direction, when Moses himself was against it (as was God), because the authorship of Genesis is attributed either to Moses or to someone very close to him. It also shows that Moses’ system was intended to be temporary, just as Noah’s single sacrifice was temporary.

That being the case, the term “soothing aroma” was a constant reminder of the fallen state of Man, as a throwback to the days of Noah. It is as if Moses, in writing Genesis and choosing a name for Noah, intended to convey that the practice of eating meat is what caused the Flood, and that it would lead to further calamity if it became widespread again. This would have been understood by the prophets, though not by the ignorant priests, and this is where Ezekiel (as a prophet and a knowledgeable priest) comes in.

In this, the first of the two possible interpretations, the term in question (הניחח ריח, rêah hanîhoah) is a description only, and implies nothing that would make it pleasing or acceptable to God. We invoke the greater context of Scripture to demonstrate this. Yahweh, through Ezekiel, blatantly calls it a “sin” (or “trespass”) which reviles God and provokes him to wrath. These are God’s own descriptions of it, according to Ezekiel.

“And I also gave them up to laws that were not good, and right-rulings by which they would not live. And I defiled them by their own gifts, as they passed all their first-born through the fire, so that I might stun them, so that they know that I am יהוה. Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Yisra’ĕl, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus said the Master יהוה, “In this your fathers have further reviled Me, by committing trespass against Me. When I brought them into the land for which I had lifted My hand in an oath to give them, and they saw all the high hills and all the thick trees, they offered their slaughterings there and provoked Me with their offerings there. And they sent up their sweet fragrance [הניחח ריח]. there and poured out their drink offerings there.”’” Ezekiel 20:25-28

Needless to say, it does not follow from the mere use of “soothing aroma” in Genesis 8:21 that God approves of sacrifice/flesh-eating, unless God has a severe case of schizophrenia. As for the second possible interpretation, wherein we have isolated the meaning of rêah hanîhoah, this is actually necessary for understanding the true meaning of the text, and therefore how it fits into the greater context. In other words, to explain what the meaning of this peculiar phrase is in this particular context is to explain the meaning of its use in all contexts in Scripture.

As for the second interpretation, as delivered in Chapter 6 without this lengthier explanation, the meaning of rêah hanîhoah in the context of Genesis 8:21 is obfuscated by the meaning of hanîhoah, evidently due to the choice of Noah for the name of the patriarch. Normal translations typically use “burnt offering” throughout the Old Testament, so this should show that the translations recognize that something is amiss in their understanding of the passage. A cross-reference with Isaiah 34 will show that our rendering of ‘the stench of rotting corpses’ is valid, and it should be understood that this is certainly in keeping with the Genesis 8 narrative, where all land animals save those aboard the Ark were killed by the Flood and submerged for several months, obviously putrefying.

It is clear that the writer intended to say that God smelled the “stench of death” and decided he would never perform this act again. But God did not repent of killing the men he did; he repented of cursing the ground. This strongly implies that the ground was made unholy by the rotting corpses.

The fact that hanîhoah should indeed be translated as ‘of death’ rather than ‘pleasant’ or ‘sweet,’ etc., is perfectly evident in the prefixed preposition (the ה). If it were ‘pleasant,’ that would be H5276. Other related words corroborate the fact that it is death which is being spoken of, and that there is no positive connotation, except in the sense that someone who has died has “gone home” or is “resting,” and his survivors are consoled. Such words, with their short definitions in Strong’s, include 5091 (lamented, related to 5092: wailing), 5106 (hinder), 5115 (home), 5116 (pasture), 5117 (rest), 5150 (comfort, compassion), 5162 (sorry), 5163 (consolation), 5181 (descend [as in nephilim]), 5183 (rest of death), 5207 (comfort) and 5208 (sacrifices). So which one makes more sense: that God smelled the “sweet aroma” of something he says everywhere else that he detests, but suddenly changed his mind, so that he both liked it and decided he did not want to do it again, or that he smelled the “stench of death” and was so appalled that he regretted what Man had forced him to do?

One could argue that the use of rêah hanîhoah in Genesis 8:21 is no different than any other use of the term ‘soothing aroma.’ However, keeping in mind the meaning of the name of Noah itself, the term actually means, literally, ‘the smell of Noah.’ Nîhoah is clearly just the longer form of Noah; the word hanîhoah means ‘of Noah.’ This is clearly demonstrated by the use of ניחח (nîhoah) in Ezekiel 6:13, which is arbitrarily given a different rendering, usually pertaining to incense, thus demonstrating the bias of the translators, though it is the same phrase in Hebrew, minus the ה which designates the preposition, ‘of.’ So every use of “sweet fragrance” or “sweet aroma,” “sweet savor,” etc., is actually supposed to be read as ‘Noah’s smell,’ as in, ‘the fragrance of Noah’s sacrificial offering.’ To apply any sort of moral justification to this practice just because one man (Moses) who also adamantly detested it seems to have used an adjective to describe it (like saying that strawberries are “sweet,” without giving any indication of whether or not the speaker actually likes strawberries), when in fact he only used the appropriate name to indicate possession, while the rest of Scripture has no shortage of denunciations of it, is absurd.


B.7 Jesus ate lamb, therefore it’s okay if we do.

This has been dealt with in Chapter 12. We provide a brief recounting here of one of the main arguments against this objection from that chapter, for quick reference:

Even supposing by some wild stretch of the imagination that Mark and Luke did intend to assert that Yahshuah and his disciples ate lamb on the 14th, this begs the question of why none of the Gospels make any mention of it. It is not as though they have failed to describe the meal’s other contents. Matthew and Mark mention bread (26:26; 14:22), wine (26:27; 14:23) and a dip (26:23; 14:20); Luke mentions bread (22:19) and wine (22:17); John mentions bread and dip (13:26). Are we really to suppose that all these items were detailed, but somehow the centerpiece of the traditional Israelite Passover meal failed to be mentioned by all four writers, even once? Obviously it is precisely the opposite: the evangelists wanted to make it abundantly clear that lamb was not eaten at the Last Supper.

A better question to ask than whether Yahshuah actually ate lamb, though there is no cause to suppose this from Scripture, would be why he felt the need to get so militant in response to the merchants and money-changers doing their trading in the Temple in Jerusalem if not because he was opposed to the sacrifice, and why he invoked the Prophets in defense of this position, or why the Essenes and Zadokites in general were so opposed to it, when it would otherwise seem to be in keeping with the Law of Moses. This is exactly the issue which caused the Gnostics to dismiss the entire Hebrew tradition of the Old Testament. “How can a God who is defined as Love,” goes the argument, “actually take pleasure in the unnecessary slaughter of one of his own innocent creations?” Rather than asking whether Yahshuah ate meat, you should be asking how to reconcile the notion that he may have with the fact that this would necessarily imply that he was not as morally upright as his own disciples and kin, contrary to all the available evidence, or how to reconcile the fact that he did not allow others to with the fact that the Law of Moses allows for it.

Although we have covered this in the main text of the present book, there is still much to be said about, because some Christians are content to simply pull a single verse out of the Bible to use against the rest of it, and actually think that they have won the argument. Needless to say, the contradiction needs to be resolved one way or the other before it can be regarded as conclusive, so we have addressed the matter of the Bible’s deliberate subversion in further detail in Satan’s Synoptics. Readers of the present book are directed to that one for our complete response to this objection.


B.8 Jesus ate fish, and even fed it to others, so it’s okay if we do.

This is simply not true. As this is an argument from a negative premise (that is, as it does not work to establish the case for veganism from Scripture), and as it involves the deliberate subversion of Matthew and John, we have left off discussion of this topic here in order to address it more fully in Satan’s Synoptics. See also the above answer (B.7).


B.9 Peter was told to kill and eat (Acts 10:10-15). (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

Many Christians cite Peter’s vision in Acts 10:10-15 as a divine decree to no longer classify many (presumably any) animals as unclean. As ridiculous as this one is, because it flat out ignores the fact that no aspect of the Law is ever invalidated in any place in the Bible, much less to such an extent as the abolition of all of the dietary restrictions, it is actually a common response to the question of whether or not Christians can eat meat. For example, it was the only justification for upholding carnism in response to the question “Can Christians eat any meat?” on when we sought to find how this question had been answered. (The working title of the present book was originally Can Christians Eat Meat?) changed its layout since we accessed it, and navigating its answer is a nuisance now, so we provide a screenshot of this monumental fail of logic, from the time before the layout changes.959



As discussed in the present book, Peter’s dream pertained to whether or not uncircumcised men should be allowed to join Christian communities, and nothing whatsoever to do with foods. Acts 10:28-29 specifically describes Peter’s explanation of the simple metaphor as being a declaration or instruction from God for the Jews to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, which the Law of Moses defined as “unclean.” That debate was only settled, thanks to Peter’s dream and explanation, incidentally, as an afterthought of the council which reiterated and enforced the strict no-meat rule as its only mandate over all Christians throughout the world.

When Peter was told to “kill and eat” the unclean meats, his response was “Never!” implying that he would not do it because God himself had forbidden it. Furthermore, the command was “Feed my lambs.” This, too, implies service to the earth and its creatures, in line with the expectation of stewardship and dominion, i.e. in line with Yahshuah’s teachings. So no matter how one looks at it, invoking Acts 10 can only be done in support of the vegetarian ideal as an application of the prohibition of meat throughout Scripture.


B.10 Ravens brought flesh to Elijah (1 Kings 17:6). (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

Did Elijah eat the ravens? Did he enslave them, exploit them and abuse them for his selfish interests? This objection ignores the main point of the text, which is that Elijah was in the trouble he was in because he stood up for what was right by opposing the animal slaughter industry, and God had compassion on him. Just as important is that the ravens belonged to God; they did not serve Elijah because Elijah forced them to, but because Elijah served God! Nor did God send him the ravens for him to eat them, as he did so begrudgingly with the pigeons after the Exodus, but to deliver bread to him.

Like Peter, Elijah presumably would have rather starved than eat the ravens, had they not brought him any food. This would have been the one and only time eating the flesh of another creature would have been justified throughout his life, and one of the rare instances in Scripture, yet he still abstained and ate the bread, while most flesh-eaters would not have thought twice about killing and cooking them. This fact alone speaks volumes about the standard of righteousness, as well as the proverbial prophet’s commitment to it.

Even the bread was just a temporary measure to sustain Elijah’s life, certainly not a sanction for him to use the birds to his advantage. Likewise, Noah sent out birds to help him with one specific function, but this was to their advantage: in the end, they were set free and did not return. These were not bred for the purpose of their captivity, but taken onto the Ark to be saved from death. Even supposing Elijah had used the ravens for his advantage, this would in no way invalidate the many commands not to destroy their lives, because their flesh was not needed. Furthermore, this is essentially a miraculous event, and has no bearing on anything we can say about modern agricultural practices, because God intervened in Elijah’s life to accomplish his will, and God can do whatever he likes, but we cannot. You could put yourself into a situation like the one he was in and then say “I’m justified now,” but Elijah was in his situation because he obeyed, and then, when he was tested, he still obeyed, and that is why he was the Prophet.

This is a lesson as to how Man ought to interact with the rest of Creation in a mutually beneficial way. God’s compassion on Elijah demonstrates how blessed we will be if we live in harmony with Earth’s other species. Can you even imagine what kind of paradise we would create for ourselves if we had a symbiotic relationship with them, to the point that they actually served us when they were needed, if only because God was no longer angry with us, but actually went out of his way to reward us and take care of us just for being obedient to him in this one thing? This is what the prophets have envisioned, and what will naturally come about from the universal acceptance of the mandate of the kingdom of heaven ideology.


B.11 Animals don’t suffer because they’re not human, so we have no moral obligation to stop. Only humans have souls. (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

This ties in with A.3, A.3a and A.3b. We are addressing the moral implications here, but unfortunately for the meat-eaters, it fails the test of scientific scrutiny, as well. The inherent consciousness and sentience of nonhuman animals is well accepted by mainstream scientists and psychologists, and unopposed by all but the Christians’ own notorious ideological foes, led by none other than Marian Dawkins, the wife of world-famous atheist advocate Richard Dawkins. Anyone who does not already accept the consciousness and sentience of nonhuman animals as scientific fact, regardless of moral implications or whether specific associations are made with human intelligence, is directed to Marc Bekoff’s article “A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: No Pretending,” published June 20, 2013 in Psychology Today.960 Bekoff’s response in The Huffington Post to Dawkins’ arguments against him in her book961 is also worth a read.

For the good of our own species, and to correct all the arrogance that has been generated from holding the opposite conclusion, we humans need to adopt a perspective of assuming that all animal life forms are both intelligent and sentient, regardless of whether we can even verify this by our various methods of poking and prodding, which has already been done. Consider this from the mainstream Christian perspective: Francis of Assisi is probably the most beloved of any Catholic saint in the long history of the Church’s domination of Western civilization, yet he preached to birds. We can either write him off as crazy, or take a hint, assuming that he knew something others did (and do) not, which he arrived at by achieving a state of innocence that gave him the eyes to see things others dare not. In reality, Francis was no better or worse than most vegans in this, his defining characteristic. Even so, the whole objection is moot, as the capacity to suffer does not depend on any being’s anthropomorphic association with humans from our perspective, but on the anatomical characteristics which we have in common.


B.12 We’re all sinners, so if eating meat is a sin, the point is moot. It doesn’t matter what we do. (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

Christians routinely object that we are all sinners, so if eating meat is a sin, the point is moot. (They do this in other areas, too, but rarely in such a way as to actually advocate the sin in question.) This amounts to belief that God will reward the senseless waste of our own lives, the lives of animals, and the life of the planet itself with everlasting life. This, in a nutshell, comprises the vanity of the world before the Flood—thinking that God will look the other way while we feast on the flesh of his creations, or that we will not get what is coming to us. Nothing could possibly be any more antithetical to Scripture, reason, (worthwhile) religion, conscience, human virtue, propriety, justice and common sense. We have already established that God will hold everyone to account for his sins, and base his judgments accordingly.

This objection relies on the premise established by B.4, that spreading the Gospel is more important than anything else for a Christian. We agree, which is why this particular message is so important, and why we ourselves have dedicated our lives to the true gospel. As we have so thoroughly demonstrated, the true Gospel of Christ is succinctly defined as the message of “the remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven.” It should be clear by now that sins cannot be remitted if there is not first repentance on the part of the sinner, and that there can be no repentance if one is not even aware of one’s sins.

Christianity, therefore, is the primary impediment to the fulfillment of the mandate of the Gospels, as it is willingly complicit in perpetuating the slaughter of billions of conscious beings annually and, consequently, subjecting its adherents to suffering, death and, ultimately, laying the groundwork for their everlasting destruction in the lake of fire. In so doing, Christianity also forestalls the establishment of the kingdom of heaven by being its foremost obstacle. If you really care about what God thinks, stop deferring to the blind shepherds who are leading you straight to Gehenna. Stop being a “Christian,” and start being a disciple of Christ, which you only begin to do by receiving the Gospel and repenting of your sin, and which you only accomplish when your life is over and you have seen it through to the end. You may not like it, but the crown of life is not given to anyone who sins, and that is all there is to it. God does not negotiate with terrorists.


B.13 There will be animal sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom. (Therefore enslaving, torturing, raping, murdering, eating and otherwise using and abusing animals for our pleasure is perfectly in keeping with Scripture.)

Some Christians point to the fact that Ezekiel (40:38-43; 43:18-27) prophesied that the sacrifices will be renewed when the Third Temple is built, with the understanding that this will take place … well, forever, or until the end of time. This is also the main gist of the Temple Scroll, and an important point in other ancient manuscripts such as the War Scroll. As with the Zealots who held this view, and all Jews that have come after them, this is just political Zionism without even the veneer of a mask. The context of this objection always suggests that this was a good thing, as opposed to a prophecy regarding the Abomination of Desolation. (The Christian that mentioned it to us even invoked it is proof of sacrifices in the millennial kingdom, as though Ezekiel’s prophecy somehow invalidates the rest of the prophecies in Scripture.) At the very least, it is a reasonable objection, because it is based on assumptions drawn from Scripture, and we are obligated to acknowledge the contradiction and formulate a response.

We found this argument as an answer to the question “Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom?” on gotquestions.org962 (a site which pretends to answer questions with the Bible, but really just uses the Bible to advocate mainstream Christian doctrines). Here are some excerpts of the article, followed by our responses.

It is incorrect to think that animal sacrifices took away sins in the Old Testament, and it is incorrect to think they will do so in the millennial kingdom. Animal sacrifices served as object lessons for the sinner, that sin was and is a horrible offense against God, and that the result of sin is death.

This sounds perfectly reasonable. However, it implies that sin will persist in the millennial kingdom. According to the Bible, it will not, and no one who sins will even be there. The person who posted this reply really has some explaining to do. The necessary implication of acknowledging that sin is not remitted by sacrifice, but that it serves as an object lesson, is that without sin, there will be no need for it, and therefore it will not exist.

Even if the Old Testament does prophesy a new temple, Christians always regard the New Testament as superseding it in every way. The Christian Zionists would do well to apply the same standard here, and rather than falling back on Ezekiel, consider Revelation as the final authority, as it is essentially the culmination of the Prophets. We are told explicitly in Revelation 20:6 that those who reign with Yahshuah in the millennial kingdom will be priests themselves, meaning there will be no priesthood to render the service, because all are already holy.

Blessed and set-apart is the one having part in the first resurrection. The second death possesses no authority over these, but they shall be priests of Elohim and of Messiah, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Revelation 20:6

Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom.

Never take for granted anything that “most scholars” agree on, much less those of the “premillennial” persuasion. (This is just a way of describing a particular sect of Zionists whose ideas have only even been mainstream since about the time of the founding of Mormon sect.) Anyway, this is a vague statement, but seems to suggest that sacrifices will be a continued commemoration of the Last Supper (a necessary device here, albeit illogical, because Christians all hold the “sacrifice” of “Jesus” to have undone the sacrificial system), which begs the question of why we would need to commemorate the Last Supper as a memorial, when Yahshuah will be right there with us. Furthermore, there was no meat eaten at the Last Supper, as we well know. If Judaism and Christianity are such affronts to Yahshuah (and to God) as he has openly declared them to be, then why would he tolerate the continuation of such nonsense into and through the period of Earth’s redemption from them, and from the same vice in its other forms, especially when they are being done in his name, right under his nose?

To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson.

The idea that anyone born is born in the millennial kingdom has no basis in Scripture. If anything, Yahshuah seems to have indicated that no one will be, so to speak authoritatively in the other direction begs substantiation, or declaration of fraud. Beyond that, the idea that anyone in the millennial kingdom will need object lessons to not sin is preposterous, and demonstrates that Christians are so committed to their sin that they intend to do it even if and when they are granted admission into the millennial kingdom. Needless to say, however, they will not be—not unless they repent first, that is. People with this mentality will be fortunate to even make it in after the second resurrection, at the end of this period, and only if they repent first.

During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God. Animal sacrifices will serve that purpose, “but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year” (Hebrews 10:3).

In other words, the Christians expect that they will teach those who are righteous and holy that it is important to avoid sin by commanding them to commit sin over and over again. That is the mentality of the people making this objection, and at this point, its absurdity really ought to speak for itself. That being said, we would sooner believe that God gave this vision to Ezekiel in order to give the Zionists the scriptural justification they need to perpetrate their crimes against humanity while the Christians believe the Antichrist has ushered them into the new Golden Age. After all, it is God who gives them their spirit of delusion, specifically in order to sift them out of his garden, and the Devil who gives them what they want: the Abomination of Desolation. Either way, the prophecy from Ezekiel needs to be reinterpreted.


B.14 Jesus said “It’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of a man’s mouth that defiles a man.” Thus he declared all foods clean (Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:18-19).

It is true that Yahshuah spoke these words, according to the Gospels. However, it is also true that he preceded these words with “Are you also without understanding?” This shows that he was speaking figuratively, and that he expected his disciples to understand. Furthermore, the fact that they did not shows that people with less understanding than the disciples (i.e. the average Christian) will have trouble with it, and that the meaning needs to be explained to them.

As the language is figurative, the meaning needs to be taken from the context, otherwise it is not applicable as a universal rule. That is to say that the conclusion to Yahshuah’s logic is the only thing that really matters. The context is what was brought to his attention, and this sets the basis for the conclusion, which is where he decided to steer the discussion. So, as with his other arguments with the Pharisees, he used the opportunity to criticize them for their sin of eating flesh. Notice the contrast with what he and his disciples were eating.

