The Abomination of Desolation

Chapter 4: In the Beginning



Let the wrong forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to יהוה, who has compassion on him, and to our Elohim, for He pardons much. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares יהוה. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:7-9


The first (and more often than not, the only) objection that anyone advocating vegetarianism to Christians will meet with is that God has given Man dominion over the entire earth. The Christians usually invoke Genesis 9:2-3 to this end, or, if they are truly ignorant, Genesis 1:28. We therefore need to ask the questions of what it means to have dominion, and whether this is an adequate justification for persistently debasing and disobeying the authority of Scripture, including the Sixth Commandment (or the Fifth Commandment by the reckoning of Catholics and Lutherans). Central to this entire discussion is a proper interpretation of precisely what manner of authority God has vested in humans. The most straightforward statement in the Bible to this effect is this:

And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, “Bear fruit and increase, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over all creatures moving on the earth.” Genesis 1:28

Clearly God has appointed humans to “rule” over the Earth in some manner or another. But exactly what kinds of behavior does this investiture of authority allow and disallow with regard to the planet itself and to the other creatures dwelling upon it? It should come as no surprise that most Christians would answer that we may do with it whatever we please, as their sins are so great that without taking it this far, there is no conceivable justification for them. To demonstrate that this supposition is not merely a convenient straw man for us to invoke, but that it does represent their actual view, we offer the “best answer” on Yahoo Answers to the open question, “Are there any bible verses that address the environment?” (which does not even touch on environmental issues).

I don’t think you are going to find anything in the Bible that speaks about Jesus telling man to take care of the earth. Taking care of the earth is not the point in life and I don’t think any Christian should make it their point.391

Considering that the only real basis for the Christians’ decision to avoid thinking about what they are doing when they are sinning is that it makes them feel good, this is simply wanton hedonism. Naturally, the proffered justification for this viewpoint is not advocacy of hedonism (even though this is the goal, both in theory and in practice—they just do not call it that), but rather that concern with such matters is pointless, and therefore should not be pursued, because Christians have more important things to do (which all amount to preaching the Christian atonement doctrine, gaining a larger tax base for the Church, and abolishing God’s commandments for Man, as found in the Bible). Is this not the very definition of ‘hedonism’?

The response which we were met with when confronted by a Christian theologian about our objection to the casual disregard for God’s commandments was for him to brag about eating pork, offering us recipes, saying “yum yum,” and insulting us. Yet he could not be bothered to actually examine what either we or the Bible had to say about the matter before proclaiming the Bible’s position on it, and himself the winner of the argument, in no uncertain terms. (See Appendix C.) In what sense is this not hedonism? In what sense is their end not destruction, their God not their stomach, and their glory not their shame (Philippians 3:19)?

We need to realize that the earth is dying and there is not anything [sic] anyone can do to stop it from decaying. Its [sic] going to get weaker and weaker until God is going to destroy it with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10-12).392

Of course, this ignores that humans are the only cause of this planet’s weakening state, which means that humans are the only ones that can do anything to rectify the situation—except for God, that is, and humans are not going to like his solution, as it consists of removing the source of the problem. Appeals to the certainty of biblical prophecy do not justify irresponsible, sinful behavior. Prophecy has only ever been dispensed in order to change unrighteous, destructive behavior, not to justify its continuation by some twisted manner of fatalism. This means that the primary purpose of prophecy is admonitory, not predictive. That it is almost exclusively understood as predictive testifies to nothing if not mankind’s near-universal refusal to listen to any warning it ever receives, not even those issued thousands of years in advance. In the end, all this really amounts to is the Christian’s declaration of intent to keep progressively sinning worse and to never repent until the whole world is destroyed. The context of the above quotation itself affirms this, and makes it clear that sinners like the one who returned this answer do not inherit life.