Then there came to יהושע scribes and Pharisees from Yerushalayim, saying, “Why do Your taught ones transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” But He answering, said to them, “Why do you also transgress the command of Elohim because of your tradition? For Elohim has commanded, saying, ‘Respect your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me has been dedicated,” is certainly released from respecting his father or mother.’ So you have nullified the command of Elohim by your tradition. Hypocrites! Yeshayahu rightly prophesied about you, saying, ‘This people draw near to Me with their mouth, and respect Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. ‘But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commands of men.’” And calling the crowd near, He said to them, “Hear and understand: Not that which goes into the mouth defiles the man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” Then His taught ones came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees stumbled when they heard this word?” But He answering, said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted. Leave them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both shall fall into a ditch.” And Kĕpha answering, said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” And יהושע said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not understand that whatever enters into the mouth goes into the stomach, and is cast out in the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and these defile the man. For out of the heart come forth wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, whorings, thefts, false witnessings, slanders. These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.” Matthew 15:1-20

So we see that he was not declaring all foods clean, but that eating with unwashed hands does not make a person unclean, as his disciples were accused of doing and were obviously “guilty” of. Yahshuah’s fundamental disagreement was over this matter only, and he staunchly rejected the “tradition of the elders,” as he rejected their authority to teach the Law based on the fact that they taught things which are not contained in the Law, but in disagreement with it (hence the fact that the Pharisees found no passage from the Law to use to their advantage), while simultaneously breaking it on a daily basis. The list of things he condemns as evil emanations of an evil heart is: phonoi (killing), moicheiai (adultery), porneiai (whoring), klopai (thievery), pseudomartyriai (false witness) and blasphemiai (blasphemy). It will be understood from the context of the present book that the first three of these are deliberate condemnations of the Pharisees’ practice of flesh-eating, that the fourth accounts for milk and eggs, as well as to the Temple practice of sacrifice (cf. “den of robbers”), that the fifth applies to anyone who pretends to be saintly (especially the Christian clergy), as well as to the Pharisees who made a false accusation against his disciples and many more against Yahshuah himself, and that the sixth goes along with the fifth. So Yahshuah’s statements are clearly not aimed at establishing that all foods are clean, as this would be a blatant contradiction of everything that he and every other prophet stood for, but that the heart of a flesh-eater is murderous, adulterous, licentious, thieving, false and blasphemous.

Now, it may seem that this is contradicted by the addition to the narrative in Mark 7. However, Mark is not in harmony with Matthew, and we know that Matthew is the true gospel and takes precedence over Mark and Luke, especially in regards to the subversions made to the gospel narrative that are obviously designed to justify eating meat! (If this is not already clearly understood, the reader is directed to Satan’s Synoptics for further consideration.) In this case, the writer of Mark has deliberately changed the meaning of Yahshuah’s declaration when he explained the meaning of the parable, to the point of removing the concluding remark of the entire narrative (that eating with unwashed hands does not make a person unclean). This is dealt with in Chapter 15, but we present it again here in order to elaborate.

And when He went from the crowd into a house, His taught ones asked Him concerning the parable. And He said to them, “Are you also without understanding? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside is unable to defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purging all the foods?” And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil reasonings, adulteries, whorings, murders, thefts, greedy desires, wickednesses, deceit, indecency, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these wicked matters come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:17-23

If this is not enough to demonstrate the malicious subversion of Yahshuah’s remarks, then the fact that the concluding remark was replaced should be. It was replaced with the declaration—not from Yahshuah’s mouth, but as a parenthetical inference—with the explanation that he declared all foods clean, as though he was doing away with the whole Law with a single passing phrase, even though his entire ministry was aimed at establishing it. This is so illogical that it begs the question of how the Church could have thought that one little subversion like this could possibly work to destroy the entirety of the Law. Yet it actually works in the minds of Christians, because they hate the Law, just as they hate Yahshuah so much that they glorify in his death, which they take credit for. It works, because they hate God himself no less, and will seek any justification they can to cling to their filthy habits even in the face of damnation, even if it is incredibly vain and unreasonable, while simultaneously ignoring every single one of the thousands of instances in Scripture that those same practices are vehemently condemned, and giving no other account for them.

Of course, this is only an explanation for why the text was subverted, and does not establish that it was, in fact, subverted. It could be argued that Mark was simply negligent in recording the facts because of that particular gospel’s focus on conveying the point, and that it therefore stands to reason that the burden of proof to evidence the tampering is insufficient to overturn its authority. Furthermore, this subversion (as a poor translation), though not the original reading of the text, actually dates all the way back to the time of Origen,963 so this, too, needs to be addressed.

Notice that Mark 7:19, as quoted above (“because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purging all the foods?”), makes no mention of all foods being clean. This is because the ISR translators have been faithful, if not to the literal meaning of the subverted text, then certainly to the spirit of the source in Matthew. Compare this rendering with that of the NIV and a few other translations which have literally inserted their own thoughts on the matter, where others (e.g. KJV, ISV and even Darby and the Douay-Rheims/Catholic Bible) have not.

“For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) (NIV)

“because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (NASB)

“Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.) (NLT)

because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean. (ERV)

because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean. (ASV)

“It doesn’t go into his thoughts but into his stomach and then into a toilet.” (By saying this, Jesus declared all foods acceptable.) (GWT)

“For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated.” (As a result, He made all foods clean.) (HCSB)

How can the New American Standard Bible presume to tell us definitively that he declared it clean when it tells us that food is “eliminated” in the bowels? We all know it is not. How can the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version tell us that he declared “all meats” clean, when the word here is bromata, meaning all types of foods (i.e. not “meats,” which is only a valid translation in archaic use where it means “foods” and is also practically exclusive of animal flesh, as we have seen), and then pretend like they have any legitimacy as translations, much less interpretations, so that they are printed and sold to witless Christians?

More to the point, what makes any of the translators and Christian theologians think that “Jesus” had any power to casually do away with the whole of God’s law, on a whim, just because he wanted to declare that the sin which his disciples allegedly committed was acceptable to himself? By changing the context and then distorting the meaning in this way, they further imply that not only were the disciples eating what was unclean, but that Yahshuah was okay with it. Thus the Pharisees are criticized not for their denial of the supremacy of the Law in favor of their own tradition, but because of their desire to obey God. And that (one who desires to obey God’s laws) is indeed the connotation of the word ‘Pharisee’ in contemporary Christian usage, whereas in the ancient world it was used disparagingly against hypocrites, which in the modern context is the Christians who do not desire to obey God’s laws. In effect, the Christians declare that anyone who would obey God is God’s enemy, while anyone who would casually dismiss the commandments is righteous in his eyes. So now do you see how this is such a twisted perversion not just of the literal text of Scripture, but also of its intent?

The fact that this error is so persistent goes a long way to showing the nature of the abuse, even if the text itself has remained intact apart from the parenthetical addition. Not every translation incorporates this leaven of the Pharisees, but the fact that many do demonstrates the will to subvert the meaning of the text as a common feature of the Christian paradigm. This, in turn, demonstrates either that the meaning has always been misunderstood, and that modern translations seek to aid the reader in comprehension by coming up with a new theory, even if it completely contradicts and undermines the rest of Scripture, or else that it actually has been understood, and that the contradiction is deliberate, and that the text is an outright abomination of Scripture. To further establish the point, here is the original Greek text, and its literal word-for-word meaning:

ὅτι [because] οὐκ [not] εἰσπορεύεται [(what) enters] αὐτοῦ [(of) him/it] εἰς [into] τὴν [the] καρδίαν [heart/mind/character] ἀλλ’ [but] εἰς [into] τὴν [the] κοιλίαν [abdominal organ] καὶ [and] εἰς [into] τὸν [the] ἀφεδρῶνα [draught/drain/latrine] ἐκπορεύεται [expels (itself)] καθαρίζων [purifying] πάντα [all] τὰ [the] βρώματα [food]

“Because it enters him not into the heart/mind/character, but into the stomach and into the intestines, (where it) bursts out—purifying all the food.”

In other words, in the case that there is any dirt on any given food, the body “cleans” what is put into it through the process of digestion, and it is therefore impermanent and not contaminating, but whatever is added to and digested by the mind has the capacity to make a person corrupted. This is perhaps the most powerful metaphor in all of Scripture; Yahshuah himself deliberately likens this kind of vain inquiry to shit, right in this context which the Christians invoke to justify themselves against God! The corruption is evident, according to him, in what is being put into the mouth if it proceeds from murder, and what comes out of it, if it demonstrates murderous or slanderous intent. With that in mind, the next appendix shows just how defiled the words and the heart of the modern Pharisee and anyone who espouses their ideology, which we call Christianity, really is. Just pay minimal attention to the justifications which they use to defend their sinful lifestyle, and you will see that what was clean going in is filthy when it comes out.


Appendix C - Conversation With a Christian Author


For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with Elohim. For it has been written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “יהוה knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are worthless.” 1 Corinthians 3:19-20


I (Paul) posted a note on Facebook in 2011 called “Can Christians Eat Meat?” which ultimately served as the basis for the beginning stage of the present book’s composition. Later, we were confronted by a certain Christian author named Cris Putnam, who I was already familiar with, having read much of the book Petrus Romanus. Just to give a little context, here: Putnam apparently has trouble just spelling the word ‘vegetarian.’

Putnam chimed in on a status which I posted on Facebook about a year after the note, encouraging my friends to adapt the vegan ethic. We felt that the views which he expressed and the manner in which he went about expressing them were adequately representative of how our own views are received by Christians, especially considering that Putnam is a well-respected Christian author and lecturer. In fact, this is quite remarkable, considering that I myself had observed his exegesis methods and had concluded that he was by far the most thorough, most theologically sound and most reasonable Christian scholar I had ever come across, though that is not actually saying a lot, given the low standard. As such, however, it had seemed to us that he was the perfect candidate to listen to our message. How wrong we were. It is self-evident that he refused to read our note (about two pages) and only wanted to label us so he could strut around like he won the argument and did God a favor by protecting the Holy Word, which is the verdict of mainstream Christian institutions (as opposed to the Bible). This whole conversation demonstrates the need for the present book, the lengthy rebuttals and the delving into topics which might otherwise be considered extraneous in order to emphatically deny the Christians the room for doubt which they insist on giving themselves. It’s not like we wanted to write it. They have left us no other choice by being somewhat reasonable.

To summarize, Putnam thinks the whole point of the OT is moot, and that the whole point of the NT is to demonstrate that point. “The entire point of the New Testament is that NO ONE can [obey the Law].” So, basically, the Bible says “Be perfect,” and Christians take that to mean “Don't even try.” In other words, the whole point of the Bible is to debunk itself. As outlandish as that is, it is not merely our interpretation of what the Christian authors say; they have told us that themselves, and reiterated the point for clarification.

Cris: Its not just my point view its the main idea of the book -> “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Ro 3:20) and I can cite 100s of NT scholars who agree.

Subsequent to this conversation, Putnam has gained widespread notoriety for Petrus Romanus. He and his co-author Tom Horn (who is severely obese and a self-professed diabetic) became famous for having predicted in advance the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, effectively calling themselves prophets in the process. I, however, made a public prediction before they ever did, and later, predicted the exact date of the resignation and of the election of the new pope. (The later prediction was made March 13, 2012; the resignation was February 28, 2013, announced February 11.)964, 965 So who are the prophets, really? The difference is that I am not selling anything, nor presenting myself to any Christian media outlets to talk about myself, as they are. Prophets make predictions all the time, not just once in a lifetime, in a vague way that aims to do nothing more than cover the same ground that has been rehashed (in the case of this particular prophecy, which was not even novel) for eight centuries. More importantly, prophets obey God.

Let it be known that we never approached Putnam about this subject, and let him instead come to me about it. The following text was copied and pasted verbatim, and only abridged [noted in brackets] for the sake of brevity; all typographical errors are exactly as they originally appeared. The specific fallacies that have been debunked in the preceding appendices are cited in brackets. The rest of his comments are obviously addressed in the main text of the present book, or in Satan’s Synoptics (e.g. the Feeding of the Multitude and the question of whether Yahshuah ate fish, which are not addressed in this one). Here is the original comment, followed by the rest of the dialogue. Part A is the thread from my wall; Part B is the thread from Cris’ wall, which began with the comments presented in the images below; Part C is the thread which Cris initiated as a private discussion, as also pictured below. (He also followed me to YouTube and publicly persecuted me there, mocking me for my long hair, among other things. When I blocked him there, he proceeded to harass me with a different user account.)


Part A:


I solemnly swear before my God YHWH and on pain of whatever punishment he sees fit that, as far as it is within my power and reasonable limitations, I will never knowingly consume the flesh of any creature, or otherwise knowingly participate or contribute to the torture or destruction of the same. Who’s with me? A ‘like’ means you agree.

Cris: See Mark 7:19

Paul: See 1 Corinthians 6:12.


Stewart: You know, it’s a real shame that one must rely on a biblical standpoint to understand morality. Talk about a fallback. If God’s law was put in our minds and written in our hearts, then there is no reason that someone would excuse their conscience other than to protect an egocentric bias.

Cris: The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything

Paul: Did you read the note, Chris? [quotes Numbers 11]

Cris: I’m not trying to pick a fight, if you personally feel like you want to be a vegetarian [A.7] that’s fine but they way you phrased it, you seem to be promoting it has some sort of spiritual significance. I don’t think it does. Yahweh gave man all animals to eat in Genesis “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” (Ge 9:3) and then Jesus declared all foods clean. Thus, there is nothing spiritually significant about not eating meat. If you have problems with the live stock industry that’s a different matter [A.6].

Paul: I know you’re not picking a fight, and I appreciate you sharing your views here. I’m not, either. I mean to inform you about what scripture says on this topic, since you appealed to its authority. I do not contest your claim (rather, the claim from scripture) that Yahweh allowed Noah to eat meat. The question is why, and what the ramifications are for it. Clearly, it’s not necessary, the way it was when there was no agriculture immediately after the Flood. I know that you’re as capable of formulating an argument in response to mine as anyone else, so I’d appreciate it if you would address the context I’ve provided in my response to you, because I believe in my case with no less conviction than you do in yours, and the truth, if it can be ascertained, will benefit everyone here. That being said, my main problem is with the unethical treatment of farmed animals, and the adverse ecological and environmental consequences of the industry, as you hinted at. As far as I’m concerned, that is MORE than enough to make it imperative for all of us to stop it immediately, but Christians of all people should be the ones who are the most up in arms about it, because of the sense of moral superiority which they have, and regularly flaunt in other areas. Clearly you must agree that it is at least prudent to practice what one preaches, if you are going to continue to appeal to the Bible’s authority. I think that I have proved that the New Testament, at least, is adamantly pro-vegetarian; if nothing else, James the Just, who set the precedent for others to follow, was known to be a vegan in his own time.

Paul: You may not care what goes into your body, but if God didn’t, then it wouldn’t be said that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Paul: ‎-Evidence of Ethical Vegetarianism in Mainstream Christianity

-Was The Crucifixion the Result of Christ’s Opposition to Animal Sacrifice?

Cris: I’m not aware that the NT supports veganism but I am open to hearing why you think it does. It seems clear enough that Jesus ate meat (lamb and fish), what is your evidence that James was a vegan?

Cris: The author of the Huffington post article is misinformed. The only contemporaneous source concerning Jesus is the NT and it is pretty clear that he ate lamb and fish. He ate the Passover feast, which would include the eating of the roasted lamb (Luke 22:14-15). In fact, Jesus specifically instructs his disciples to prepare the meal, including the lamb, for their observance. “Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.”” (Luke 22:7-8) Not only did Jesus eat lamb, but he also ate fish. “But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, ‘Have you any food here?’ So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence” (Luke 24:41-43). He served it for the 4,000 in Matthew 15:34-37. Jesus also promoted the catching of fish for the purpose of consuming them. (John 21:5-6, 9-14)

Paul: The NT is not the only contemporaneous source on Jesus. I think I would know. But let’s suppose it is, because we can agree on its authority. I’ve already quoted from the NT and given my explanations. If you want more, check out the second section here.

I’m not sure who first recorded that James was a vegan, but it was well known in his time that all Nazarites and Essenes were. I first came across that info in college (so about 14 years ago) in a class where we read from Eusebius and his contemporaries, so unfortunately I don’t have the evidence with me. Perhaps you can find some.

I am inclined to agree that the New Testament presents Jesus as a pescatarian, and as supporting the Passover custom (though at no other point does it say that he was in favor of animal sacrifice). First of all, both instances are in regards to something having to do with the Temple and its practices, which all the prophets back to Samuel were bitterly and demonstrably opposed to, and both are either mocking or upstaging it. In the case of the fish, he first asked, “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own children or from others?” and then responded to the situation by saying, “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line.” That is essentially the same reasoning behind Paul’s ideas about eating meat, and food offered to idols (i.e., don’t do it). In the case of the Passover custom, he effectively put an end to it by initiating the chain of events which culminated in the overthrow of the priesthood and the destruction of the Temple. In the case of the feeding of the 5000, it was a matter of necessity (which I will grant is a just cause for eating meat as well, though fish are different from animals because they do not have the animus/breath of life). Yet in neither case does it say that HE HIMSELF ATE either meat or fish, though it speaks of his eating bread and drinking wine (an usual custom for a Nazarite). Furthermore, to say “Go and prepare the pascha” is not to say “Go and butcher a lamb.” You have inferred that part. The lamb from the original Passover, if you will remember, was for painting doorposts, a task which was not commemorated in the Feast of Unleavened BREAD. What they were told to prepare was “the room.” To contest your claim that he promoted catching fish for consumption, he also prevented fishermen from doing their jobs, and made them “fishers of men” instead, which is clearly seen as being a more noble profession. You know what I mean? The difference is between sinners and Jesus’ disciples.

Now then, it is apparent that there are multiple ways of interpreting these things, so I appeal once again directly to the NT, and Paul’s instructions in particular, as I have outlined in the note I linked you to above.

[Matt], do you care to chime in? I know you have something to say about the Temple incident, though if I recall, the pertinent info is covered in the link I’ve provided here.

Cris: When I say contemporaneous I mean written within the life time of eye witnesses and I believe it does stand alone in that regard. Luke records Jesus instructing his disciples to prepare the passover lamb, “Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.” or in Greek καὶ ἀπέστειλεν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην εἰπών• πορευθέντες ἑτοιμάσατε ἡμῖν τὸ πάσχα ἵνα φάγωμεν (NA27) For “us” is Greek term ἡμῖν a first person pronoun in the dative case which tells us it included himself and then he says “We may eat it” that also includes himself. The Greek verb in that verse is φάγωμεν which means to eat and its in the first person plural and explicitly means he intended to eat the lamb. This is crystal clear in the Greek text. He wasn’t a vegan and he did not advocate it as he declared all foods clean.

Paul: The point of contention is not whether he ate the meal or not. I disagree on the point that πάσχα ever refers to a lamb. That is simply not the case. The two things which are spoken of in the text as having been eaten by Jesus and his disciples are the bread and the wine. Are we to supposed to believe that they went to the Temple to buy a lamb and have it sacrificed, JUST AFTER Jesus was in the Temple driving out the people who sold the sacrificial animals, saying “It is written: My house will be a place of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves”? That begs the question of why he was so inconsistent, not only with himself, but with the long string of prophets who came before him. For you to say that he wasn’t a vegan is to make an authoritative claim from ignorance, I suspect, in order to justify your own sin. I didn’t even say he was. I said that scripture seems to support the notion that he may have been a pescatarian, though it does NOT in fact support it with any conclusive evidence, and the historical record (which you reject) refutes it. Why do you suppose James, his own brother, was a vegetarian, unless perhaps they had something in common? You’ve asked me for proof in the way of references, and I’ve provided it.

Paul: In any case, the argument still stands, and you’ve been avoiding it.

1. Being allowed, or allowable (“clean”) does not make it something you should eat.
2. There is certainly a spiritual advantage to not eating it, contrary to your claim, and as every vegetarian knows.
3. The one whose conscience is seared is not the one who is an authority on this or any other spiritual matter pertaining to conscience.
4. Scripture flatly denounces the eating of meat for OTHER reasons.

Cris: Passover includes lamb so and the sentence even mentions the lamb, the Greek verb includes himself , exegetically it not really even in question. I’ve yet to see a shred evidence that James was a vegetarian, what is your source for that?

Paul: Matthew was a vegetarian, according to Clement of Alexandria. So was Peter, according to Clementine. As for James, Augustine is generally regarded as the principle authority on the subject, based on Hegesippus, now lost Commentaries. As quoted in De Viris Illustribus:

“After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.”

That was as High Priest of the Temple, i.e., after the Christians overthrew the Hasmoneans and put an end to the sacrifice c. 65 or 66 AD.

Care to address the note?

Paul: Though it is obviously a post hoc inference, the fact that he used linen instead of wool also suggests that he was a vegan by his lifestyle--the wool being an abomination for a priest, as the priests were forbidden from entering the sanctuary with dead animals or animal skins.

Paul: By the way, the quoted text is from Jerome, via Wikipedia’s “James the Just”:

Church Fathers -- De Viris Illustribus (Jerome). Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.

Paul: You can find the full text here:

Cris: You are quoting 4th century sources... The NT stands in sharp relief to your positions. Peter was commanded by God to kill and eat the animals God presented before him (Acts 10:9-16) [B.11]. Paul instructed Christians to eat anything sold in the meat market without question (I Corinthians 10:25-26). Then you have the nerve to imply that folks have seared conscious for not agreeing with you but in fact, the forbidding of eating certain foods is an indication of people departing from the Christian faith and a seared conscious is mentioned explicitly by Paul in that context - .“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.” (I Timothy 4:1-5) [B.2] It seems to me you are advocating some sort of neo-gnosticism [B.1].

Paul: Hegesippus is not a 4th century source. He was a contemporary of Polycarp. What more do you want?

You can also see that the “ate no flesh” reference is right in the midst of the Nazarite vows, implying that not just his brother Jesus, but in fact everyone in his family who espoused his father’s customs was a vegetarian. Given that the Bible is silent on Jesus eating meat, the implication alone is sufficient for proof. Simply rejecting the authority of the text doesn’t rid you of the burden of proof, much less put you right with God concerning your own decisions.