This is now, beloved ones, the second letter I write to you, in which I stir up your sincere mind, to remember the words previously spoken by the set-apart prophets, and of the command of the Master and Saviour, spoken by your emissaries, knowing this first: that mockers shall come in the last days with mocking, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all continues as from the beginning of creation.” For they choose to have this hidden from them: that the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by the Word of Elohim, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. And the present heavens and the earth are treasured up by the same Word, being kept for fire, to a day of judgment and destruction of wicked men. 2 Peter 3:1-7

After God destroys the earth and heaven, He is going to make a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1).393

Once again, the context of this passage from Revelation conveys exactly the same position as Peter’s epistle and the New Testament as a whole. We might wonder who is “walking according to their own lusts,” if not those who say they need not care for the planet which God has so graciously given them. Are we to suppose that once they have finished extracting all the riches and pleasures to be had here, God will waste no time supplying them with a new one so the entire process can begin again?

The premise, and the inevitable conclusion of the Christians’ logic, is that all our actions throughout our whole lives do not matter at all. God is going to make everything right, so why should we be bothered? Never mind that divine intervention would not even be necessary if people would just listen to God’s commands in the first place. Christians actually go so far as to believe that the commands of God are the sly temptations of their arch-nemesis, even while flatly ignoring that the Bible repeatedly declares that the latter is the origin of their own doctrines and head of their own institutions, which they acknowledge every time they refer to him by his ancient Canaanite title, as here:

The enemy tries and tries to pull people (believer and non-believer) away from focusing on the Lord, but rather focus on anything that is not the Lord (i.e. sin, pleasure, distractions, etc.).394

Hopefully, anyone can see that this is, in fact, a moral justification for all sin. “So you’re saying I may as well go around killing people? Cool.” That is what this really amounts to, except that the justification is not applied to the killing of humans—only nonhuman animals. The Bible, however, does not even distinguish between the two.

Christians seem to think that sinning consists in viewing pornography or stealing pens from your workplace, etc., when in fact it is mostly a matter of refusing to be righteous, where righteousness is defined in the Bible as having faith (believing in the kingdom of heaven and obeying the commands intended to establish it), and as being unpolluted by the world. If you were to tell them that it is wrong to not observe the Sabbath, then you would likely get the same treatment, but if you were to tell them that it is wrong to lie, then they would probably agree with you. Selective morality is a staple of Christian dogma, but no Christian will admit it. Yet the hypocrisy is as self-evident as it is revolting.

Unfortunately, in our considerable experience, these answers are representative of the Christian position on this subject. Notice that no appeal is to any moral imperative in Scripture, even though the imperative is given. “I don’t think any Christian should,” “We need to,” and “focus on” are the standard replies, but Scripture has no part in it except to ironically justify the diversionary tactic and appeal to pre-conceived amorality. Now compare that to what the Bible has to say, and therefore what the responses should be and would be if given by someone who had actually searched it out instead of despising it while pretending to be an authority on it.

The righteous regards the life of his beast,
But the compassion of the wrong is cruelty.
Proverbs 12:10

“‘I am יהוה, and there is none else—there is no Elohim besides Me. I gird you, though you have not known Me, so that they know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none but Me. I am יהוה, and there is none else, forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil. I, יהוה, do all these. “Rain down, O heavens, from above, and let clouds pour down righteousness. Let the earth open, let them bring forth deliverance, and let righteousness spring up together. I, יהוה, have created it. Woe to him who strives with his Maker! (a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth). Does clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you bringing forth?’ Or to the woman, ‘What are you labouring over?’” Thus said יהוה, the Set-apart One of Yisra’ĕl, and his Maker, “Do you ask Me about My sons what is to come? And about the work of My hands do you command Me? I have made the earth, and created man on it. I, My hands have stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded.”’” Isaiah 45:5-12

For thus said יהוה, Creator of the heavens, He is Elohim, Former of earth and its Maker, He established it, He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be inhabited: “I am יהוה, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18

“Then I brought you into a garden land, to eat its fruit and its goodness. But when you entered, you defiled My land and made My inheritance an abomination.” Jeremiah 2:7