Paul: Peter’s dream was a metaphor to get him to listen to Paul, WHOSE POSITION WAS THAT OF A VEGETARIAN, as I have already clearly shown you in the note. I guess you just haven’t read it. Okay.

Cris: Nonsense, Paul was not a vegetarian. “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.”(1 Co 10:25)

Paul: What you call neo-gnosticism, I call biblical Christianity. Why bother even making references to the Bible if you don’t heed its instruction, and have no incentive to conform yourself to its spiritual intent either? I’m not some sort of hypocrite. I’m a Nazarite. And I’ve shown you already that he was. If you had simply opened the note and read it, you’d see that.

Paul: Since you won’t take it within its context, here it is outside the context [quotes context]:

Paul: “I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” = Paul was not a vegetarian?

That doesn’t compute, Chris.

Paul: Also, Clement lived in the 2nd century, too. I don’t know where you get this idea that I’ve quoted 4th century sources from. I told you the sources!

Cris: Paul was talking about meat sacrificed to idols and how it bothered the weaker brothers, so he would not eat it in front of them, because they were weak and did not realize their freedom in Christ. It in no way implies he was a vegatarian.

Paul: “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.” = no spiritual benefit or moral imperative AT ALL? ...... You aren’t arguing with me, you’re arguing with Paul.

Cris: no you are twisting it out of context.

Paul: I am most certainly NOT doing that. You have been doing that all along and refusing to even examine the context no matter how many times I presented it to you, so don’t accuse ME of it, because I didn’t accuse you, the guilty one, of it. Until you read it in its context, you can’t tell me that you’re being objective. You’ve made up your mind and you clearly don’t care what any of the New Testament authors have to say about it, or how the apostles lived their lives. Fair enough, but just say so, so we can end the argument.

Cris: This prophecies your like -->“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Ti 4:1--5) [B.2]

Paul: I’ve addressed that, too, Chris. All you’re doing is demonstrating that you haven’t paid attention to what I’ve said, and are intent on quoting it out of context and twisting the meaning to suit your purpose, which you accuse me of. Not exactly what I would call the spirit of truth.

Cris: I read it, its bogus, and your arguments are circular. Paul was talking about meat sacrificed to pagan idols, thats the context. To say eating meat is a sin is just a lie.

Cris: “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,” Good night!

Paul: It’s not a lie. You have to resort to ad hominem reasoning now? I thought you were above that.

The fact is, God did not create humans with the design of animal flesh consumption in mind--a fact which is so perfectly evident in the fact that it is extremely toxic to your digestive system--nor animals with the intent of making them food for humans. “I give you every seed bearing plant ....” “You shall eat of every tree ... but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.” What is the wages of sin, Chris?

Paul: The Bible says that killing is a sin. Go figure.

Paul: I don’t care if you choose to sin, or to persecute those of us who choose not to. I just hate the fact that you invoke the name of Yahweh in the process. That bothers me to no end, and my anger is righteous, and befitting a man in my position.

Paul: ‎9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Paul: That’s what it all comes down to, isn’t it? -- pleasure in unrighteousness.

Paul: To me, the most astonishing thing about this kind of situation is not the total disregard and contempt for God’s will, or the base hypocrisy of those who say they are his agents or children, but the fact that it is even necessary to invoke some old book to discern between what is right and wrong, and that even when this is done, the adherent still doesn’t get it. Clearly, the Bible was written for sinners who literally personify the “seared conscience” mentality ...

“It is not those who are whole who are in need of a physician, but those who are sick.”

Matt: Since you asked, [Paul], the only thing I have to add to this discussion is in reference to Cris’s second comment, in which he cites Genesis 9:2-3 as license for all humans to eat meat.

I would point everyone to the very next verse, which is excluded from this citation:

But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood.

Does the meat you eat contain blood, Cris? If so, then you transgress the very command you reference in defense of your position.

The fact of the matter is, it is IMPOSSIBLE to cleanse flesh of all blood. Witness the lengths to which Jews go in order to guard this command:

“To comply with this prohibition, a number of preparation techniques became practiced within traditional Judaism. The main technique, known as melihah, involves the meat being soaked in water for about half an hour, which opens pores. After this, the meat is placed on a slanted board or in a wicker basket, and is thickly covered with salt on each side, then left for between 20 minutes and one hour. The salt covering draws blood from the meat by osmosis, and the salt must be subsequently removed from the meat (usually by trying to shake most of it off and then washing the meat twice) to complete the extraction of the blood.”

But regardless of the blind optimism induced by such religious practices, these extreme measures fail to empty the capillaries of their content. Even the rabbis plainly admit that, in truth, this command cannot be fully observed:

“The classical rabbis argued that, in a number of cases, only if it is impossible to remove every drop of blood, the prohibition against consuming blood was impractical, and there should be rare exceptions: they claimed that consuming the blood which remained on the inside of meat (as opposed to the blood on the surface of it, dripping from it, or housed within the veins) should be permitted and that the blood of fish and locusts could also be consumed.”


What this should clue everyone into is the fact that Yahweh made an allowance for the consumption of meat because 1) as [Paul] pointed out, the destruction of agriculture made it necessary at the time and 2) the fallen state of man made it a foregone conclusion. Yet the same passage wherein license seems to be granted contains the clue that NO ONE, especially those who claim to love Yahweh and follow his commands, should be eating meat, much less relying on His authority to defend such a practice. To cite the very passage which most clearly identifies meat-eating as a sin is beyond ironic.

Sandra: Oh gawd, who is this Cris guy and what is he doing on your page? Hey Cris, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” ..... your girlfriend or wife move. Why don’t you eat her?

Jonathan: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the esteem of Elohim” = Don’t concern yourself with the activities related to producing whatever it is you eat?

someone told me cat testicles are good. Im Going to collect stray cats in little cages and keep just enough females to maximize my male testicle harvest.


Paul: Cris is the co-author, with our friendly neighborhood unapologetic false prophet Thomas Horn, of Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here. I’ve singled him out as the most logical and reasonable of any pseudo-christian hypocrite that I’ve ever come across, so I figure if he’s beyond hope of salvation, then every one of them is. And I’m not willing to give up that last remaining vestige of hope just yet, without allowing him the chance to show us that they’re not all necessarily as obstinate as they appear at first glance, and as much as he now appears, after this pathetic excuse for an argument. I didn’t want to bring out the “That includes your children--children creep along the ground” argument, but I did share that insight privately with my roommates.

Paul: Until this epic fail, I figured if there was any “Christian” that could have any chance of defeating me in an argument, it’d be Chris. Unfortunately his knowledge of Church history is evidently the result of a few Google searches only, seeing as he doesn’t know the first (literally, the first) thing about it. I was tipped to this when he and Tom were talking about a book that’s written in French, and how it’s therefore inaccessible for most of their audience, and they had to pay someone to translate it for them. Like, what? You can’t learn to read French, and you can’t be bothered to put the scriptures you quote in their context? Typical American mentality.

Paul: Did you see this, Jonathan?

Pigs’ testicles are cut off because consumers have a taste preference.

Jonathan: yes I did

Matt: While we’re at it, and in case Cris does decide to show himself again here, I would like to see this question addressed.

The “prophecies your [sic] [all you heretics] like” = 1 Timothy 4:1-5. I assume the reference we are supposed to be picking up on here is that teaching abstinence from meat is a teaching of demons. From this, shall I also conclude that Paul, for no better reason than to prevent contention amongst the brethren, advocated teachings of demons? Because, you know...

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Paul: I think the point he was trying to make is that the Manichaeans were vegetarians, therefore vegetarianism is a “neo-Gnostic” (actually neo-Manichaean) “belief” with no merit. Or perhaps he was making an association with the Essenes and their “doctrines of devils,” because they were vegetarians too. OH BUT THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS WERE VEGETARIANS, even though they were all what Josephus called “Essenes.” It’s ironic, really, considering that his beliefs are the neo-Manichaean ones. I mean, when was the last time you saw any of US worshiping Mithras??

Matt: Yes, I figured that it was a reference not simply to modern day advocates of vegetarianism, but a comparison with the Gnostic sects that were all purged (including, of course, the true Christians). But even this is nothing more than guilt by association. The Manichaeans practiced vegetarianism, therefore vegetarianism must be intrinsically evil? Yeah, that’s logical. My point was to counter such a smear by demonstrating that Paul himself taught the very same “doctrine of devils.”

I could get into precisely what Paul was referring to in the passage Cris referenced, but as it would only be for the edification of someone who hasn’t even demonstrated the desire to be edified, there’s no point. I’ll save it for the [present book]. ;)

Diana: In Deuteronomy you find the animals you can eat.

Paul: You also find this in Deuteronomy: “You shall not kill.”

How do you eat an animal without killing it? And why would you want to strictly adhere to a law which is deliberately aimed at getting wholly unrighteous people to start thinking about behaving in a more godly manner, and which serves NO OTHER PURPOSE? The whole reason behind the dietary restrictions in the Torah is moot, because we’re living in the 21st century, and the basis for the restrictions applies not only to THE FULL RANGE of meats which are widely available for human consumption, but to most other foods as well.

Paul: The Hebrew word which is translated as ‘clean’ has the meaning of unadulterated, i.e. non-GMO, non-chimaeric. Haven’t you ever wondered why people naturally don’t seem to want to eat species which have a lot of variation (dogs, cats, horses, etc.)? “Amazarak taught all the sorcerers, and dividers of roots”... pharmacology and hybridization. The Bible calls hybridization the “sin of sins.” So it’s no wonder some foods are “clean” and some are “unclean.” But to suppose that the same foods that were unclean 3500 years ago are the same ones as now is sheer folly.

Paul: “Samyaza also has taught sorcery, to whom thou hast given authority over those who are associated with him. They have gone together to the daughters of men; have lain with them; have become polluted”

φαρμακεια is literally defined as “poisoning” by Strong’s. Can you believe that?

Diana: So explain what they used for sacrifice, yhwh comanded to sacrifice the animal then to that it has to be killed, he was the first one who sacrifice and animal to cover adam and eve. I undertand today are using a lot of stuff on aimals that’s men made not yhwh, it is not a sin to eat as long you clean the blood and are clean animals, men choose their own but clearly says the animals you can eat, when it says do not kill was refering to men, if not they will break torah with their sacrifices.

Paul: Revelation 21:8

But the (1) fearful, and (2) unbelieving, and the (3) abominable, and (4) murderers, and (5) whoremongers, and (6) sorcerers, and (7) idolaters, and all (8) liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

1 - “the fear of every living thing is upon you”
2 - “I read it, its bogus, and your arguments are circular. Paul was talking about meat sacrificed to pagan idols, thats the context. To say eating meat is a sin is just a lie.”
3 - The only thing consistently referred to as “abomination” in the Bible is animal (or human) sacrifice.
4 - self-explanatory
5 - the other connotation of ‘adultery,’ because lust and fornication poison the body and spirit
6 - pharmacology
7 - also pharmacology (it’s under the fourth definition in Strong’s G5331, in the above link)
8 - “It in no way implies he was a vegatarian.”

You see where I’m going with this? As if Almighty God is so unjust that he is going to REWARD you for being so wantonly destructive and hypocritical.

Paul: Diana, most of the offerings supplied to the Levitical priests consisted of the “firstfruits” of the supplicants’ crops, or other special grain offerings. The real question here is how you think that any sort of viable Deuteronomical priestcraft can be made here without the Levitical priesthood, unless you’re a Zionist, in which case there isn’t any reason for either of us to carry the pretense that you are even nominally a Christian (and having seen how you profess your love for God and his Anointed One with so much evident sincerity, I don’t see it that way). The Bible (OT in particular) does not distinguish between killing men and killing animals, unless it is specified in the context, because there is no such distinction in the Hebrew language. The distinction (where there is one) is between killing something with the breath of life (animals) and something that doesn’t have the breath of life (anything other than animals).

Paul: If you want to make a sacrifice, there is a precedent in scripture:

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27).

In other words, when in Rome, don’t do as the Romans do. And as I’ve pointed out, the men who wrote these epistles (Paul and James) were both vegetarians.

Paul: Re: eating what has the lifeblood in it, and the necessity of the blood sacrifice, I would point to the book of Hebrews as the ultimate explanation of the necessity of the Law, and the ninth chapter in particular. There is a reference to Leviticus 17:11, which is often rendered “Without the shedding of blood, no flesh can be saved” (or “there is no remission/forgiveness,” etc.). I know you speak Spanish, Diana, so you should be familiar with the fact that ‘flesh’ and ‘meat’ are exactly the same thing, both culturally and linguistically, though we differentiate in English. The point being that you can’t take a piece of meat without spilling blood, like the reading of the law in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice prevents Shylocke from maliciously killing the Christian merchant. I would also refer you to the book of Romans (as well as Galatians) for a deeper understanding of the necessity of the Law, but here’s Hebrews 9 (KJV) in the meantime: [quotes Hebrews 9]

Paul: Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees (who kept the Law, and were extremely anal about its dietary restrictions), you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Cris: I see a lot more bad exegesis. The commandment was “do not murder.” They even had capital punishment so obviously it was not “do not kill.” Also the NT passage from 1 Cor. are badly twisted, just reading 1 Corinthians through in one sitting for yourself will make it clear to anyone that Paul is never advocating vegetarianism rather it is a discussion of meat sacrificed at pagan shrines which was later sold in the market. If you care about truth you will ot twist the Bible to fit your agenda, the fact that you are twisting it is revealing. A righteous cause does need to deceive people to make its points. If anyone would like to understand the actual context of many of the passages being badly abused here, I suggest this very basic article:

Paul: I guess it’s your policy to bear false witness against someone when they correct you. That’s understandable. That’s how you were taught. But in all honesty, don’t you think Christians should be MORE morally inclined than, for instance, the “neo-Gnostics” who utterly demolish your doctrines without having to resort to ad hominem reasoning? It’s a serious question, Chris, especially considering that THAT is the REAL context of the “badly twisted” passage you decided to both invoke and ignore.

Cris: If you wanted to make impact you need to learn to handle the Bible responsibly in its proper context. But you are very obviously twisting passages, the one’s from Paul in 1 Cor specifically and its also true that Jesus ate meat so it seems that you are effectively calling him a sinner as well.

Paul: In one ear, out the other.

“So that seeing, they see not... lest their sins be forgiven them.”

Learn some humility, Cris. THEN preach to me.

Cris: I hope you understand that I think you might have some valid points about the food industry and what not, but you’re Bible interpretation is dismal - its the sort of stuff we see from cults - its not only wrong its patently dishonest. You really need to by a good Bible Background commentary or perhaps a basic study Bible and read it. If you want people to take you seriously, stop twisting scripture and make your arguments from a basis of ethics and conservationism.

Paul: More ad hominem to justify your own sinful lifestyle and blasphemy.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Thanks, Chris.

Paul: FYI, people already take me seriously. Not that you would know. How could you???

William: I’m not going to pretend I know nearly as much about the Bible as [Paul] or Chris. I don’t want to engage anyone in a lengthy argument as I have already pointed out that I would be ill-prepared to do so. However, while I was pouring over this fascinating discussion, a quote came to mind: Matthew 15:11 “It is not what people put into their mouths that makes them unclean. It is what comes out of their mouths that makes them unclean.” These are Jesus’ own words. Wouldn’t this apply to the eating of meat, too?

Cris: Based on your gross misapplication of scripture, they shouldn’t and if they bother to study the issues in 1 Cor. anyone who is intellectually honest will understand you are misleading them. The issue in those passages is food sacrificed to idols, period. This thread shows you applying it to simply eating meat which is patently false. Simply reading the letter will reveal you have twisted it out of context. 1 Cor 8:1 begins with “Now about food sacrificed to idols....”

Paul: On the matter of being taken seriously, you did as much to persuade someone who was on your side going into this “argument” to switch sides as I did. So keep at it. God’s kingdom is established. ;)

“You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you?”

I do so love 1 Corinthians.

Cris: [William], that is precisely the point Jesus was making! Paul makes the same point here as well, “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.”(1 Co 8:8)

Paul: William, if you were paying attention to the discussion, you’d know that I preempted that rebuttal with:

And in case anyone is thinking “It’s not what goes into a man’s mouth which defiles a man, but what comes out of a man’s mouth which defiles a man,” just pay minimal attention to the justifications which meat-eaters use to defend their sinful lifestyle and you will see that what was clean going in is filthy when it comes out.

You see, his own thoughts and words defile him more than any material substance ever could. That’s the point. And he doesn’t even see it!

Cris: [Paul] I think you ought to read Galatians, in that letter a group of Jews had tried to impose Jewish practices on early Christians as a matter of salvation. They were saying you had to be circumcised. Here is how Paul responded, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”(Ga 5:4) I wonder if are you trying to be justified by the law? There are no dietary laws for Christians other than the ones in Acts 15, you are dishonest if you say there are. Anyone who doubts this can read Acts 15 for them-self and see that this issue was settled by the 1 century church. Please do not take [Paul’s] word for it - study the Bible for yourself.

Paul: yep, okay

Paul: “make your arguments from a basis of ethics and conservationism...”

“Jewish practices...”

You’re the one who brought up the “clean” and “unclean” and all that. I just said “as far as it is within my power and reasonable limitations, I will never knowingly consume the flesh of any creature, or otherwise knowingly participate or contribute to the torture or destruction of the same. Who’s with me?” It’s like you people just don’t even have ANY comprehension of what you say or do.

Paul: “circumcision verily profits, if you keep the law”

I guess you missed that part.

Paul: “You really need to by a good Bible Background commentary or perhaps a basic study Bible and read it.”

“Please do not take [Paul’s] word for it - study the Bible for yourself.”


Cris: Folks make up your minds on this... All I am saying this person is handling the Bible incorrectly by twisting it out of context to fit a preconceived agenda. Paul was addressing the concerns of a 1st century church and his letter needs to be read with that context in mind. Here is an example from a good Bible Background commentary which reveals how badly 1 Corinthians is being twisted to this vegan agenda:

Food Offered to Idols

Meat was offered to idols before being served in temples’ dining halls (often as part of worship) or being used for communal meals; some of the meat served at the marketplace had been offered to idols. One who ate in a temple would know the source of the meat; one who ate at a pagan friend’s home could never be certain. In pagan cities with large Jewish populations, Jews normally had their own markets.

Palestinian Jewish teachers debated what to do in many cases of uncertainty (such as untithed food), but would never have taken a chance on food that might have been offered to an idol. They believed that Jews outside Palestine unwittingly compromised with idolatry when invited to pagans’ banquets for their sons, even if they brought their own food. Following such teachings strictly (as some did) would have greatly circumscribed their relationships with pagan colleagues. The matter was more troubling for Christians converted from pagan backgrounds: could they meet over lunch with business associates or fellow members of their trade guild, or attend a reception in a temple for a relative’s wedding?

In chapters 8--10, Paul works on an elaborate compromise between two factions in the Corinthian church. The more educated and socially elite group, who unlike the poor ate meat regularly and not just when it was doled out at pagan festivals, had well-to-do friends who would serve meat. They probably represent the liberal faction, who consider themselves “strong” and the socially lower group “weak.”

Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 Co 8:1--13.

The passages they quote have nothing to do with veganism, they are misleading you.

Paul: I became a vegetarian because of the Bible, not vice-versa. Thanks for the blessing, though.

Matt: I don’t fault [Paul] if he doesn’t feel it necessary to address your points directly, Cris. He has already sufficiently relieved himself of the burden of proof. You, on the other hand, have chosen a low-hanging fruit to address, ignoring over 10 other valid arguments against your position, and even managing to fail in your attempted rebuttal. Allow me to demonstrate.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 8, you say: “The issue in those passages is food sacrificed to idols, period. This thread shows you applying it to simply eating meat which is patently false.”

You make it sound as though [Paul] has ignored the context of the chapter. This is not the case. Had you bothered to read the note, or even the excerpt of the note, you would have seen that not only is the full chapter quoted, but it is also explained and placed into a modern context. For example:

“Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols [in the modern context, kosher killings, which is to say virtually all meat you’ll find at any supermarket]...”

“But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. [Do not abuse your freedom by doing things which others will find objectionable. As this is in reference to food offered to idols, an example would be as follows: I could eat some fruit which someone put in front of a Buddha statue, and that would greatly annoy this person, or offend a mainstream Christian. Both have valid reasons to be offended, though it is only because of their own superstition that they regard this food as any different from some other fruit, so it is better that I find some other fruit to eat. If the Buddhist or the Christian in question knows that you are knowledgeable about spiritual matters, he will perhaps be influenced to think it’s okay to do what will inevitably and unnecessarily offend someone else.]”

More important than the matter of your false accusation is your primary point: Paul never claimed to be a vegetarian in this chapter because his comments were made strictly in the context of food offered to idols. Well, let us see if this is so.

Verse 1: Now as touching things offered unto idols...
Verse 4: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols...
Verse 7: ...for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...
Verse 10: ...shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols...
Verse 13: Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Now, one thing should be readily apparent. For the entire chapter, Paul is speaking of “things offered unto idols.” Yet in the very last verse, he says “if MEAT...offend.” Note the complete lack of a qualifier in this phrase. If Paul had simply wished to constrain his argument to food offered to idols, as Cris argues, then why is the language in verse 13 so much broader? Cris’s argument would be indisputable if this verse read “Wherefore, if things offered unto idols make my brother to offend, I will eat no things offered unto idols.” Yet it does not. How interesting.