“I shall take up a weeping and wailing for the mountains, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation, because they have been burned up, without any passing over, nor has the voice of cattle been heard. Both the birds of the heavens and the beasts have fled, they have gone. And I shall make Yerushalayim a heap of ruins, a habitation for jackals; and the cities of Yehuḏah I shall make a waste, without an inhabitant.” Who is the wise man, that he understands this? And to whom has the mouth of יהוה spoken, that he declares it? Why has the land perished, has it been burned up like a wilderness, with none passing through? And יהוה says, “Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked according to it, but they have walked according to the stubbornness of their own heart and after the Baʽals, which their fathers had taught them.” Therefore thus said יהוה of hosts, the Elohim of Yisra’ĕl, “See, I am making this people eat wormwood, and I shall make them drink poisoned water.” Jeremiah 9:10-15

“For a voice of wailing is heard from Tsiyon, ‘How we are ravaged! We are greatly ashamed, because we have forsaken the land, because we have been thrown out of our dwellings.’” Jeremiah 9:19

“I have forsaken My house, I have left My inheritance, I have given the beloved of My being into the hand of her enemies. My inheritance has become to Me like a lion in the forest. It cries out against Me, therefore I have hated it. My inheritance is to Me like a speckled bird of prey, the birds of prey all around are against her. Go, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour! Many shepherds have destroyed My vineyard, they have trodden My portion under foot, they have made My pleasant portion become a deserted wilderness. They have laid it waste—a waste, it mourns to Me. All the land is laid waste, because no one takes it to heart. The ravagers have come on all the bare heights in the wilderness, for the sword of יהוה is devouring from one end of the land to the other end of the land. There is no peace to any flesh. They have sown wheat but reaped thorns, they have exhausted themselves—they do not profit. And they shall be ashamed of your harvest because of the burning displeasure of יהוה.” Jeremiah 12:7-13

“Earth has been given into the hand of the wrong. He covers the faces of its judges. If it is not He, then who is it?” Job 9:24

And Elohim said to Yonah, “Have you rightly become displeased over the plant?” And he said, “I have rightly become displeased, even to death!” And יהוה said, “You felt sorry for the plant for which you have not laboured, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night.” Jonah 4:9-10

Hear the word of יהוה, you children of Yisra’ĕl, for יהוה has a case against the inhabitants of the land: “For there is no truth or kindness or knowledge of Elohim in the land. Swearing, and lying, and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery have increased. And bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and everyone living there languishes, with the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens. And the fish of the sea are taken away.” Hosea 4:1-3

Yisra’ĕl is a degenerate vine, he brings forth fruit for himself. As his fruit increased, he increased the altars [i.e., the more they ate meat]. And the better his land, the better they made the pillars. Hosea 10:1

The field is ravaged, the ground has mourned, for the grain is ruined, the new wine has dried up, the oil fails. The farmers are ashamed, the vinedressers wail over the wheat and over the barley, for the harvest of the field is destroyed. The vine has dried up, and the fig tree droops, pomegranate, also palm, and apple tree, all the trees of the field are dried up, because joy has dried up among the sons of men. Joel 1:10-12

How the beasts moan! The herds of cattle are restless, because they have no pasture. The flocks of sheep also perish. I cry to You יהוה, for fire has consumed the pastures of the wilderness, and a flame has set on fire all the trees of the field. Even the beasts of the field cry out to You, for the water streams are dried up, and fire has consumed the pastures of the wilderness. Joel 1:18-20

Ahead of them a fire has consumed, and behind them a flame burns. Before them the land is like the Garden of Ěḏen, and behind them a desert waste. And from them there is no escape. Joel 2:3

And tear your heart and not your garments, and turn back to יהוה your Elohim, for He shows favour and is compassionate, patient, and of great kindness, and He shall relent concerning the evil. Joel 2:13

And let יהוה be jealous for His land, and spare His people. And let יהוה answer and say to His people, “See, I am sending you the grain and the new wine and the oil, and you shall be satisfied by them. And no longer do I make you a reproach among the gentiles.” Joel 2:18-19

Do not fear, O soil, be glad and rejoice, for יהוה has done greatly! Do not fear, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness shall spring forth, and the tree shall bear its fruit, the fig tree and the vine shall yield their strength. And you children of Tsiyon, be glad and rejoice in יהוה your Elohim, for He shall give you the Teacher of Righteousness, and cause the rain to come down for you, the former rain and the latter rain, as before. And the threshing-floors shall be filled with grain, and the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil. Joel 2:21-24

“Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the people shall plunder you, because of men’s blood, and doing violence to the land, to the city, and to all who dwell in it.” Habakkuk 2:8

“For the violence done to Leḇanon is to overwhelm you—and the ravaging of beasts by which you made them afraid—because of men’s blood and the violence to the land, to the city and of all who dwell in it.” Habakkuk 2:17

“And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead to be judged, and to give the reward to Your servants the prophets and to the set-apart ones, and to those who fear Your Name, small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” Revelation 11:18

So we can see that there is an abundance of support in the Bible for environmentalism, to the point that anyone who disagrees with it as a matter of principle is cursed to be ravaged and destroyed by God. The righteous prophet Jonah, for instance, felt so bad for a single tree that he declared his will to die, after he had already suffered death for several days, and although he esteemed the Ninevites so lowly that he was angry that they repented and were spared. Yet the Christian thought process is so twisted that it attempts to squash the natural inclinations of conscience and resulting moral actions by declaring that doing what God wants is the opposite of what he has expressly told us, as demonstrated above. Environmentally conscious movements and ideologies are branded as profit-driven and political, and insinuations even go so far as to suggest that they are inherently satanic. Vegetarians, and vegans in particular, are regularly (and ironically) singled out and grouped with atheists, free-thinkers, social liberals, and other enemies of the mainstream Christian cause—especially owing to the fact that vegetarians are the only ones who have the solution to environmental problems, as we have already seen.

This is no joke; it is the standard response. We have all experienced being labeled “Gnostics,” “heretics,” “demons” or “demonic,” “false prophets,” etc., and being persecuted relentlessly, merely for pointing out what the Bible teaches on this subject. Of course, we also know that Satan is the Accuser, and avoids logical debate at all costs, so we can see the irony and the pettiness of the accusations for what they are: projections of a convicted and stubbornly defiant ego, intended to act as a barrier against the truth for the purpose of self-defense. Yet God demands (not suggestsdemands) repentance and righteousness as a necessary condition for life. Only through humility and strict obedience will any of us see the Promised Land.

יהושע answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he is unable to see the reign of Elohim.” John 3:3

To be fair, there are variations of the standard response, due to the varying degrees of the Church’s overtly satanic influence. For example, we have heard stewardship being preached from the pulpit, but this concept never relates to meat consumption, animal farming or other ecological or environmental issues. In fact, it always revolves around the issues of how Man is sovereign (as opposed to the biblical ideal of the master being the one who takes on the role of a servant) and how money is spent. The aim of the latter, of course, is to convince Christians to spend their money wisely so they will have more to give to the Church. The Church does not even really care how it gets its revenues, provided that it does: unlike with most issues, the Church itself leaves it up to the individual minister to handle the issue of stewardship, rather than enforcing a policy espoused by the top of the hierarchy, because it refuses to address it at all, even without consideration to stewardship of our dominion, as opposed to that of some manmade fiction like fiat currency or government legislation.

This, in our estimation, combined with the idea that stewardship amounts to nothing more or less than tithing, is the origin of both Dominion Theology (dominionism) and Prosperity Theology—both of which are so overtly satanic that the mainstream Church hierarchies have deliberately distanced themselves from them in order to avoid guilt by association. Indeed, the term ‘dominionism’ actually comes from a reading of Genesis 1:28, but the term only applies to Christians’ roles in politics, even by its broadest use. (And all political institutions are summarily branded as evil and satanic throughout the Bible, without exception.) So it could hardly be more evident that their understanding of what it is to have dominion is entirely motivated by selfishness, worldly ambition and material lust—certainly not by a humble desire to accomplish God’s will and establish the kingdom of heaven on Earth.