An examination of the Greek upholds the distinction in these verses.

“Things offered unto idols” = εἰδωλόθυτον = Strong’s G1494
“meat” (v. 13) = βρῶμα = G1033
“flesh” (v. 13) = κρέας = G2907

Yes, the context of verse 13 is that it is included in a discussion of food offered to idols. But if you read the words as plainly written, you must admit that Paul seems to be saying more than just “I will not eat such food.” What he literally says is, “if the consumption of meat offends my brother, I will not eat it.”

Still, one could sit there and insist, as Cris has, that given the full context of this chapter, we must conservatively conclude that verse 13, contrary to its plain language, refers only to food offered to idols. Okay, no problem. There is still an easy way to settle this dispute. G2907, “flesh,” is used only one other time in the New Testament. Here is that occurrence:

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. -Romans 14:21

If you read all of Romans 14 (and we ALL should have, including you, Cris, as this same chapter was also covered above, right above the commentary on 1 Corinthians 8, no less), you will see that Paul’s point is very similar to that of 1 Corinthians 8: let us not do that which could cause our brother to stumble. And the primary example of such an issue in this chapter is the consumption of meat. Therefore, we have TWO separate passages wherein Paul states that he is a vegetarian. Were it not for Romans 14, perhaps Cris would be right to say that 1 Cor 8:13 is only in reference to meat offered to idols. As it is, however, it should be clear to any objective party that both 1 Cor 8:13 and Rom 14:21 mean EXACTLY what they say.

Now, in light of all this, I must ask, who is guilty of “bad exegesis” here? Cris, I marvel at your audacity to condescend to an audience which has correctly interpreted Scripture when you have not. You could have let this thread die a quiet death, but instead you come back here after 3 full days, offer invalid arguments and then accuse people of the very offenses which you are guilty of committing. You clearly have never even bothered to read, much less tried to understand, what has been written here, else you would not be making false accusations and criticisms that have already been addressed. When you don’t even put forth the effort to properly discern what is being said by people with whom you are conversing in real life, what makes you think you have any hope of properly discerning what is said in Scripture? In the latter case, you must deal with cultural barriers, centuries of lies and false doctrines, and the strong delusion doled out to all those who desire not the truth. What you have demonstrated more than anything here is not your commitment to the truth, but your commitment to the defense of status quo Christianity and your own ego. Bravo.

Paul: I offer you a standing ovation for rebuking this unrighteous blasphemy with such zeal, [Matt]. If he’s not willing to see that the conclusion to the whole point of Paul’s raising the issue of eating food offered to idols was to charge the members of his congregation in Corinth not to eat whatever offends the other members (and, by implication, the overriding issue was that he was charging the meat-eaters to give up their sinful habits, for the edification of the whole congregation--not that Paul’s charge to the Corinthians and to the Romans takes precedence over Yahshuah’s, by any means--even according to Paul himself), then let him respond by callously labeling you a heretic and continuing to pontificate. He has set his measure, and will be judged accordingly.

[Classic pseudo-Christian provocation-response to having his unsolicited troll comments THOROUGHLY debunked (you can find the “argument,” which on his end was only ad hominem slander--seeing as he didn’t even read the counterarguments--on my wall, Sept. 2), minus the feigned “persecution” projections and various other dubious character attacks. I wonder if he knows that pork is not only the nearest to human flesh genetically, but also taste-wise, too. Maybe he’ll survive the zombie apocalypse because he won’t have any qualms about eating his wife and kids. It’s certainly in keeping with the mentality, isn’t it? Live by the sword, die by it. His co-author Tom Horn is a fat diabetic. Go figure. And these people think they’re going to be “raptured” by “Jesus”?? It never ceases to amaze me how the WHOLE MORAL ASPECT OF GOD’S LAW can be thrown out by invoking a single passage from scripture, when the same passage clearly denounces the very thing which is supposed to be justified by it. Yes, it’s not what goes in that makes you unclean, but THERE IS A COROLLARY!

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens. You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment.”

“The good man brings forth what is good out of the good treasure of his heart, and the wicked man brings forth what is wicked out of the wicked treasure of his heart. For out of the overflow of the heart his mouth speaks. But why do you call Me ‘Master, Master,’ and do not do what I say?”

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,’ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens. Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!’“]


Part B:



Paul: And the pig is unclean for you, because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud. You do not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses. Deuteronomy 14:8

Paul: Oh but that was done away with by “Jesus,” right?

“If you had believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.”

Paul: And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil reasonings, adulteries, whorings, murders, thefts, greedy desires, wickednesses, deceit, indecency, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these wicked matters come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:20-23 (the rest of the passage--oops)

Cris: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.(Col 2:16) Yum Yum I love pork BBQ sandwiches!

Cris: Paul: eating meat is not a sin. By teaching that, you are defintely a false teacher, you mislead people and you badly misunderstand and misquote the Bible, as I have shown. Even worse, you effectively accuse Christ because Jesus ate lamb (Lk 22:8) and fish (Lk 24:23) and he declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19). [Paul] twists the Bible and has all the earmarks of a cult leader. “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-- “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”(Col 2:20--23)

Stewart: Surely asceticism couldn’t apply to not practicing “Christianity” for spiritual benefit... much less abstaining from eating tortured and abused animals. There was never a need to excuse yourself, Cris. We all know what you stand for. “Yum Yum I love pork”

Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Cris: Yep, I eat sausage or bacon almost every morning!

Warwick: every morning! hahah to be honest mate, not all of what enters your stomach will be expelled. Reap what you sew.

Matt: Still quoting Mark 7:19 to support yourself, eh Cris?

Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

I don’t think anyone here would argue that the act of sliding that slice of bacon down your throat every morning is a sin in and of itself. Indeed, it is not this which defiles you, though it certainly is killing you.

Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Your consumption of meat, viewed in isolation, is not a sin because this does not affect your heart.

Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men...

The fact of the matter is, you sin long before you open your mouth and eat your meal. What defiles you is not your CONSUMPTION of meat, but your DECISION to do so. Your decision to kill for a meal that isn’t even good for you demonstrates that out of YOUR heart proceed “murders” and “covetousness,” among other evils. The very verses you cite condemn you, yet to this fact you remain willfully blind.

So bottom line, you think Yahshuah granted you license to eat whatever you want? Really? Then maybe you missed the above citation:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete.”

Even the less-than-adequate Torah forbade consumption of the same foods you pride yourself on eating every morning; read the man’s words: the same command is STILL in effect. Only now, no doubt, the more complete version includes prohibition against ALL meat; if he equates being angry with your brother to “you shall not murder,” you most certainly will not get away with murdering animals just to satisfy your carnal desires.

Warwick: furthermore it’s not just you that suffers of your sin - having lived so long under the practice of closing your heart (defiled) to the suffering of your fleshfood; you take that practice into our communities and wear your necklace of numb - Role modelling no less! Come kids, come veil your heart, it’s fine by God - see kiddies? it’s fine, you can’t feel anything - go and eat with impunity.

Yeesh, we all inherit this culture of ignorance. Is it any wonder why the armies still march?

One needs to ask: What serves our highest purpose most; Numbness, or Sensitivity?

God, Gott, Gut, lets not confuse the Gut feeling with flesh feeling “good” in your gut.

Matt: Well said, [Warwick]. Thought always precedes action. It is in failing to control our thoughts, our impulses and our emotions that we sin. All the offenses proscribed in the Torah are simply the outward manifestations of sins that have ALREADY occurred. Only God knows our hearts, but we were given lists of outward signs to look for, by which we could identify when a person has given himself over to sin. Needless to say, by the time these signs appear, the individual has already been sinning, inwardly, for a good long time.

Wasn’t this precisely the point of Yahshuah’s stunning explication of the Torah in Matthew 5? Look at the examples he gives:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill [outward manifestation of sin]...but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause [sin] shall be in danger of the judgment.”

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery [outward manifestation of sin]: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart [sin].”

Cris: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” (Jas 2:10) you put yourself under the law you are obligated to keep the whole law, you have abandoned the Gospel. “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Ga 5:4)

Paul: So, just to be clear, you think that:

1. The Gospel is the antithesis of God’s Law.
2. Anyone who tries to be perfect or even to abstain from any one thing condemned by the Law, as Christ commanded, has literally abandoned the Gospel.
3. Therefore, no part of God’s Law should ever be upheld or practiced by anyone who professes the Christian faith.

Is that about right, Chris?

I wonder if you recognize what the implication of your point of view is. If all is permitted in terms of killing and eating, then isn’t all permitted in terms of every other sin, too? Do you really think that’s the Gospel in a nutshell?

Paul: “they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”

Because your carnal desires clearly outweigh the esteem you have for the scriptures you profess, to the point that you are happy to denounce them if it suits the purpose of justifying your “daily” sins. That much has been abundantly clear.

Paul: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

All the more reason to keep the whole law! Duh.

Matt: “I wonder if you recognize what the implication...”

Clearly he doesn’t understand the implications of any of his statements. Otherwise he wouldn’t be citing Paul in order to contradict the words of Christ.

Paul says we should not seek to be *justified* by the law, which is NOT the same as saying, “there IS no law.”

Here it is, one more time:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.”

NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE. But the Law has been abolished. Right.

Matt: Right here we are seeing precisely why the Law is still in effect, and necessary, FOR SINNERS:

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Cris: “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”(Ro 3:9-12) [B.12]

Cris: Also you guys really should do some research on the distinctions between civil, ceremonial, and moral law in the Torah. The poor argumentation here demonstrates a complete lack of serious study. The Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect for anyone, it was conditional and it was broken. [A.7]

Cris: “The Old Testament represents God’s previous covenant with Israel made on Mount Sinai, which is one we are no longer obligated to keep. Therefore we can hardly begin by assuming that the old covenant should automatically be binding on us. We should assume, in fact, that none of its stipulations (laws) are binding on us unless they are renewed in the new covenant. That is, unless an Old Testament law is somehow restated or reinforced in the New Testament, it is no longer directly binding on God’s people (cf. Rom 6:14--15). There have been changes from the old covenant to the new covenant. God expects of his people--us--somewhat different evidences of obedience and loyalty from those he expected from the Old Testament Israelites. The loyalty itself is still expected. It is how one shows this loyalty that has been changed in certain ways.

3. Two kinds of old-covenant stipulations have clearly not been renewed in the new covenant. While a complete coverage of the categories of Old Testament law would take a book of its own, the portion of laws from the Pentateuch that no longer apply to Christians can be grouped conveniently into two categories: (1) the Israelite civil laws and (2) the Israelite ritual laws. While some Old Testament laws do still apply to us (see #4 below), these do not.

The civil laws are those that specify penalties for various crimes (major and minor) for which one might be arrested and tried in Israel. These are the laws that shaped the daily life of Israel as God’s people in their relationships with one another and toward their culture. So when you read them, think in terms of their role in ancient Israelite society; and think also in terms of how they reveal something about God’s own character. On the other hand, such laws in the end apply only to citizens of ancient Israel, and no one living today is a citizen of ancient Israel.

The ritual laws constitute the largest single block of Old Testament laws and are found throughout Leviticus, as well as in many parts of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These told the people of Israel how to carry on the practice of worship, detailing everything from the design of the implements of worship, to the priests’ responsibilities, to what sorts of animals should be sacrificed and how. The sacrificing (ceremonial killing, cooking, and eating) of animals was central to the Old Testament way of worshiping God. Without the shedding of blood, no forgiveness of sins was possible (see Heb 9:22). When Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice was accomplished, however, this old-covenant approach was immediately made obsolete. It no longer figures in Christian practice, although worship--in the new-covenant manner--continues.

But some will ask, “Didn’t Jesus say that we are still under the Law, since no jot or tittle, not the least stroke of a pen, would ever drop out of the Law?” The answer is, no, he did not say that. What he said (see Luke 16:16--17) was that the Law cannot be changed. Jesus came to establish a new covenant (see Luke 22:20; cf. Heb 8--10), and in so doing “fulfilled” the purpose of the old, thus bringing its time to an end. The fulfillment itself Jesus called a “new command”--the law of love (John 13:34--35).

There are many modern analogies to this sort of change of stipulations from covenant to covenant. In the case of labor contracts, for example, a new contract may specify changes in working conditions, different staffing structures, different pay scales, etc. Yet it may also retain certain features of the old contract--seniority, work breaks, provisions against arbitrary firing, etc. Now a labor contract is hardly on the level of the covenant between God and Israel, but it is a type of covenant and therefore helps illustrate in a familiar way the fact that a new covenant can be quite different from an old covenant, yet not necessarily totally different. This is just the case with the biblical covenants.”

Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 167.

Cris: “All the more reason to keep the whole law! Duh.” Hello?, You can’t!!!! The entire point of the New Testament is that NO ONE can. [B.12]

Matt: I’m sorry Cris. I habitually employ poor argumentation, and I really don’t study the Bible. Ever. So can you help me out here and tell me precisely what Christ meant when he said he had no intention of doing away with even one speck of the Law, if not exactly that? Because, you know, I tend to think his words are more authoritative than Gordon D. Fee’s and Douglas K. Stuart’s, whoever they are.

Stewart: Nice long explanation to say, “So screw the laws, right? Nobody can do it. Jesus forgives me, and thats all that matters. Lets keep sinning everyone.” Sounds like the righteous gospel to me. So much for narrow is the way.

Matt: 2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Cris: When something is fulfilled it is completed, when Jesus said he “fulfilled the law” it means he completed it. It is now put away - obsolete - Again if you would study the concept of covenant, the ceremonial and civil laws for the Jews were limited to the OT era. The New Covenant has done away with all of that. Hebrews 8 makes this crystal clear, it is obsolete! “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13)

Matt: Read the words Cris:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Last time I checked, heaven and earth have not passed. So.....?

Matt: Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Cris: “till all be fulfilled” the verse above that says “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” and he succeeded, it is all fulfilled in Christ the old covenant and its requirements now obsolete “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”(Ga 5:14)

Cris: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Ga 5:1)

Matt: The burden of proof is on YOU to reconcile Hebrews 8 with Matthew 5. And by reconcile, I most certainly do not mean nullify or invalidate, for that is what you are currently doing with Christ’s own words. I realize the implications this one passage has for your entire paradigm, but surely somewhere in there you recognize that the way you are treating Yahshuah’s own clear teachings on this subject is as far from honest as you can get. All your elaborate theological constructs collapse right here. Your choice: admit it, or turn a blind eye to it.

Matt: til heaven and earth pass away = the time when all shall be fulfilled. If not, then please explain why this phrase is included at all. Basic reading comprehension.

Cris: It is you who aren’t accounting for the passage. He was talking to he says he came to fulfill it, what is fulfilled is finished, the old covenant is done its over - I say he succeeded but apparently you think he failed?

Matt: Cris’s idea of fulfilling the Law: “What is fulfilled is finished, the old covenant is done its over.”

Christ’s idea of fulfilling the Law: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”

Sorry Cris, those are not equivalent. At all.

Cris: You keep equivocating because you do not understand very basics of the OT. There is a distinction between ceremonial, civil and moral law. Jesus specifically reiterated the moral code like the 10 commandments but the dietary laws and what not are obsolete as the Acts 15 council definitively decided. You are fallaciously equivocating moral laws with Mosaic ceremonial laws that were ONLY for OT Jews.

Cris: Jesus specifically declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19 so obviously he saw the distinction!

Cris: You guys are throwing the Gospel under the bus in your zeal. The first 8 chapters of Romans will disabuse you any lingering notions that the law is still operative, please prayerfully read Romans. I also think this would be really helpful for you guys to read too, its from a commentary on Romans 14:2 ::

“The vegetarianism mentioned by Paul in Romans 14:2 is not the same as the vegetarianism practiced by many Christians today. The abstaining from meat that Paul refers to was based on grounds of religious purity--the desire not to eat meat which had been part of sacrifices to pagan idols and may not have been prepared in accordance with Jewish kosher practices.

But there is a biblically-based vegetarianism that is gaining acceptance in the contemporary church. It is based not on Romans 14:2 but on the diet God apparently prescribed in Genesis 1:29 immediately after humans were created--a diet of fruits and vegetables (see also Gen. 2:16). Even the animals were created to be vegetarian (Gen. 1:30), and humanity apparently remained vegetarian by precept after the fall into sin (Gen. 3:18). It was not until after the Flood that God gave Noah and his family (and apparently the human family) permission to eat meat (Gen. 9:2--4). Many Christians today see God’s permission to eat meat as being a concession much like divorce--an exception to a divine ideal. Many are moving beyond vegetarianism to a total exclusion of meat products such as milk, eggs, cheese, and the like (referred to as a “vegan” lifestyle).

The positive side of vegetarianism is that there may be health benefits; the negative side is that what is a nonessential part of the Christian life could be made an essential part by those who practice it. Just as some Jewish believers in Rome no doubt looked down on their Gentile brethren for eating meat, Christians today who are vegetarians must guard against judging their meat-eating brethren.

Kenneth Boa and William Kruidenier, vol. 6, Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 440.”

Paul: Cris, please answer my question. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice:

“So, just to be clear, you think that:

1. The Gospel is the antithesis of God’s Law.
2. Anyone who tries to be perfect or even to abstain from any one thing condemned by the Law, as Christ commanded, has literally abandoned the Gospel.
3. Therefore, no part of God’s Law should ever be upheld or practiced by anyone who professes the Christian faith.

Is that about right, Cris?”

So far all I’ve seen from you is ad hominem insults.

Warwick: when I complete my house I live in it, not obliterate it.

Paul: You say we have equivocated moral laws with Mosaic ceremonial laws. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY BE ADVOCATING VEGETARIANISM FROM SCRIPTURE? Obviously the Mosaic law allowed for things which the moral law advocated by Christ doesn’t. Obviously.

Paul: And notice also that I said “God’s Law,” not “the law of Moses.” At least get that straight before you presume to put senseless logic in our mouths, as though we are arguing from a point of sheer ignorance and stupidity like you.

Paul: I quote from the original statement with this photo:

“It never ceases to amaze me how the WHOLE MORAL ASPECT OF GOD’S LAW can be thrown out by invoking a single passage from scripture”

If you were to simply READ what is written, you wouldn’t keep coming off as such a malicious jackass. But as it is, you seem intent on it. So why shouldn’t we treat you like one?

Cris: 1) No, the Gospel is its fulfillment of it “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”(Ga 5:14) The ceremonial dietary laws of the OT have NEVER applied to anyone but the OT Jews. It is completely fallacious to equivocate on the word “law.” It’s absurd and amounts to dangerous heresy. [B.1]

2) Obviously, it’s a good thing to try to be moral, but “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). This simply means that no Christian is a “keeper of biblical law.” [B.12]

3) Jesus reiterated the moral code but this has nothing to do with dietary laws, you are twisting his words and it flat out contratdicts Jesus teaching in Mark 7:19. Paul said: “Meat commends us not to God: for neither if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (1 Corinthians 8:8). What Paul shows is that the Christian has no “clean or unclean” food laws in a ceremonial sense. “All things are indeed pure” (Romans 14:20). To the Colossians, who were mature Christians, Paul gave this reminder:”Let no man therefore judge you in meat [food] or drink, or in the respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” (Colossians 2:16). Which is exactly what you are doing!

Paul: Except that the “you” in the context of Colossians is pretty much the opposite of the “you” if I’m speaking to Cris Putnam and every other mainstream pseudo-Christian. Maybe you didn’t know that. Now you do.

Paul: I just love how you think that “heresy” implies something bad. My God, can’t you see the irony of it??

Cris: BTW I am cooking some chilli right now

Paul: Never mind that virtually every prophet or apostle in history has been persecuted even to death. Are you aware of the fact that the Bible in its entirety is heresy? For example: Council of Valencia (1229), the Council of Trent (1545), Papal Bull (1713). Maybe this should shed some new light on why your “Jesus” called it “your book.”

Cris: You would do well to read this: [“The Dietary Laws of the Bible” by Ernest L. Martin]

Paul: I won’t expect any miraculous conversion any time soon, seeing as you are not even aware that there IS a Damascus.

Paul: ^This from the guy who can’t even be bothered to read a single paragraph before he attempts a rebuttal of it. What a joke.

Matt: “There is a distinction between ceremonial, civil and moral law.”

Number one, I would like you to demonstrate that by “not one jot or tittle,” he actually meant “not one jot or tittle of the moral law, but forget about all that other tripe.” Those are your distinctions, not his. You’re not fooling anyone, trying to put words in his mouth.

Number two, do you really fail to realize that even the specific set of ceremonial and civil laws were so given for specific reasons, which were fundamentally moral? Or do you just think that God is capricious? Every godly law is moral at its root; hence the entire New Testament theme of the Jews worshiping the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit.

Number three, just to make it perfectly clear, nowhere have I advocated or intended to advocate a return to the Mosaic law. When Yahshuah says that the Torah shall *never* be destroyed, I take this to mean the fundamental moral principles underlying the Torah, which manifested themselves, for the ancient Israelites, in the particularities of Moses’ legal codes. That he was referring to these principles, as opposed to every specific dietary regulation et al, is evidenced by his examples of how he intended to complete the Torah. Thus [Paul]’s perfectly good point that vegetarianism certainly cannot be advocated strictly from the Mosaic law, but is naturally consonant with the principles underlying this set of laws.

Matt: “The Bible teaches that all people are sinners -- even Christians who have a relationship with Christ.”

That’s all I needed to read.

Matt: You would do well to read the Bible, rather than pseudo-Christian commentaries.

Cris: [Paul] youseem like a David Koresh in the making, when I call you a heretic I mean you are exactly the sort Paul addressed in Galatians, nearly exactly the same spiritually, [B.1] In chapters 5--6 Paul showed how the gospel of grace leads to true freedom and godly living. Perhaps the central message of Galatians is “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16).

Cris: [Matt] what part of “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 Jn 1:8--10) not clear to you?

Matt: Like you would understand if I wasted any more of my time explaining things to you. Tell you what, you keep the pork, I’ll keep the pearls. Good day.

Cris: [Matt] I have Masters degree in Theology and read the NT in Koine Greek, right now I am working on Hebrew exegesis and applying for PhD programs in theology. I understand with great clarity that you are missing the primary message of the NT. I sincerely hope you will try to sit down and just read the book of Romans in one sitting devoid of your presuppositions. Just try to follow Paul’s arguments. The law of sin and death is slavery. Perhaps read Galatians straight through as well. I truly believe if you would do that you would quickly drop this yoke of slavery you have taken upon yourself. Paul said it very concisely but you deny it: “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”(Ga 2:16)

Matt: “I have Masters degree in Theology and read the NT in Koine Greek, right now I am working on Hebrew exegesis and applying for PhD programs in theology.”

Good luck, Cris.

Paul: *shakes dust*

Paul: 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

Paul: Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over him: “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.” So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days. At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. So the guard took away their meat and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead. Daniel 1:11-16

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Michael: What zombie apocalypse? what the hell are you talking about?

Cris: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.(Ga 1:6--8)

“Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Ro 3:27--28)

Paul: ^This from the guy who writes about the Antichrist and openly declares his fealty to Jesus. Nice.

Cris: [Paul] you are a sad case. You come along and decide that Theologians and biblical scholars of the past 2000 years are all wrong. People who have dedicated their lives to studying the scriptures in the original languages and teach in seminaries their entire lives serving God. And then here comes [Paul] the great who determines that nearly every great Christian scholar in history is wrong, that we are still obligated to keep the law and that eating meat is a sin. Your arrogance is only out matched by your ignorance son. The whole New Testament stands as witness against you. “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision [Law], Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

(Ga 5:2--4) By putting yourself under the law, you are severed from Christ !!! Think about how grossly exaggerated your pride is.

Paul: “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29
“Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.” Galatians 1:10

Paul: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law.” Romans 2:25

Cris: But no one keeps the LAW!! That’s main idea of Romans!!!!! [B.12]

Paul: He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. Isaiah 7:15

And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1 John 3:15-16

You think you know better than God on the authority of a demonstrably Satanic ecumenical council, and I’m the arrogant one?

Paul: At the very least, any reasonable person who held your point of view of Romans would have to ask why it blatantly contradicts the plain speech of John’s epistles, or else accept that they are inconsistent. But the notion that you understand what Paul means when John himself declared that the darkness has not understood the light is wholly preposterous.

Paul: And if you accept that Isaiah 7:15 refers to “Jesus,” as I know you would if you removed your obstinate bias, you would see as clearly as the rest of us just how wrong your main premise is. But that would involve a change of perspective, a.k.a., repentance, wouldn’t it? And that’s impossible for someone who not only chooses to sin, but also makes it his purpose to tell everyone else to.

Cris: Its not just my point view its the main idea of the book -> “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Ro 3:20) and I can cite 100s of NT scholars who agree. Almost no one agrees with you- zilch- why is that? You have reached RADICALLY different conclusions because you are mistaken in fundamental ways that skews your reading of everything else. You are almost exactly like the Phraisees who Jesus opposed.

Paul: Ironic, isn’t it? I’m the “Phraisee.” Makes sense though. My mom was born near Frazee, MN, and I have family there. lol

Matt: “But no one keeps the LAW!! That’s main idea of Romans!!!!!”

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herodes, the sovereign of Yehuḏah, a certain priest named Zeḵaryah, of the division of Aḇiyah. And his wife was of the daughters of Aharon, and her name was Elisheḇa.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before Elohim, blamelessly walking in all the commands and righteousnesses of יהוה.

1Jn 5:3 For this is the love for Elohim, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy.

Joh 14:15 “If you love Me, you shall guard My commands.”

2Jn 1:6 And this is the love, that we walk according to His commands. This is the command, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.

“I can cite 100s of NT scholars who agree. Almost no one agrees with you- zilch- why is that?”

Mat 7:13 “Enter in through the narrow gate! Because the gate is wide -- and the way is broad -- that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter in through it.
Mat 7:14 “Because the gate is narrow and the way is hard pressed which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world nor that which is in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 Because all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of the Father but is of the world.
1Jn 2:17 And the world passes away, and the lust of it, but the one doing the desire of Elohim remains forever.

Paul: “why is that?”

I tried to explain it to him. Is it any wonder he’s pursuing a PhD to show the world he’s one of them?

Paul: You think he’s pompous now? Just wait til he gets to call himself “Dr. Putzman.”

Paul: If he doesn’t get cancer and die first, I mean.

Matt: Right. Good to know those book sales will be employed for more than just putting bacon on the table; now he’ll have the authority to justify his sins to large audiences. Hurrah for this world.

Matt: “[Paul] you are a sad case. You come along and decide that Theologians and biblical scholars of the past 2000 years are all wrong. People who have dedicated their lives to studying the scriptures in the original languages and teach in seminaries their entire lives serving God. And then here comes [Paul] the great who determines that nearly every great Christian scholar in history is wrong.”

But there also came to be false prophets among the people, as also among you there shall be false teachers, who shall secretly bring in destructive heresies, and deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. And many shall follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of, and in greed, with fabricated words, they shall use you for gain. From of old their judgment does not linger, and their destruction does not slumber. 2 Peter 2:1-3

Now I call upon you, brothers, watch out for those who cause divisions and stumbling, contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such ones do not serve our Master יהושע Messiah, but their own stomach, and by smooth words and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. -Romans 16:17-18

For there shall be a time when they shall not bear sound teaching, but according to their own desires, they shall heap up for themselves teachers tickling the ear, and they shall indeed turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to myths. -2 Timothy 4:3-4

But know this, that in the last days hard times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, thankless, wrong-doers, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, haters of good, betrayers, reckless, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Elohim, having a form of reverence but denying its power. And turn away from these! For among them are those who creep into households and captivate silly women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. -2 Timothy 3:1-7


Part C:




Appendix D - The Community Rule (1QS)

Translated by Geza Vermes


Thus said יהוה, “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and find rest for yourselves. But they said, ‘We do not walk in it.’” Jeremiah 6:16


[Column 1] 1Book of the Community Rule, that they may seek 2God with a whole heart and soul. and do good and right before Him as 3He commanded by the hand of Moses and all His servants the Prophets; that they may love 4all that He has chosen and hate all that he has rejected; that they may abstain from all evil and 5hold fast to all good [1 Thessalonians 5:21-22]; that they may practice truth, righteousness, and justice 6upon earth and no longer stubbornly follow a sinful heart and lustful eyes committing 7all manner of evil. He shall admit into the Covenant of Grace all those who have freely devoted themselves to the observance of God’s precepts, 8that they may be joined to the counsel of God and may live perfectly before Him in accordance with all that 9has been revealed concerning their appointed times, and that they may love all the sons of light, each 10according to his lot in God’s design, and hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt 11in God’s vengeance. All those who freely devote themselves to His truth shall bring all their knowledge, powers, 12and possessions into the Community of God, that they may purify their knowledge in the truth of God’s precepts and order their powers according to His 13ways of perfection and all their possessions according to His righteous counsel. They shall not depart 14from any command of God concerning their times; they shall be neither early nor late for any of 15their appointed times, they shall stray neither to the right nor to left of any of His true precepts. 16All those who embrace the Community Rule shall enter into the Covenant before God to obey 17all His commandments so that they may not abandon Him during 18the dominion of Satan because of fear or terror or affliction. On entering the Covenant, the Priests and 19Levites shall bless the God of salvation and all His faithfulness, and all those 20entering the Covenant shall say after them, “Amen, Amen!” 21Then the Priests shall recite the favors of God manifested in His mighty deeds and 22shall declare all His merciful grace to Israel, and the Levites shall recite the 23iniquities of the children of Israel, all their guilty rebellions and sins during the dominion 24of Satan. And after them, all those entering the Covenant shall confess and say: “We have strayed! 25We have [disobeyed!] We and our fathers before us have sinned and done wickedly in walking 26[counter to the precepts] of truth and righteousness. [And God has] judged us and our fathers also; [Column 2] 1but He has bestowed His bountiful mercy on us from everlasting to everlasting.” And the Priests shall bless all the 2men of the lot of god who walk perfectly in all His ways, saying: “May He bless you with all 3good and preserve you from all evil [Psalm 121:7]! May He lighten your heart with life-giving wisdom and grant you eternal knowledge! May 4he raise His merciful face towards you for everlasting bliss [Numbers 6:23-27]!” And the Levites shall curse all the men of the 5lot of Satan, saying: ‘Be cursed because of all your guilty wickedness! 6May He deliver you up for torture at the hands of the vengeful Avengers! May He visit you with destruction by the hand of all the Wreakers 7of Revenge! Be cursed without mercy because of the darkness of your deeds! Be damned in the shadowy 8place of everlasting fire! May God not heed when you call on Him, nor pardon you by blotting out your sin! May 9He raise His angry face towards you for vengeance! May there be no “Peace” for you in the mouth of those who hold fast to the Fathers [Jeremiah 6:14; Ezekiel 13:10; Isaiah 48:22]!’ And after the blessing and the cursing, 10all those entering the Covenant shall say, “Amen, Amen!” 11And the Priests and Levites shall continue, saying: “Cursed be the man who 12enters this Covenant while walking among the idols of his heart, who sets up before himself his stumbling-block of sin so that he may backslide! 13Hearing the words of this Covenant, he blesses himself in his heart and says, “Peace be with me, even 14though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart” [Deuteronomy 24:18-19], whereas his spirit, parched [for lack of truth] and watered [with lies], shall be destroyed without 15pardon. God’s wrath and His zeal for His precepts shall consume him in everlasting destruction. All the 16curses of the Covenant shall cling to him and God will set him apart for evil. He shall be cut off from the midst of all the sons of light, and because he has 17turned aside from God on account of his idols and his stumbling-block of sin, his lot shall be among those who are cursed forever.” And after them, 18all those entering the Covenant shall answer and say, “Amen, Amen!” 19Thus shall they do, year by year, for as long as the dominion of Satan endures. The Priests shall enter 20first, ranked one after another according to the perfection of their spirit; then the Levites; and thirdly, 21all the people one after another in their Thousands, Hundreds, 22Fifties, and Tens, that every Israelite may know his place in the Community of God 23according to the everlasting design. No man shall move down from his place nor move up from his allotted position. 24For according to the holy design, they shall all of them be in a Community of truth and virtuous humility, 25of loving kindness and good intent one towards the other, and (they shall all of them be) sons of the everlasting Company. No man [shall be in the] Community of His truth who refuses to enter 26the Covenant of God so that he may walk in the stubbornness of his heart, for [Column 3] 1his soul detests the wise teaching of just laws. He shall not be counted among the upright for he has not persisted in the conversion of his life. 2His knowledge, powers, and possessions shall not enter the Council of the Community, for whoever ploughs the mud of wickedness returns 3defiled. He shall not be justified by that which his stubborn heart declares lawful, for seeking the ways of light he looks towards darkness. He shall 4not be reckoned among the perfect; he shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, 5nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with any ablution. Unclean, unclean shall he be. For as long as he despises the precepts of 6God he shall receive no instruction in the Community of His counsel. For it is through the spirit of true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his 7sins shall be expiated that he may contemplate the light of life. He shall be cleansed from all 8his sins by the spirit of holiness uniting him to His truth, and his iniquity shall be expiated by the spirit of uprightness and humility. And when his 9flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to 10all the precepts of God. Let him them order his steps to walk perfectly in all the ways commanded by God concerning the times appointed for him, straying neither to right nor to left and 11transgressing none of His words, and he shall be accepted by virtue of pleasing atonement before God and it shall be to him a Covenant of the 12everlasting Community. 13The Master shall instruct all the sons of light and shall teach them the nature of all the children of men 14according to the kind of spirit which they possess, the signs identifying their works during their lifetime, their visitation for chastisement, and the time of 15their reward. From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed He established their whole design, 16and when, as ordained for them, they come into being, it is in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their task without change. 17The laws of all things are in His hand and He provides them with all their needs. He has created man to govern the 18world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of 19truth and falsehood. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of falsehood spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled 20by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of falsehood are ruled by the Angel 21of Darkness and walk in the way of darkness. The Angel of Darkness leads all the 22children of righteousness astray, and until his end, all their sin, iniquities, wickedness, and all their unlawful deeds are caused by his dominion 23in accordance with the mysteries of God. Every one of their chastisements, and every one of the seasons of their distress, 24shall be brought about by the rule of his persecution; for all his allotted spirits seek the overthrow of the 25sons of light. But the God of Israel and His Angel of Truth will succor all the sons of light. For it is He who created the spirits of Light and Darkness and founded 26every action upon them and established every deed [upon] their [ways]. And He loves the one [Column 4] 1everlastingly and delights in its works forever; but the counsel of the other He loathes and forever hates its ways. 2These are their ways in the world for the enlightenment of the heart of man, and that all the paths of true righteousness may be made straight before him, and that the fear of the laws of God may be instilled in his heart: 3a spirit of humility, patience, abundant charity, unending goodness, understanding, and intelligence; (a spirit of) mighty wisdom which trusts in all the 4deeds of God and leans on His great lovingkindness; a spirit of discernment in every purpose, of zeal for 5just laws, of holy intent with steadfastness of heart, of great charity towards all the sons of truth, of admirable purity which detests all unclean idols, of humble conducts spring from 6an understanding of all things, and of faithful concealment of the mysteries of truth. These are the counsels of the spirit to the sons of truth in this world. And as for the visitation of all who walk in this spirit, it shall be healing, 7great peace in a long life, and fruitfulness, together with every everlasting blessing and eternal joy in life without end, a crown of glory and a garment of 8majesty in unending light. 9But the ways of the spirit of falsehood are these: greed, and slackness in the search for righteousness, wickedness and lies, haughtiness and pride, falseness and deceit, cruelty 10and abundant evil, ill-temper and much folly and brazen insolence, abominable deeds (committed) in a spirit of lust, and ways of lewdness in the service of uncleanness, 11a blaspheming tongue, blindness of eye and dullness of ear, stiffness of neck and heaviness of heart, so that man walks in all the ways of darkness and guile. And the visitation of 12all who walk in this spirit shall be a multitude of plagues by the hand of all the destroying angels, everlasting damnation by the avenging wrath of the fury of God, eternal torment and endless disgrace 13together with shameful extinction in the fire of the dark regions. The times of all their generations shall be spent in sorrowful mourning and in bitter misery and in calamities of darkness until they are 14destroyed without remnant or survivor. 15The nature of all the children of the men is ruled by these (two spirits), and during their life all the hosts of men have a portion of their divisions and walk in (both) 16their ways. And the whole reward for their deeds shall be, for everlasting ages, according to whether each man’s portion in their two divisions is great or small. For God has established the spirits in equal measure until the 17final age, and has set everlasting hatred between their divisions. Truth abhors the works of falsehood, and falsehood hates all the ways of truth. And their struggle is 18fierce in all their arguments for they do not walk together. But in the mysteries of His understanding, and in His glorious wisdom, God has ordained an end for falsehood, and at the same time of the 19visitation He will destroy it forever. Then truth, which has wallowed in the ways of wickedness during the dominion of falsehood until the appointed 20time of judgment, shall arise in the world forever. God will then purify every deed of man with this truth; He will refine for Himself the human frame by rooting out all spirit of falsehood from the bounds of his 21flesh. He will cleanse him of all wicked deeds with the spirit of holiness; like purifying waters He will shed upon him the spirit of truth (to cleanse him) of all abomination and falsehood. And he shall be plunged 22into the spirit of purification that he may instruct the upright in the knowledge of the Most High and teach the wisdom of the sons of heaven to the perfect of way. For God has chosen them for an everlasting Covenant and 23all the glory of Adam shall be theirs. There shall be no more lies and all the works of falsehood shall be put to shame. Until now the spirits of truth and falsehood struggle in the hearts of men and they 24walk in both wisdom and folly. According to his portion of truth so does man hate falsehood, and according to his inheritance in the realm of falsehood so is he wicked and so 25hates truth. For God has established the two spirits in equal measure until the determined end, and until the Renewal, and He knows the reward of their deeds from all eternity. 26He has allotted them to the children of men that they may be according to the spirit within [them at the time] of the visitation. [Column 5] 1And this is the rule for the men of the community who have freely pledged themselves to be converted from all evil and to cling to all his commandments according to his will. They shall separate from 2the congregation of the men of falsehood and shall unite, with respect to the Law and possessions, under the authority of the sons of Zadok, the Priests who keep the Covenant, and of the multitude of the men 3of the Community who hold fast to the Covenant. Every decision concerning doctrine, property, and justice shall be determined by them. They shall practice truth and humility in common, 4and justice and uprightness and charity and modesty in all their ways. No man shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart so that he strays after his heart 5and eyes and evil inclination, but he shall circumcise in the Community the foreskin of evil inclination and of stiffness of neck that they may lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the Community of the everlasting 6Covenant. They shall atone for all those in Aaron who have freely pledged themselves to the House of Truth, and for those who join them to live in community and to take part in the trial and judgment and 7condemnation of all those who transgress the precepts. On joining the Community, this shall be their code of behavior with respect to all these precepts. Whoever approaches the Council of the Community 8shall enter the Covenant of God in the presence of all who have freely pledged themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to return with all his heart 9and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses in accordance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok, the Keepers of the Covenant and Seekers of His will, and to the multitude of the men of their Covenant who together have 10freely pledged themselves to His truth and to walking in the way of His delight. And he shall undertake by the Covenant to separate from all the men of falsehood who walk in 11the way of wickedness. For they are not reckoned in His Covenant. They have neither inquired nor sought after Him concerning His laws that they might know the hidden things in which they have sinfully erred; 12and matters revealed they have treated with insolence. Therefore Wrath shall rise up to condemn, and Vengeance shall be executed by the curses of the Covenant, and great chastisement of 13eternal destruction shall be visited on them, leaving no remnant. They shall not enter the water [baptism] to partake of the pure Meal of the saints, for they shall not be cleansed 14unless they turn from their wickedness: for all who transgress His word are unclean. Likewise, no man shall consort with him with regard to his work or property lest he be burdened with the 15guilt of his sin. He shall indeed keep away from him in all things, as it is written [Exodus 23:7], keep away from all that is false. No member of the 16Community shall follow him in matters of doctrine and justice, or eat or drink anything of his, or take anything from him 17except for a price; as it is written [Isaiah 2:22], keep away from the man in whose nostrils is breath, for wherein is he counted? 18For all those not reckoned in His Covenant are to be set apart, together with all that is theirs. None of the saints shall lean upon works of 19vanity [Belial]: for they are all vanity who know not His Covenant, and He will blot from the earth all them that despise His word. All their deeds are defilement 20before Him, and all their possessions unclean. But when a man enters the Covenant to walk according to all these precepts that he may join the holy Congregation, they shall examine 21his spirit in community with respect to his understanding and practice of the Law, under the authority of the sons of Aaron who have freely pledged themselves in the Community to restore 22His Covenant and to heed all the precepts commanded by Him, and of the multitude of Israel who have freely pledged themselves in the Community to return His Covenant. 23They shall inscribe them in order, one after another according to their understanding and their deeds, that every one may obey his companion, the man of lesser rank obeying his superior. And they 24shall examine their spirit and deeds yearly, so that each man may be advanced in accordance with his understanding and perfection of way, or moved down in accordance with the offences committed by him. They shall rebuke 25one another in truth, humility, and charity. Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, 26or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness. Let him not hate him [because of his uncircumcised] heart, but let him rebuke him on the very same day lest [Column 6] 1he incur guilt because of him. And furthermore, let no man accuse his companion before the Congregation without having first admonished him in the presence of witnesses [Matthew 18:15-17]. These are the ways in which all of them 2shall walk, each man with his companion, wherever they dwell. The man of lesser rank shall obey the greater in matters of work and money. They shall eat in common and 3pray in common and deliberate in common. Wherever there are ten men of the Council of the Community there shall not lack 4a Priest among them. And they shall all sit before him according to their rank and shall be asked their counsel in all things in that order. And when the table has been prepared for eating, and the new wine 5for drinking, the Priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand 6to bless the first-fruits of the bread and new wine. And where the ten are, there shall never lack a man among them who shall study the Law continually, day and night 7concerning the right conduct of a man with his companion. And Congratulation shall watch in community for a third of every night of the year, to read the book and to study Law and 8to pray together. This is the rule for an Assembly of the Congregation. Each man shall sit in his place: the Priests shall sit first, and the elders second, and 9all the rest of the people according to their rank. And thus shall they be questioned concerning the Law, and concerning any counsel or matter coming before the congregation, each man bringing his 10knowledge to the Council of the Community. No man shall interrupt a companion before his speech has ended, nor speak before a man of higher rank; 11each man shall speak in his turn. And in an Assembly of the Congregation no man shall speak without the consent of the Congregation, nor indeed of the 12Guardian of the Congregation. Should any man wish to speak to the Congregation, yet not be in a position to question the 13Council of the Community, let him rise to his feet and say: “I have something to say to the Congregation.” If they command him to speak, he shall speak. Every man born of Israel, who freely pledges himself 14to join the Council of the Community shall be examined by the Guardian at the head of the Congregation concerning his understanding and his deeds. If his is fitted to the discipline, he shall admit him into 15the Covenant that he may be converted to the truth and depart from all falsehood; and he shall instruct him in all the rules of the Community. And later, when he comes to stand before the Congregation, they shall 16all deliberate his case, and according to the decision of the Council of the Congregation he shall either enter or depart. After he has entered the Council of the Community he shall not touch the pure Meal of 17the Congregation until one full year is completed, and until he has been examined concerning his spirit and deeds; nor shall he have any share of the property of the Congregation. 18Then when he has completed one year within the Community, the Congregation shall deliberate his case with regard to his understanding and observance of the law. And if it be his destiny, 19according to the judgment of the Priests and the multitude of the men of their Covenant, to enter the company of the Community, his property and earnings shall be handed over to the Bursar 20of the Congregation who shall register it to his account and shall not spend it for the Congregation. He shall not touch the Drink of the Congregation until he has 21completed a second year among the men of the Community. But when the second year has passed, he shall be examined, and if it be 22his destiny, according to the judgment of the Congregation, to enter the Community, then he shall be inscribed among his brethren in the order of his rank for the Law, and for justice, and for the pure Meal; his property shall be merged and he shall offer his 23counsel and judgment to the Community. 24These are the rules by which they shall judge at a Community (court of) inquiry according to the cases. If one of them has lied 25deliberately in matters of property, he shall be excluded from the pure Meal of the Congregation for one year and shall do penance with respect to one quarter of his food. Whoever has answered 26his companion with obstinacy, or has addressed him impatiently, going so far as to take no account of the dignity of his fellow by disobeying the order of a brother inscribed before him, 27he has taken the law into his own hand; therefore he shall do penance for one year [and shall be excluded]. If any man has uttered the [Most] Venerable Name [Column 7] 1even though frivolously, or as a result of shock or for any other reason whatever, while reading the Book or praying, he shall be dismissed and 2shall return to the Council of the Community no more. If he has spoken in anger against one of the Priests inscribed in the Book, he shall do penance for one year 3and shall be excluded for his soul’s sake from the pure Meal of the Congregation. But if he has spoken unwittingly, he shall do 4penance for six months. Whoever has deliberately lied shall do penance for six months. Whoever has deliberately insulted his companion unjustly shall do penance for one year and shall be excluded. 5whoever has deliberately deceived his companion by word or by deed shall do penance for six months. If he has failed to care for his 6companion, he shall do penance for three months. But if he has failed to care for the property of the Community, thereby causing its loss, he shall restore it in full. 7And if he be unable to restore it, he shall do penance for sixty days. Whoever has borne malice against his companion unjustly shall do penance for six months/one year; and likewise, 8whoever has taken revenge in any matter whatever. Whoever has spoken foolishly: three months. Whoever has interrupted his companion whilst speaking: 9ten days. Whoever has lain down to sleep during an Assembly of the Congregation: thirty days. And likewise, whoever has left, with-10out reason, an Assembly of the Congregation as many as three times during one Assembly, shall do penance for ten days. But if he has departed whilst they were standing 11he shall do penance for thirty days. Whoever has gone naked before his companion, without having been obliged to do so, he shall do penance for six months. 12Whoever has spat in an Assembly of the Congregation shall do penance for thirty days. Whoever has been so poorly dressed that when drawing his hand from beneath his garment 13his nakedness has been seen, he shall do penance for thirty days. Whoever has guffawed foolishly shall do penance for thirty 14days. Whoever has drawn out his left hand to gesticulate with it shall do penance for ten days. Whoever has gone about slandering his companion shall be excluded from the pure Meal of the Congregation for 15one year and shall do penance. But whoever has slandered the Congregation shall be expelled from among them 16and shall return no more. Whoever has murmured against the authority of the Community shall be expelled and shall not return. But if he has murmured against his companion 17unjustly, he shall do penance for six months. Should a man return whose spirit has so trembled before the authority of the Community that he has betrayed the truth and 18walked in the stubbornness of his heart, he shall do penance for two years. During the first year he shall not touch the pure Meal of the Congregation, and during the 19second year he shall not touch the Drink of the Congregation and shall sit below all the men of the Community. Then when 20his two years are completed, the Congregation shall consider his case, and if he is admitted he shall be inscribed in his rank and may then question concerning the Law. 21If, after being in the Council of the Community for ten full years, 22the spirit of any man has failed so that he has betrayed the Community and departed from the Congregation to walk in the stubbornness of his heart, he shall return no more to the Council of the Community. Moreover, if any member 23of the Community has shared with 24him his food or property which … of the Congregation, his sentence shall be the same; he shall be ex[pelled]. [Column 8] 1In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three Priests, perfectly versed in all that is revealed of 2the Law, whose works shall be truth, righteousness, justice, loving kindness and humility. They shall 3preserve the faith in the Land with steadfastness and meekness and shall atone for sin by the practice of justice and by 4suffering the sorrows of affliction. They shall walk with all men according to the standard of truth and the rule of time. When these are in Israel, 5the Council of the Community shall be established in truth. It shall be an Everlasting Plantation, a House of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness 6for Aaron. They shall be eyewitnesses to the truth at the Judgment, and shall be the elect of Goodwill who shall atone for the Land and pay to the 7wicked their reward. It shall be that tried wall, that PRECIOUS CORNER-STONE, 8whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place [Isaiah 28:16]. It shall be a Most Holy Dwelling 9for Aaron with everlasting knowledge of the Covenant of justice, and shall offer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a House of Perfection and Truth in Israel that they may 10establish a Covenant according to the everlasting precepts. And they shall be an agreeable offering, atoning for the Land and determining the judgment of wickedness, and there shall be no more iniquity. When they have been confirmed for two years in perfection of way 11by the authority of the Community, they shall be set apart as holy within the Council of the men of the Community. And the 12Interpreter shall not conceal from them, out of fear of the spirit of apostasy, any of those things hidden from Israel which have been discovered by him. And when these become members of the Community 13in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him; 14as it is written [Isaiah 40:3], prepare in the wilderness the way of … , make straight in the desert a path for our god. 15This (path) is the study of the Law which He commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, 16and as Prophets have revealed by His Holy Spirit. And no man among the members of the Covenant 17of the Community who deliberately, on any point whatever, turns aside from all that is commanded, shall touch the pure Meal of the men of holiness 18or know anything of their counsel until his deeds are purified from all falsehood and he walks in perfection of way. And then, according to the judgment of the Congregation, 19he shall be admitted to the Council and shall be inscribed in his rank. This rule shall apply to whoever enters the Community. 20And these are the rules which the men of perfect holiness shall follow in their commerce with one another. 21Every man who enters the Council of Holiness, (the Council of those) who walk in the way of perfection as commanded by God, and who deliberately or through negligence 22transgresses one word of the Law of Moses, on any point whatever, shall be expelled from the Council of the Community 23and shall return no more; no man of holiness shall be associated in his property or counsel in any 24matter at all. But if he has acted inadvertently, he shall be excluded from the pure meal and the Council and they shall interpret the rule 25(as follows). For two years he shall take no part in judgment or ask for counsel; but if, during that time, his way becomes perfect, 26then he shall return to the (Court of) the Congregation, provided that he commit no further inadvertent sin during two full years. [Column 9] 1For one sin of inadvertence (alone) he shall do penance for two years. But as for him who has sinned deliberately, he shall never return; only the man who has sinned inadvertently 2shall be tried for two years that his way and counsel may be made perfect according to the judgment of the congregation. And afterwards, he shall be inscribed in his rank in the Community of Holiness. 3When these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall establish the spirit of holiness according to everlasting truth. 4They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they may obtain lovingkindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. 5And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering [Psalm 141:2; Hosea 14:2]. At the time, the men of the Community shall set apart 6a House of Holiness in order that it may be united to the most holy things and a House of Community for Israel, for those who walk in perfection. 7The sons of Aaron alone shall command in matters of justice and property, and every rule concerning the men of the Community shall be determined according to their word. 8As for the property of the men of holiness who walk in perfection, it shall not be merged with that of the men of falsehood 9who have not purified their life by separating themselves from iniquity and walking in the way of perfection. They shall depart from none of the counsels of the Law to walk in the 10stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed 11until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. 12These are the precepts in which the Master shall walk in his commerce with all the living, according to the rule proper to every season and according to the worth of every man 13He shall do the will of God according to all that has been revealed from age to age. 14He shall measure out all knowledge discovered throughout the ages, together with the Precept of the age. He shall separate and weigh the sons of righteousness according to their spirit. He shall hold firmly to the elect of the time according to 15His will, as He has commanded. He shall judge every man according to his spirit. He shall admit him accordance with the cleanness of his hands and advance him in accordance with his understanding. 16And he shall love and hate likewise. He shall not rebuke the men of the Pit nor dispute with them. 17He shall conceal the teaching of the Law from men of falsehood, but shall impart true knowledge and righteous judgment to those who have chosen 18the Way. He shall guide them all in knowledge according to the spirit of each and according to the rule of age, and shall thus instruct them in the mysteries of marvelous truth that in the midst 19of the men of the Community that they may walk perfectly together in all that has been revealed to them. This is the time for the preparation of the way 20into the wilderness, and he shall teach them to do all that is required at that time and to separate from all those who have not turned 21aside from all ungodliness. These are the rules of conduct for the Master in those times with respect to his loving and hating Everlasting hatred in a spirit of secrecy 22for the men of perdition! He shall leave to them wealth and earnings like a slave to his lord and like a poor man to his master. 23He shall be a man zealous for the Precept whose time is for the Day of Revenge. He shall perform the will of God in all his deeds, 24and in all his dominion as He has commanded. He shall freely delight 25in all that befalls him and nothing shall please him save God’s will. He shall delight in all the words of His mouth and shall desire nothing except His command. He shall watch always [for] the judgment of God, 26and shall bless his Maker [for all His goodness] and declare [His mercies] in all that befalls. He shall bless Him [with the offering] of the lips [Column 10] 1at the times ordained by Him: at the beginning of the 2dominion of light, and at its end when it retires to its appointed place; at the beginning of the watches of darkness when He unlocks their storehouse and spreads them out, and also at their end when they retire before the light; when the 3heavenly lights shine out from the dwelling-place of Holiness, and also when they retire to the place of glory; at the entry of the (monthly) seasons on the days of the new moon, and also at their end when they 4succeed to one another. Their renewal is a great day for the Holy of Holies, and a sign for the unlocking of everlasting mercies 5at the beginning of seasons in all times to come. At the beginning of the months of the (yearly) seasons and on the holy days appointed for remembrance, in their seasons I will bless Him 6with the offering of the lips according to the Precept engraved forever: at the beginning of the years and at the end of their seasons 7when their appointed law is fulfilled, on the day decreed by Him that they should pass from one to the other the season of early harvest to the summer time, the season of sowing to the season of grass, the seasons of years to their weeks (of years) 8and at the beginning of their weeks for the season of Jubilee. All my life the engraved Precept shall be on my tongue as the fruit of praise and the portion of my lips. 9I will sing with knowledge and all my music shall be for the glory of God. (My) lyre (and) my harp shall sound for His holy order and I will tune the pipe of my lips to His right measure. 10With the coming of day and night I will enter the Covenant of God, and when evening and morning depart I will recite His decrees. 11I will place in them my bounds without return. I will declare His judgment concerning my sins, and my transgressions shall be before my eyes as an engraved Precept. I will say to God, “My Righteousness” 12and “Author of my Goodness” to the Most High, “Fountain of Knowledge” and “Source of Holiness”, “Summit of Glory’ and “Almighty Eternal Majesty.” 13I will choose that which He teaches me and will delight in His judgment of me. Before I move my hands and feet I will bless His name. 14I will praise Him before I go out or enter, or sit or rise, and whilst I lie on the couch of my bed. I will bless Him with the offering of that which proceeds from my lips from the midst of the ranks of men, 15and before I lift my hands to eat of the pleasant fruits of the earth. 16I will bless Him for His exceeding wonderful deeds at the beginning of fear and dread and in the abode of distress and desolation. I will meditate on His power and will lean on His mercies all day long. 17I know that judgment of all the living is in His hand, and that all His deeds are truth. I will praise Him when distress is unleashed and will magnify Him also because of His salvation. 18I will pay to no man the reward of evil; I will pursue him with goodness. For judgment of all the living is with God and it is He who will render to man his reward. 19I will not envy in a spirit of wickedness, my soul shall not desire the riches of violence. I will not grapple with the men of perdition until the Day of Revenge, 20but my wrath shall not turn from the men of falsehood and I will not rejoice until judgment is made. I will bear no rancor against them that turn from transgression, 21but will have no pity on all who depart from the way. I will offer no comfort to the smitten until their way becomes perfect. I will not keep Satan within my heart, 22and in my mouth shall be heard no folly or sinful deceit, 23no cunning or lies shall be found on my lips. The fruit of holiness shall be on my tongue and no abominations shall be found upon it. I will open my mouth in songs of thanksgiving, and my tongue shall always proclaim 24the goodness of God and the sin of men until their transgression ends. I will cause vanities to cease from my lips, uncleanness and crookedness from the knowledge of my heart. I will impart/conceal knowledge with discretion 25and will prudently hedge it within a firm bound to preserve faith and strong judgment in accordance with the justice of God. 26I will distribute the Precept by measure-cord of the times, and … righteousness and lovingkindness towards the oppressed, encouragement to the troubled heart [Column 11] 1and discernment to the erring spirit, teaching understanding to them that murmur that they may answer meekly before the haughty of spirit 2and humbly before men of injustice who point the finger and speak of iniquity and who are zealous for wealth. As for me, my justification is with God. In His hand are the perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart. 3He will wipe out my transgression through His righteousness. For my light has sprung from the source of His knowledge; my eyes have beheld His marvelous deeds, 4and the light of my heart, the mystery to come. He that is everlasting is the support of my right hand; the way of my steps is over stout rock which nothing shall shake; 5for the rock of my steps is the truth of God and His might is the support of my right hand. From the source of His righteousness is my justification, 6and from His marvelous mysteries is the light in my heart. My eyes have gazed on that which is eternal, on wisdom concealed from men, on knowledge and wise design (hidden) from the sons of men; 7on a fountain of righteousness and a storehouse of power, on a spring of glory (hidden) from the assembly of flesh. God has given them to His chosen ones as an everlasting possession, 8and has caused them to inherit the lot of the Holy Ones. He has joined their assembly to the Sons of Heaven to be a Council of the Community, a foundation of the Building of Holiness, and eternal Plantation throughout all ages to come. 9As for me, I belong to wicked mankind, to the company of ungodly flesh. My iniquities, rebellions, and sins, together with the perversity of my heart, 10belong to the company of worms and to those who walk in darkness. For mankind has no way, and man is unable to establish his steps since justification is with God 11and perfection of way is out of His hand. All things come to pass by His knowledge; He establishes all things by His design and without Him nothing is done. 12As for me, if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my eternal salvation. If I stagger because of the sin of flesh, my justification shall be by the righteousness of God which endures forever 13When my distress is unleashed He will deliver my soul from the Pit and will direct my steps to the way. He will draw me near by His grace, 14and by His mercy will He bring my justification. He will judge me in the righteousness of His truth and in the greatness of His goodness He will pardon all my sins. 15Through His righteousness He will cleanse me of the uncleanness of man and of the sins of the children of men, that I may confess to God His righteousness, and His majesty to the Most High. Blessed are you, my God, 16who opens the heart of your servant to knowledge! Establish all his deeds in righteousness, and as it pleases you to do for the elect of mankind, grant that the son of your handmaid 17may stand before you forever. For without you no way is perfect, and without your will nothing is done. 18It is you who have taught all knowledge and all things come to pass by your will. There is none beside you to dispute your counsel 19or to understand all your holy design, or to contemplate the depth of your mysteries 20and the power of your might. Who can endure your glory, and what is the son of man in the midst of your wonderful deeds? 21What shall one born of woman be accounted before you? Kneaded from the dust, his abode is the nourishment of worms. 22He is but a shape, but molded clay, and inclines towards dust. What shall hand-molded clay reply? What counsel shall it understand?


Appendix E - Paths of Righteousness


“For I would not strive forever, nor am I wroth forever, for the spirit would grow faint before Me, even the beings I have made. For the crookedness of his unfair gain I was wroth and I smote him. I hid Myself and was wroth, and he went on backsliding in the way of his heart. I have seen his ways, but now I heal him, and I lead him, and restore comforts to him and to his mourners, creating the fruit of the lips: peace, peace to him who is far off and to him who is near,” said יהוה, “and I shall heal him.” But the wrong are like the troubled sea, for it is unable to rest, and its waters cast up mud and dirt. “There is no peace,” said my Elohim, “for the wrong.” Isaiah 57:16-21


Lesson from Proverbs

Do not envy evil men,
Nor desire to be with them;
For their heart plots to ravage,
And their lips talk of trouble.
By wisdom a house is built,
And by understanding it is established;
And by knowledge the rooms are filled
With all precious and pleasant riches.
Mighty is the wise in strength,
And a man of knowledge strengthens power;
For by wise guidance you wage your own battle,
And delivery is by a great counsellor.
Wisdom is high for a fool;
He does not open his mouth in the gate.
He who plots to do evil
Is called a master of evil plots.
The purpose of folly is sin,
And the scoffer is an abomination to men.
If you falter in the day of distress,
Your strength is small!
Deliver those taken to death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter,
If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
Would not He who weighs the hearts discern it?
He who watches over your life,
Would He not know it?
And shall He not repay man according to his work?
My son, eat honey, for it is good,
And the honeycomb, sweet to your taste;
Know that wisdom is thus to your being;
If you have found it, there is a future,
And your expectancy is not cut off.
Do not lie in wait, O wrong one,
Against the dwelling of the righteous;
Do not ravage his resting place;
For seven times a righteous man falls and rises,
But the wrong one stumbles into evil.
Do not exult when your enemy falls,
And let not your heart rejoice when he stumbles;
Lest יהוה see and it be evil in His eyes,
And He turn away His wrath from him.
Do not fret because of evil-doers,
And do not envy the wrong;
For there is no future for the evil-doer;
The lamp of the wrongdoers is put out.
My son, fear יהוה and the sovereign;
Do not mingle with those who change;
For their calamity arises suddenly,
And who knows the ruin of both of them?
Proverbs 24:1-22


Lesson from the Torah

“‘Do not make idols for yourselves, and do not set up a carved image or a pillar for yourselves, and do not place a stone image in your land, to bow down to it. For I am יהוה your Elohim. Guard My Sabbaths and reverence My set-apart place. I am יהוה. If you walk in My laws and guard My commands, and shall do them, then I shall give you rain in its season, and the land shall yield its crops, and the trees of the field yield their fruit. And your threshing shall last till the time of the grape harvest, and the grape harvest shall last till the time of sowing. And you shall eat your bread until you have enough, and shall dwell in your land safely. And I shall give peace in the land, and you shall lie down and no one make you afraid. And I shall clear the land of evil beasts, and not let the sword go through your land. And you shall pursue your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. And five of you shall pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you pursue ten thousand. And your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. And I shall turn to you and make you bear fruit, and shall increase you, and shall establish My covenant with you. And you shall eat the old supply, and clear out the old because of the new. And I shall set My Dwelling Place in your midst, and My being shall not reject you. And I shall walk in your midst, and shall be your Elohim, and you shall be My people. I am יהוה your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim, from being their slaves. And I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk upright. But if you do not obey Me, and do not do all these commands, and if you reject My laws, or if your being loathes My right-rulings, so that you do not do all My commands, but break My covenant, I also do this to you: And I shall appoint sudden alarm over you, wasting disease and inflammation, destroying the eyes, and consuming the life. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I shall set My face against you, and you shall be smitten before your enemies. And those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when no one pursues you. And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I shall punish you seven times more for your sins. And I shall break the pride of your power, and shall make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze. And your strength shall be spent in vain and your land not yield its crops, nor the trees of the land yield their fruit. And if you walk contrary to Me, and refuse to obey Me, I shall bring on you seven times more plagues, according to your sins, and send wild beasts among you, which shall bereave you of your children. And I shall cut off your livestock, and make you few in number, and your highways shall be deserted. And if you are not instructed by Me by these, but walk contrary to Me, then I also shall walk contrary to you, and I Myself shall smite you seven times for your sins. And I shall bring against you a sword executing the vengeance of My covenant, and you shall gather together in your cities, and I shall send pestilence among you, and you shall be given into the hand of the enemy. When I have cut off your supply of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall bring back to you your bread by weight, and you shall eat and not be satisfied. And if in spite of this, you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I shall walk contrary to you in wrath. And I Myself shall punish you seven times for your sins. And you shall eat the flesh of your sons, and eat the flesh of your daughters. And I shall destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-pillars, and put your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. And My being shall loathe you. And I shall turn your cities into ruins and lay your set-apart places waste, and not smell your sweet fragrances. And I shall lay the land waste, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it. And I shall scatter you among the gentiles and draw out a sword after you. And your land shall be desert and your cities ruins, and the land enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies waste and you are in your enemies’ land. Then the land would rest and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it lies waste it rests, for the time it did not rest on your Sabbaths when you dwelt in it. And as for those of you who are left, I shall send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies, and the sound of a shaken leaf shall cause them to flee. And they shall flee as though retreating from a sword, and they shall fall when no one pursues. And they shall stumble over one another, as from before a sword, when no one pursues. And you shall be unable to stand before your enemies. And you shall perish among the gentiles, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up, and those of you who are left rot away in their crookedness in your enemies’ lands, and also in their fathers’ crookednesses rot away with them. But if they confess their crookedness and the crookedness of their fathers, with their trespass in which they trespassed against Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me, and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies – if their uncircumcised heart is then humbled, and they accept the punishment of their crookedness, then I shall remember My covenant with Yaʽaqoḇ, and also My covenant with Yitsḥaq, and also remember My covenant with Aḇraham, and remember the land. For the land was abandoned by them, and enjoying its Sabbaths while lying waste without them, and they were paying for their crookedness, because they rejected My right-rulings and because their being loathed My laws. And yet for all this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I shall not reject them, nor shall I loathe them so as to destroy them and break My covenant with them. For I am יהוה their Elohim. Then I shall remember for their sake the covenant of the ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Mitsrayim before the eyes of the nations to be their Elohim. I am יהוה.’” These are the laws and the right-rulings and the Torot which יהוה made between Himself and the children of Yisra’ĕl on Mount Sinai by the hand of Mosheh. Leviticus 26


Lessons from the Prophets

“And now, O priests, this command is for you. “If you do not hear, and if you do not take it to heart, to give esteem to My Name,” said יהוה of hosts, “I shall send a curse upon you, and I shall curse your blessings. And indeed, I have cursed them, because you do not take it to heart. See, I shall rebuke your seed, and scatter dung before your faces, the dung of your festivals. And you shall be taken away with it. And you shall know that I have sent this command to you, as being My covenant with Lĕwi,” said יהוה of hosts. “My covenant with him was life and peace, and I gave them to him, to fear. And he feared Me, and stood in awe of My Name. The Torah of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and straightness, and turned many away from crookedness. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and they seek the Torah from his mouth, for he is the messenger of יהוה of hosts. But you, you have turned from the way, you have caused many to stumble in the Torah. You have corrupted the covenant of Lĕwi,” said יהוה of hosts. “And I also, I shall make you despised and low before all the people, because you are not guarding My ways, and are showing partiality in the Torah.” Have we not all one Father? Did not one Ěl create us? Why do we act treacherously against one another, to profane the covenant of the fathers? Yehuḏah has acted treacherously, and an abomination has been done in Yisra’ĕl and in Yerushalayim, for Yehuḏah has profaned what is set-apart to יהוה—which He had loved—and has married the daughter of a foreign mighty one. Let יהוה cut off from the tents of Yaʽaqoḇ the man who does this—stirring up or answering, and bringing an offering to יהוה of hosts! And this you have done a second time: you cover the altar of יהוה with tears, with weeping and crying, because He no longer regards the offering, nor receives it with pleasure from your hands. And you said, “Why?” Because יהוה has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have acted treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant. And did He not make one? And He had the remnant of the Spirit? And what is the one alone? He seeks a seed of Elohim. So you shall guard your spirit, and let none act treacherously against the wife of his youth. “For I hate divorce,” said יהוה Elohim of Yisra’ĕl, “and the one who covers his garment with cruelty,” said יהוה of hosts. “So you shall guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously.” You have wearied יהוה with your words, and you have said, “In what way have we wearied Him?” In that you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the eyes of יהוה, and He is delighting in them,” or, “Where is the Elohim of right-ruling?” Malachi 2

“See, Ěl is mighty, but rejects no one—mighty in power and heart. He does not keep the wrongdoer alive, but He gives right-ruling to the oppressed ones. He does not withdraw His eyes from the righteous, and sovereigns on the throne, and seats them forever, and they are exalted. And if they are bound in shackles, caught in the cords of affliction, then He reveals to them their work, and their transgressions, that they behaved proudly. And He opens their ear for discipline, and commands that they turn back from wickedness. If they obey and serve, they complete their days in blessedness, and their years in pleasantness. But if they do not obey, they perish by the sword, and die without knowledge. But the defiled ones in heart become enraged—let them not cry for help when He binds them. Their being dies in youth, and their life among the male prostitutes. He rescues the afflicted one in his affliction, and opens their ears in oppression. And He also would have brought you out of distress, into a broad place where there is no restraint. And what is set on your table would be filled with rich food. But you are filled with the judgment of the wrong, judgment and right-ruling take hold of you. Beware, that rage does not entice you to scoffing. And do not let a large bribe turn you aside. Would He value your riches? No, not precious ore, nor all your strength! Do not long for the night, when people go up in their place. Beware, do not turn to wickedness, for you have chosen this rather than affliction. See, Ěl is exalted by His power; who is a Teacher like Him? Who has appointed Him His way, or who has said, ‘You have worked unrighteousness’? Remember to extol His work, of which men have sung. All men have seen it, man looks on it from afar. See, Ěl is great, beyond our understanding, and we do not know the number of His years. For He draws up drops of water, which distil as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down—pour down in showers on man. Also, who understands the spreading of clouds, the crashing from His booth? See, He has spread his light upon it, and He has covered the depths of the sea. For by these He judges the peoples; He gives plenty of food. He has covered His hands with lightning, and commands it to strike. Its noise declares concerning Him, also the cattle, as to what is coming up.” Job 36:5-33

“Look, blessed is the man whom Eloah does reprove, so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. For He bruises, but He binds up; He smites, but His hands heal. In six distresses He delivers you, and in seven no evil strikes you. In scarcity of food He shall redeem you from death, and in battle from the power of the sword. When the tongue scourges you are shielded, and you have no fear when destruction comes. At destruction and at starvation you laugh, and you have no fear of the beasts of the earth. For your covenant is with the stones of the field, and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with you. And you shall know that your tent is in peace, and shall visit your tent and not sin, and shall know that your seed are many, and your offspring like the grass of the earth. You shall come to the grave in ripe old age, like the stacking of grain in its season. Look, this we have searched out, it is so. Hear it, and know for yourself.” Job 5:17-27

Therefore, listen to me, you men of heart: far be it from Ěl to do wrong, and from the Almighty to commit unrighteousness. For He repays man’s work to him, and makes man to find a reward according to his path. The truth is, Ěl does not do wrong, and the Almighty does not twist right-ruling. Who has assigned to Him the earth? And who has laid out all the world? If He sets His heart on him, should He gather to Himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh would expire together and man return to dust. If you have understanding, hear this! Give ear to the sound of my words: Should the one who hates right-ruling govern? Or would you declare a most righteous one wrong? Job 34:10-17


Lessons from Ezekiel

“And you, son of man, take a sharp sword, take it as a barber’s razor, and you shall pass it over your head and your beard. And you shall take scales to weigh and divide the hair. Burn with fire one-third in the midst of the city when the days of the siege are completed. And you shall take one-third and strike around it with the sword, and scatter one-third in the wind. And I shall draw out a sword after them. And you shall take a few hairs from there and bind them in the edge of your garment. And take again some of them, and throw them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire. From it a fire shall spread unto all the house of Yisra’ĕl. Thus said the Master יהוה, ‘This is Yerushalayim which I have set in the midst of the gentiles, with the other lands all around her. ‘But she rebelled against My rightrulings, doing wrong, more than the gentiles, and My laws more than the lands all around her. For they have rejected My right-rulings, and they have not walked in My laws.’ Therefore thus said the Master יהוה, ‘Because you have rebelled more than the gentiles all around you, and have not walked in My laws, nor done My right-rulings, nor even done according to the right-rulings of the gentiles all around you,’ therefore thus said the Master יהוה, Look I Myself am against you and shall execute judgments in your midst before the eyes of the gentiles. And I shall do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I never do again, because of all your abominations. Therefore fathers are going to eat their sons in your midst, and sons eat their fathers. And I shall execute judgments among you and scatter all your remnant to all the winds. Therefore, as I live,’ declares the Master יהוה, ‘because you have defiled My set-apart place with all your disgusting matters and with all your abominations, therefore I also withdraw. And My eye shall not pardon, nor shall I spare. One-third of you shall die of pestilence, and be consumed with scarcity of food in your midst. And one-third shall fall by the sword all around you. And I shall scatter another third to all the winds, and draw out a sword after them. And My displeasure shall be completed. And I shall bring My wrath to rest upon them, and I shall be eased. And they shall know that I, יהוה, have spoken it in My ardour, when I have completed My wrath upon them. And I shall make you a waste and a reproach among the gentiles that are all around you, before the eyes of all who pass by. And it shall be a reproach, an object of scorn, a warning, and an astonishment to the gentiles that are all around you, when I execute judgments among you in displeasure and in wrath and in heated chastisements. I, יהוה, have spoken. When I send against them the evil arrows of scarcity of food which shall be for their destruction, which I send to destroy you, I shall increase the scarcity of food upon you and cut off your supply of bread. And I shall send against you scarcity of food and evil beasts, and they shall bereave you. And pestilence and blood shall pass through you, while I bring the sword against you. I, יהוה, have spoken.’” Ezekiel 5

Again the word of יהוה came to me, saying, “Son of man, make known to Yerushalayim her abominations, and say, ‘Thus said the Master יהוה to Yerushalayim, “Your origin and your birth are from the land of Kenaʽan. Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Ḥittite. As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water for cleansing, and you were not rubbed with salt at all, nor wrapped in cloth at all. No eye felt sorry for you, to do any of these for you, to have compassion on you. But you were thrown out into the open field, to the loathing of your life on the day you were born. Then I passed by you and saw you trampled down in your own blood, and I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ And I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I have let you grow like a plant in the field. And you are grown and are great, and you come in the finest ornaments.—breasts were formed, your hair grew, and you were naked and bare. Again I passed by you and looked upon you and saw that your time was the time of love. And I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. And I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” declares the Master יהוה. “And I washed you in water, and I washed off your blood, and I anointed you with oil. And I dressed you in embroidered work and gave you sandals of leather. And I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments, and I put bracelets on your wrists, and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose, and earrings in your ears, and a crown of adorning on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, and silk, and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour, and honey, and oil. And you were exceedingly pretty, and became fit for royalty. And your name went out among the nations because of your loveliness, for it was perfect, by My splendour which I had put on you,” declares the Master יהוה. “But you trusted in your own loveliness, and whored because of your name, and poured out your whorings on everyone passing by who would have it. And you took some of your garments and made multi-coloured high places for yourself, and whored on them—which should not have come about, nor shall it be. And you took your splendid adornments, of My gold and My silver that I gave you, and made for yourself images of a male and whored with them. And you took your embroidered garments and covered them, and you set My oil and My incense before them. And My food which I gave you, fine flour and oil and honey which I fed you, you set it before them as sweet incense—and so it was,” declares the Master יהוה. “And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you slaughtered as food to them. Were your whorings a small matter, that you have slain My children and gave them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire? And in all your abominations and whorings you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, trampled down in your blood. Then it came to be after all your evil—‘Woe, woe to you!’ declares the Master יהוה—that you also built an arched place for yourself, and made a high place in every street for yourself. You built your high places at the head of every way, and made your loveliness to be loathed. And you parted your feet to everyone who passed by, and increased your whorings. And you whored with the sons of Mitsrayim, your neighbours, great of flesh. And you increased your whorings to provoke Me. And see, I have stretched out My hand against you, and withdrew your portion, and gave you up to the desire of those who hate you, the daughters of the Philistines, who are ashamed of your wicked way. And you whored with the sons of Ashshur, without being satisfied. And you whored with them and still were not satisfied. And you increased your whorings as far as the land of traders, Chaldea, and even then you were not satisfied. How weak is your heart!” declares the Master יהוה, “seeing you do all this, the deeds of a shameless whore. You built your arched place at the head of every way, and built your high place in every street. Yet you were unlike a whore, you scorned payment! The wife who commits adultery who takes strangers instead of her husband! To all whores they give gifts, but you gave gifts to all your lovers, and bribed them to come to you from all around in your whorings. Thus you are different from other women in your whorings, because no one whores after you, and in you giving a gift, while a gift was not given to you. Thus you are different.” Therefore, O whore, hear the word of יהוה! Thus said the Master יהוה, “Because your copper was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whorings with your lovers, and with the idols of your abominations, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, therefore, see, I am gathering all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, with all those you hated. And I shall gather them from all around against you and shall uncover your nakedness to them, and they shall see all your nakedness. And I shall judge you with judgments of adulteresses and shedders of blood. And I shall bring on you the blood of wrath and jealousy. And I shall give you into their hand, and they shall throw your arched place down, and they shall break down your high places. And they shall strip you of your garments, and they shall take your splendid adornments, and leave you naked and bare. And they shall bring up an assembly against you, and they shall stone you with stones and thrust you through with their swords, and burn your houses with fire, and execute judgments on you before the eyes of many women. And I shall make you stop whoring, and no longer give gifts. So I shall bring My wrath to rest upon you, and My jealousy shall turn away from you. And I shall be calm, and no longer be vexed. Because you did not remember the days of your youth, but troubled Me with all this, so see, I shall also bring your way on your own head,” declares the Master יהוה. “And shall I not do this thought for all your abominations? See, all who use proverbs shall use this proverb against you, ‘Like mother, like daughter!’ You are your mother’s daughter, who despises her husband and her children. And you are the sister of your sisters, who despised their husbands and their children. Your mother was a Ḥittite and your father an Amorite. And your elder sister is Shomeron, she and her daughters, who is dwelling to the north of you. And your younger sister, who is dwelling to the south of you, is Seḏom and her daughters. And have you not walked in their ways and did according to their abominations? But in all your ways you soon became more corrupt than they. As I live,” declares the Master יהוה, “neither your sister Seḏom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. See, this was the crookedness of your sister Seḏom: She and her daughter had pride, sufficiency of bread, and unconcerned ease. And she did not help the poor and needy. And they were haughty and did abomination before Me, and I took them away when I saw it. And Shomeron did not commit half of your sins, but you have increased your abominations more than they, and by all the abominations which you have done you made your sisters seem righteous! You also, who pleaded for your sisters, bear your own shame, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs. They are more righteous than you. So be ashamed too, and bear your own shame, because you have made your sisters seem righteous. And I shall turn back their captivity, the captivity of Seḏom and her daughters, and the captivity of Shomeron and her daughters, and the captivity of your captives with them, so that you bear your shame, and shall blush for all that you did when you comforted them, and your sisters, Seḏom and her daughters, return to their former state, and Shomeron and her daughters return to their former state, and you and your daughters return to your former state. Was not your sister Seḏom a byword in your mouth in the days of your pride, before your evil was exposed, as the time of the reproach of the daughters of Aram and all who were around her, and of the daughters of the Philistines, who are despising you everywhere? You shall bear your wickedness and your abominations,” declares יהוה. For thus said the Master יהוה, “I shall deal with you as you have done, in that you have despised the oath by breaking the covenant. But I shall remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I shall establish an everlasting covenant with you. And you shall remember your ways and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters. And I shall give them to you for daughters, though not by your own covenant. And I Myself shall establish My covenant with you. And you shall know that I am יהוה, so that you remember. And you shall be ashamed, and never open your mouth any more because of your shame, when I pardon you for all you have done,” declares the Master יהוה.’” Ezekiel 16

And the word of יהוה came to me, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Yisra’ĕl, saying, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are blunted’? As I live,” declares the Master יהוה, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Yisra’ĕl. See, all beings are Mine, the being of the father as well as the being of the son is Mine. The being that is sinning shall die. But if a man is righteous and shall do right-ruling and righteousness, if he has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Yisra’ĕl, nor defiled his neighbour’s wife, nor comes near a woman during her uncleanness, if he does not oppress anyone, does return to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, does give his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, if he does not lend on interest or take increase, turns back his hand from unrighteousness, executes right-ruling in truth between man and man, if he walks in My laws, and he has guarded My right-rulings in truth—he is righteous, he shall certainly live!” declares the Master יהוה. “But if he has brought forth a son who is a robber or a shedder of blood, who does any of these—whereas he himself did not do any of these—that also he has eaten on the mountains or defiled his neighbour’s wife, if he has oppressed the poor and needy, has committed robbery, he does not return a pledge, has lifted his eyes to the idols, or did abomination, if he has lent on interest or taken increase—shall he live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, he shall certainly die, his blood is upon him. But see, if he has brought forth a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, but he fears and does not do likewise, has not eaten on the mountains, and has not lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Yisra’ĕl, has not defiled his neighbour’s wife, has not oppressed anyone, nor withheld a pledge, nor committed robbery, has given his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with a garment, turns back his hand from wronging the poor, and he has not taken interest or increase, has executed My right-rulings and walked in My laws—he shall not die for the crookedness of his father, he shall certainly live! His father, because he used oppression, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, see, he shall die for his crookedness. And you said, ‘Why should the son not bear the crookedness of the father?’ But the son has done right-ruling and righteousness, he has guarded all My laws and he does them, he shall certainly live. The being who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the crookedness of the father, nor the father bear the crookedness of the son. The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the wrongness of the wrong is upon himself. But the wrong, if he turns from all his sins which he has done, and he shall guard all My laws, and shall do right-ruling and righteousness, he shall certainly live, he shall not die. All the transgressions which he has done shall not be remembered against him—in his righteousness that he has done, he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wrong?” declares the Master יהוה. “Is it not that he should turn from his ways, and live? But when a righteous one turns away from his righteousness and does unrighteousness, according to all the abominations that the wrong one has done, shall he live? All his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered. For his trespass which he has committed, and for his sin which he has committed, for them he shall die. And you said, ‘The way of יהוה is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Yisra’ĕl, is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? When a righteous one turns away from his righteousness, and does unrighteousness, and he dies in it, it is because of his unrighteousness which he has done that he dies. And when the wrong turns away from the wrong which he has done, and he does right-ruling and righteousness, he keeps himself alive. Because he sees and turns away from all the transgressions which he has done, he shall certainly live, he shall not die. And the house of Yisra’ĕl have said, ‘The way of יהוה is not right.’ Are My ways not right, O house of Yisra’ĕl? Is it not your ways that are not right? Therefore I judge you, O house of Yisra’ĕl, every one according to his ways,” declares the Master יהוה. “Repent, and turn back from all your transgressions, and let not crookedness be a stumbling-block to you. Cast away from you all the transgressions, by which you have transgressed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Yisra’ĕl? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” declares the Master יהוה. “So turn back and live!” Ezekiel 18


Lessons from Isaiah

For all tables shall be covered with vomit, no place without filth. Whom would He teach knowledge? And whom would He make to understand the message? Those weaned from milk, those taken from the breasts! For it is: command upon command, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little. For with a jabbering lip and a foreign tongue He speaks to this people, to whom He said, “This is the rest [noah], give rest to the weary,” and, “This is the refreshing [the Restoration].” But they would not hear. But the Word of יהוה was to them, “Command upon command, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little,” so that they go and shall stumble backward, and be broken and snared and taken captive. Therefore hear the Word of יהוה, you men of scorn, who rule this people who are in Yerushalayim, because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with the grave we have effected a vision. When the overflowing scourge passes through, it does not come to us, for we have made lying our refuge, and under falsehood we have hidden ourselves.” Therefore thus said the Master יהוה, “See, I am laying in Tsiyon a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a settled foundation. He who trusts shall not hasten away. And I shall make right-ruling the measuring line, and righteousness the plummet. And the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lying, and the waters overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be annulled, and your vision with the grave not stand. When an overflowing scourge passes through, then you shall be trampled down by it. As often as it passes through it shall take you, for it shall pass through every morning, and by day and by night. And it shall be only trembling to understand the message.” Isaiah 28:8-19

Come near, you gentiles, to hear. And listen, you people! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world and all its offspring. For the displeasure of יהוה is against all the gentiles, and His wrath against all their divisions. He shall put them under the ban, He shall give them over to the slaughter, and their slain be thrown out, and their stench rise from their corpses. And mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of the heavens shall rot away. And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll, and all their host fade like a leaf fading on the vine, and like the fading one of a fig tree. “For My sword shall be drenched in the heavens. Look, it comes down on Eḏom, and on the people of My curse, for judgment. The sword of יהוה shall be filled with blood, it shall be made overflowing with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For יהוה has a slaughtering in Botsrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Eḏom. And wild oxen shall come down with them, and young bulls with bulls. And their land shall be drenched with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” For it is the day of the vengeance of יהוה, the year of recompense for the cause of Tsiyon. And its streams shall be turned into tar, and its dust into sulphur, and its land shall become burning tar, that is not quenched night or day, its smoke going up forever. From generation to generation it lies waste, no one passes through it forever and ever, so that the pelican and the porcupine possess it, also the owl and the raven dwell in it. And He shall stretch out over it the line of formlessness and stones of emptiness. Its caves, with no one in them, is called a reign, but all its rulers have vanished. And thorns shall come up in its palaces, nettles and brambles in its strongholds. And it shall be a home for jackals, a courtyard for ostriches. And the wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals, and the shaggy goat call to its companion. The night creature shall also settle there, and shall find for herself a place of rest. The arrow snake shall nest there, and lay eggs and hatch, and gather them under her shadow. There too the vultures shall gather, each with its mate. Search from the book of יהוה, and read: not one of these shall be missing, not one shall be without a mate, for He has commanded my mouth. And His Spirit shall gather them. And He shall cast the lot for them, and His hand shall divide it among them with a measuring line—they possess it forever, from generation to generation they dwell in it. Isaiah 34

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf be opened. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing, because waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water—in the home for jackals, where each lay, grass with reeds and rushes. And there shall be a highway, and a way, and it shall be called “The Way of Set-apartness.” The unclean does not pass over it, but it is for those who walk the way, and no fools wander on it. No lion is there, nor any ravenous beast go up on it, it is not found there. But the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of יהוה shall return and enter Tsiyon with singing, with everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isaiah 35:5-10

“And I shall lead the blind by a way they have not known—in paths they have not known I lead them. I make darkness light before them, and crooked places straight. These matters I shall do for them, and I shall not forsake them. Those who trust in idols, who say to the moulded images, ‘You are our mighty ones,’ shall be turned back, utterly ashamed.” Isaiah 42:16-17

“Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Master יהוה has sent Me, and His Spirit.” Thus said יהוה, your Redeemer, the Set-apart One of Yisra’ĕl, “I am יהוה your Elohim, teaching you what is best, leading you by the way you should go. If only you had listened to My commands! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” Isaiah 48:16-18


Lessons from Enoch

The book written by Enoch—[Enoch indeed wrote this complete doctrine of wisdom, (which is) praised of all men and a judge of all the earth] for all my children who shall dwell on the earth, and for the future generations who shall observe righteousness and peace: Let not your spirit be troubled on account of the times, for the Set-apart and Mighty One has appointed days for all things. And the righteous one shall arise from sleep and walk in the paths of righteousness, and all his path and conversation shall be in eternal goodness and grace. He will be gracious to the righteous [one] and give him eternal righteousness, and He will give him power so that he shall be [endowed] with goodness and righteousness. And he shall walk in eternal light. And sin shall perish in darkness forever, and shall no more be seen from that day for evermore. 1 Enoch 92

Hear, you sons of Enoch, all the words of your father, and hearken aright to the voice of my mouth, for I exhort you and say unto you, beloved: Love righteousness and walk therein, and draw not nigh to righteousness with a double heart, and associate not with those of a double heart. But walk in righteousness, my sons, and it shall guide you on good paths, and righteousness shall be your companion. For I know that violence must increase on the earth, and a great chastisement be executed on the earth, and all unrighteousness come to an end. Yea, it shall be cut off from its roots, and its whole structure be destroyed. And unrighteousness shall again be consummated on the earth, and all the deeds of unrighteousness and of violence and transgression shall prevail in a twofold degree. And when sin and unrighteousness and blasphemy and violence in all kinds of deeds increase, and apostasy and transgression and uncleanness increase, a great chastisement shall come from heaven upon all these, and the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement to execute judgment on earth. In those days violence shall be cut off from its roots, and the roots of unrighteousness together with deceit, and they shall be destroyed from under heaven. And all the idols of the heathen shall be abandoned, and the temples burned with fire, and they shall remove them from the whole earth, and they [the wicked] shall be cast into the judgment of fire, and shall perish in wrath and in grievous judgment for ever. And the righteous shall arise from their sleep, and wisdom shall arise and be given unto them. [And after that the roots of unrighteousness shall be cut off, and the sinners shall be destroyed by the sword … shall be cut off from the blasphemers in every place, and those who plan violence and those who commit blasphemy shall perish by the sword.] And now I tell you, my sons, and show you the paths of righteousness and the paths of violence. Yea, I will show them to you again that you may know what will come to pass. And now, hearken unto me, my sons, and walk in the paths of righteousness, and walk not in the paths of violence. For all who walk in the paths of unrighteousness shall perish forever. 1 Enoch 91:3b-19

And now I say unto you, my sons: love righteousness and walk therein. For the paths of righteousness are worthy of acceptation, but the paths of unrighteousness shall suddenly be destroyed and vanish. And to certain men of a generation shall the paths of violence and of death be revealed, and they shall hold themselves afar from them, and shall not follow them. And now I say unto you the righteous: walk not in the paths of wickedness, nor in the paths of death, and draw not nigh to them, lest ye be destroyed, but seek and choose for yourselves righteousness and an elect life, and walk in the paths of peace, and you shall live and prosper. And hold fast my words in the thoughts of your hearts, and suffer them not to be effaced from your hearts. For I know that sinners will tempt men to evilly-entreat wisdom, so that no place may be found for her, and no manner of temptation may minish. Woe to those who build unrighteousness and oppression and lay deceit as a foundation! For they shall be suddenly overthrown, and they shall have no peace. Woe to those who build their houses with sin! For from all their foundations shall they be overthrown, and by the sword shall they fall. [And those who acquire gold and silver in judgment suddenly shall perish.] Woe to you, you rich, for you have trusted in your riches, and from your riches shall you depart, because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your riches. You have committed blasphemy and unrighteousness, and have become ready for the day of slaughter, and the day of darkness and the day of the great judgment. Thus I speak and declare unto you: He who has created you will overthrow you, and for your fall there shall be no compassion, and your Creator will rejoice at your destruction. And your righteous ones in those days shall be a reproach to the sinners and the godless. 1 Enoch 94

Woe unto you, you sinners! For your riches make you appear like the righteous, but your hearts convict you of being sinners, and this fact shall be a testimony against you for a memorial of (your) evil deeds. Woe to you who devour the finest of the wheat, and drink wine in large bowls, and tread underfoot the lowly with your might! Woe to you who drink water from every fountain! For suddenly shall you be consumed and wither away, because you have forsaken the fountain of life. Woe to you who work unrighteousness and deceit and blasphemy! It shall be a memorial against you for evil. Woe to you, you mighty, who with might oppress the righteous! For the day of your destruction is coming. In those days many and good days shall come to the righteous—in the day of your judgment. 1 Enoch 96:4-8

Believe, you righteous, that the sinners will become a shame and perish in the day of unrighteousness. Be it known unto you (you sinners) that the Most High is mindful of your destruction, and the angels of heaven rejoice over your destruction. What will you do, you sinners, and where will you flee on that day of judgment, when you hear the voice of the prayer of the righteous? Yea, you shall fare like unto them, against whom this word shall be a testimony: “You have been companions of sinners.” And in those days the prayer of the righteous shall reach unto Yahweh, and for you the days of your judgment shall come. And all the words of your unrighteousness shall be read out before the Great Holy One, and your faces shall be covered with shame, and He will reject every work which is grounded on unrighteousness. Woe to you, you sinners, who live on the mid ocean and on the dry land, whose remembrance is evil against you! Woe to you who acquire silver and gold in unrighteousness and say, “We have become rich with riches and have possessions, and have acquired everything we have desired. And now let us do what we purposed, for we have gathered silver [or ‘our granaries are full to the brim as with water’]!” Yea and like water your lies shall flow away. For your riches shall not abide, but speedily ascend from you, for you have acquired it all in unrighteousness, and you shall be given over to a great curse. 1 Enoch 97

And now I swear unto you, to the wise and to the foolish, for you shall have manifold experiences on the earth. For you men shall put on more adornments than a woman, and colored garments more than a virgin, in royalty and in grandeur and in power, and in silver and in gold and in purple, and in splendor and in food they shall be poured out as water. Therefore they shall be wanting in doctrine and wisdom, and they shall perish thereby together with their possessions, and with all their glory and their splendor, and in shame and in slaughter and in great destitution, their spirits shall be cast into the furnace of fire. I have sworn unto you, you sinners, as a mountain has not become a slave, and a hill does not become the handmaid of a woman, even so sin has not been sent upon the earth, but man of himself has created it, and under a great curse shall they fall who commit it. And do not think in your spirit nor say in your heart that you do not know and that you do not see that every sin is every day recorded in heaven in the presence of the Most High. From henceforth you know that all your oppression wherewith you oppress is written down every day till the day of your judgment. Woe to you, you fools! For through your folly shall you perish, and you transgress against the wise, and so good fortune shall not be your portion. And now, know that you are prepared for the day of destruction; wherefore do not hope to live, you sinners, but you shall depart and die, for you know no ransom, for you are prepared for the day of the great judgment, for the day of tribulation and great shame for your spirits. Woe to you, you obstinate of heart, who work wickedness and eat blood! Whence have you good things to eat and to drink and to be filled? From all the good things which the Most High Yahweh has placed in abundance on the earth! Therefore you shall have no peace. Woe to you who love the deeds of unrighteousness! Wherefore do you hope for good fortune unto yourselves? Know that you shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous, and they shall cut off your necks and slay you, and have no mercy upon you. Woe to you who rejoice in the tribulation of the righteous! For no grave shall be dug for you. Woe to you who bring to naught the words of the righteous! For you shall have no hope of life. Woe to you who write down lying and godless words! For they write down their lies that men may hear them and act godlessly towards (their) neighbor. Therefore they shall have no peace but die a sudden death. 1 Enoch 98

And again I swear to you, you sinners, that sin is prepared for a day of unceasing bloodshed. And they who worship stones, and grave images of gold and silver and wood [and stone] and clay, and those who worship impure spirits and demons, and all kinds of idols not according to knowledge, shall get no manner of help from them. And they shall become godless by reason of the folly of their hearts, and their eyes shall be blinded through the fear of their hearts and through visions in their dreams. Through these they shall become godless and fearful. For they shall have wrought all their work in a lie, and shall have worshiped a stone. Therefore in an instant shall they perish. Woe to you who build your houses through the grievous toil of others, and all their building materials are the bricks and stones of sin! I tell you, you shall have no peace. Woe to them who reject the measure and eternal heritage of their fathers, and whose souls follow after idols! For they shall have no rest. Woe to them who work unrighteousness and help oppression, and slay their neighbors until the day of the great judgment! For He shall cast down your glory, and bring affliction on your hearts, and shall arouse His fierce indignation, and destroy you all with the sword. And all the holy and righteous shall remember your sins. 1 Enoch 99:6-16

I tell you, you sinners, you are content to eat and drink, and rob and sin, and strip men naked, and acquire wealth and see good days. Have you seen the righteous how their end falls out, that no manner of violence is found in them till their death? 1 Enoch 102:9-10

Be hopeful, and cast not away your hopes. For you shall have great joy, as the angels of heaven. What shall you be obliged to do? You shall not have to hide on the day of the great judgment and you shall not be found as sinners, and the eternal judgment shall be far from you for all the generations of the world. And now fear not, you righteous, when you see the sinners growing strong and prospering in their ways. Be not companions with them, but keep afar from their violence, for you shall become companions of the hosts of heaven. And, although you sinners say, “All our sins shall not be searched out and be written down,” nevertheless they shall write down all your sins every day. And now I show unto you that light and darkness, day and night. See all your sins; be not godless in your hearts, and lie not and alter not the words of righteousness, nor charge with lying the words of the Holy Great One, nor take account of your idols. For all your lying and all your godlessness issue not in righteousness but in great sin. And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and pervert the words of righteousness in many ways, and will speak wicked words, and lie, and practice great deceits, and write books concerning their words. But when they write down truthfully all my words in their languages, and do not change or detract anything from my words but write them all down truthfully—all that I first testified concerning them—then, I know another mystery, that books will be given to the righteous and the wise to become a cause of joy and righteousness and much wisdom. And to them shall the books be given, and they shall believe in them and rejoice over them, and then shall all the righteous who have learnt therefrom all the paths of righteousness be recompensed. 1 Enoch 104:4-13

And I saw written on them [the heavenly tablets] that generation upon generation shall transgress, until a generation of righteousness arises and transgression is destroyed, and sin passes away from the earth, and all manner of good comes upon it. 1 Enoch 107:1

And he said unto me, “This place which you see—here are cast the spirits of sinners and blasphemers, and of those who work wickedness, and of those who pervert everything that Yahweh has spoken through the mouth of the prophets—(even) the things that shall be. For some of them are written and inscribed above in the heaven, in order that the messengers may read them and know that which shall befall the sinners, and the spirits of the humble, and of those who have afflicted their bodies and been recompensed by God, and of those who have been put to shame by wicked men, who love God and loved neither gold nor silver, nor any of the good things which are in the world, but gave over their bodies to torture: who, since they came into being, longed not after earthly food, but regarded everything as a passing breath, and lived accordingly, and Yahweh tried them much, and their spirits were found pure, so that they should bless His name. And all the blessings destined for them I have recounted in the books. And he has assigned them their recompense, because they have been found to be such as loved heaven more than their life in the world, and though they were trodden under the foot of wicked men, and experienced abuse and reviling from them and were put to shame, yet they blessed Me. And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of light, and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh were not recompensed with such honor as their faithfulness deserved. 1 Enoch 108:6-11







863 “Eating Animals: Addressing Our Most Common Justifications,” Free From Harm, 27 Mar 2014,

864 WJ Craig, AR Mangels, American Dietetic Association, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Jul 2009, 109(7), pp. 1266-1282;

865 The “CDC Report: Americans don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables,” Prevention Plus+, Winter/Spring 2011, p. 2;

This is especially significant considering that the minimum requirement for fruit in the CDC report was only two servings, and that the minimum requirement for vegetables was only three.

866 Roger Clemens et al., “Filling American’s Fiber intake Gap: Summary of a Roundtable to Probe Realistic Solutions with a Focus on Grain-Based Foods,” Journal of Nutrition, 30 May 2012, 142(7), p. 1394S;

867 Cohen, p. 270.

868 Vernon R Young & Peter L Pellett, “Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May 1994, 59(5), pp. 1203S-1212S,

869 Holly Wilson, “A Vegan Doctor Addresses The Protein Question,” Free From Harm, 18 Sep 2013,

870-871 “Vegan Foods That Pack a Protein Punch,” Vegan Magazine, 7 Oct 2013;

872 “Vitamin B12 / Cyanocobalamin (Page 1),”, 1 Jul 2013;

873 “Vitamin B12 / Cyanocobalamin -- Continued (page 2),”, 19 Sep 2013;

874 “B12 Deficiency Not Just a Vegan Concern,” VeganDietGuy,

875-876 “Vitaman B12 in Mushrooms, Not Exclusive to Meat, Dairy,” Free From Harm, 1 Jun 2011;

877 Gina Shaw, “The Vitamin B12 Issue,” Living and Raw Foods,

878-880 Reed Mangels, “Iron in the Vegan Diet,” The Vegetarian Resource Group,

This article was published in the VRG’s Simply Vegan (5th ed.).

881 Cohen, p. 100.

882 “Taurine,” Wikipedia,

883 SA Laidlaw et al., “Plasma and urine taurine levels in vegans,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Apr 1988, 47(4), pp. 660-663;


885 Jack Norris, “Non-Protein Aminos,”,


887-888 Cohen, p. 234.

889 Jeff Novick, “Vitamin D: Update: Vit D2 vs D3 & How Much Sun?” National Health Association, 13 Jul 2008,

890 “Calcium Basics,” Vegetarians in Paradise,

This list is taken from Joel Fuhrman’s Eat to Live, p. 86. Neal Barnard offers animal protein, caffeine, excess phosphorus (sodas, animal products), sodium (animal products, canned or snack foods), tobacco and sedentary lifestyle in Eat Right, Live Longer, p. 167.

891 Cohen, p. 228.

892 GreenYatra, “Meet the great vegetarians and know their thoughts about veg,” Raw for Beauty,

893 Cohen, p. 269.

894 Ibid., p. 270.



898-899 Holly Wilson, “A Vegan Doctor Addresses The Protein Question,” Free From Harm, 18 Sep 2013,

900 “The Moral Lives of Animals: Exclusive Interview with Author Dale Peterson,” Free From Harm, 2 May 2011,

901 “Science,” BUAV,

902 “Animal Testing,” Vegan Peace, 2008,


904 Funirso o mesmo, “Cow cries seconds before being slaughtered,” 21 Dec 2012,

905 Ashley Capps, “9 Reasons Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You a Meat-Eater,” Free From Harm, 17 Sep 2013,

906 “List of culinary fruits,” Wikipedia,

907 “Viva La Vegan Grocery,” 2012,

908 “One Bad Day,” Freeheel Vegan, 2 Jun 2012,

909 Facebook post, The Thinking Vegan, 14 Nov 2013,

910 “The Humane Farming Myth,” Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary, 2014,

911 “Eating Animals: Addressing Our Most Common Justifications,” Free From Harm, 27 Mar 2014,

912-914 Don Matesz, “Grass-Fed Animal Products Prevent Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease?” Vital Wisdom, 28 Sep 2012,

915 Samantha Chang, “Grass-fed beef is not more eco-friendly than factory-farmed cows,” Examiner, 9 Oct 2012,

916 Samantha Chang, “Experts tout grass-fed beef as healthier but bad for environment,” Examiner, 8 Oct 2013,

917 Gary L. Francione, Facebook post, The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights, 13 Jul 2013,

918 Vasile Stănescu, “‘Green’ Eggs and Ham? The Myth of Sustainable Meat and the Danger of the Local,” Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 8(1/2), 2010,

919 Cohen, p. 54.

920 “The Search for Truth in Humane Farming,” Free From Harm, 10 Jun 2012,

921-922 Robert Grillo, “Humane Slaughter? 11 Key Reasons Why It’s Not,” Free From Harm, 5 Mar 2013,

923 “What about Humanely Raised Milk and Dairy Products?” Free From Harm, 3 May 2011,


925 “USDA’s official number of animals killed for food,” Animal Liberation Front,

926 Gary L. Francione, “A Frequently Asked Question: What About Plants?” Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, 13 Dec 2006,

927 The article wherein Yourofsky’s argument was originally published was at, which is where we accessed it, but the domain seems to have been abolished as of April, 2014. The argument can now be found at

928 Jesus Diaz, “Most Carnivorous Dinosaurs Were Actually Vegetarian,” Gizmodo, 21 Dec 2010,

929 “Most dinosaurs were vegetarian and T-rex was just an exception, finds new study,” Daily Mail, 22 Dec 2010,

930 Mark F. Teaford & Peter S. Ungar, “Diet and the evolution of the earliest human ancestors,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(25), 5 Dec 2000,

931 Luis Vallejo Rodriguez, “Omnivorous or Vegetarian? What famous naturalists think about it,” International Vegetarian Union,

932 Derek Wall, “The Diet of Early Humans: Vegetarianism and Archaeology,” International Vegetarian Union,

933 Bronwen Humphries, “The Diet of Early Humans: What did our ancestors eat?” International Vegetarian Union,

934 The Kari L. Allen & Richard F. Kay, “Dietary quality and encephalization in platyrrhine primates,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, 22 Feb 2012, 279(1729), pp. 715-721,

935 James Randerson, “Early chefs left indelible mark on human evolution,” NewScientist, 22 Mar 2003, 2387,

936 “Starch ‘fuel of human evolution,’” BBC News, 9 Sep 2007,

937-938 “Alpha-amylase,” Wikipedia,

939 “Sick of Hearing the ‘Meat Makes You Smart!’ Myth / Argument?” Veganism Is The Future, 16 Apr 2012,

940 Laura Dattaro, “Seven Animals We Drove to Extinction,” The Weather Channel, 17 Oct 2013,

941 Robert Grillo, “With an End to Animal Agriculture, What Happens to All of the Animals?” Free From Harm, 13 Sep 2012,

942 “Full Debate – Animals Should Be Off The Menu; The St James Ethics & Wheeler Centre,” Kindness Trust, 30 May 2012,

943 “Death by natural causes,” Wikipedia,

944-945 Jack Norris, “Disease Markers of Vegetarians,”,

946 Janice Stanger, Vegan From the Inside: Why People Love Plant-Based Diets, 2011,

947 “Study of 2068 Vegans Helps Debunk Six of the Most Common Myths,” Free From Harm, 15 May 2012,

948 Mi Kyung Kim, Sang Woon Cho & Yoo Kyoung Park, “Long-term vegetarians have low oxidative stress, body fat, and cholesterol levels,” Nutrition Research and Practice, Apr 2012, 6(2), pp. 155-161,


950 The source of this quotation is no longer on Free From Harm, so we are not able to reference it, but it has been picked up by other vegans on the Internet who have since spread it.

951 Facebook post, Changing the definition of murder to include animals, 24 Nov 2013,

952 David S. Martin, “From omnivore to vegan: The dietary education of Bill Clinton,” CNN Health, 18 Aug 2011,

953 “Ad hominem,” Wikipedia,




957 Facebook post, The Thinking Vegan, 12 Jun 2011,

958 Facebook post, Changing the definition of murder to include animals, 30 Oct 2013,

959 “Can Christians eat any meat?” Answers,

960 Marc Bekoff, “A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: No Pretending,” Psychology Today, 20 Jun 2013,

961 Marc Bekoff, “Dawkins’ Dangerous Idea: We Really Don’t Know If Animals Are Conscious,” Huffington Post, 15 May 2012,

962 “Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom?” Got Questions,

963 Tim Hegg, Mark 7:19b – A Short Technical Notice, TorahResource, May 2005, p. 2,

964 Malakh HaTzadik, Facebook post, 11 Feb 2013,

965 Malakh HaTzadik, “On the election of Pope Francis,” 13 Mar 2013,