“Do you reign because you enclose yourself in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink, and do right-ruling and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy—then it was well. Was this not to know Me?” declares יהוה. “But your eyes and your heart are only upon your own greedy gain, and on shedding innocent blood, and on oppression and on doing violence.” Jeremiah 22:15-17

Any deficiency we might find of citable references to environmental issues in the Bible is due not to the fact that God does not care how we treat the environment, but to the fact that when the Bible was written, the majority of issues we are presently facing in our ecological crisis would have been inconceivable. There was no industry the way there is now, no Codex Alimentarius, no gene patenting, and no corporations hell-bent on giving themselves a monopoly on our food source by destroying natural crops. These are purely modern inventions which had not existed on Earth since the Flood, and the Pentateuch did not come about until a millennium and a half later. But this in no way detracts from the fact that things like selfishness, vanity, waste, overconsumption, senseless destruction, laziness and apathy are consistently condemned in the Bible, and it is according to this fact that we can confidently ascribe fault to the anti-environmentalist sentiments within Christianity.

That being said, there are also plenty of examples to set the precedent for the correct behaviors and mindset which constitute faithfulness (rendered “belief” here). The book of Hebrews in particular was written largely as an appeal to them.

For indeed, although by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first elements of the Words of Elohim. And you have become such as need milk and not solid food. For everyone partaking of milk is inexperienced in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature whose senses have been trained by practice to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14

For ground that is drinking the rain often falling on it, and is bearing plants fit for those by whom it is tilled, receives blessing from Elohim, but if it brings forth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and near to being cursed, and ends up by being burned. But although we speak in this way, beloved, we are persuaded, concerning you, of better matters which possess deliverance. For Elohim is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love which you have shown toward His Name, in that you have attended to the set-apart ones, and still attend. And we desire that each one of you show the same eagerness, to the entire confirmation of expectation until the end, in order that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through belief and patience inherit the promises. Hebrews 6:7-12

For it was fitting that we should have such a High Priest—kind, innocent, undefiled, having been separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens, who does not need, as those high priests, to offer up slaughter offerings day by day, first for His own sins and then for those of the people, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Torah appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath which came after the Torah, appoints the Son having been perfected forever. Hebrews 7:26-28

By belief, Heḇel offered to Elohim a greater slaughter offering than Qayin, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, Elohim witnessing of his gifts. And through it, having died, he still speaks. By belief, Ḥanoḵ was translated so as not to see death, “and was not found because Elohim had translated him.” For before his translation he obtained witness, that he pleased Elohim. But without belief it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to Elohim has to believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Him. By belief, Noaḥ, having been warned of what was yet unseen, having feared, prepared an ark to save his house, through which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to belief. By belief, Aḇraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he was about to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By belief, he sojourned in the land of promise as a stranger, dwelling in tents with Yitsḥaq and Yaʽaqoḇ, the heirs with him of the same promise, for he was looking for the city having foundations, whose builder and maker is Elohim. By belief also, Sarah herself was enabled to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the normal age, because she deemed Him trustworthy who had promised. And so from one, and him as good as dead, were born as numerous as the stars of the heaven, as countless as the sand which is by the seashore. In belief all these died, not having received the promises, but seeing them from a distance, welcomed and embraced them, and confessed that they were aliens and strangers on the earth. For those who speak this way make it clear that they seek a fatherland. And yet, if they had indeed kept remembering that place from which they had come out, they would have had the chance to return. But now they long for a better place, that is, a heavenly. Therefore Elohim is not ashamed to be called their Elohim, for He has prepared a city for them. Hebrews 11:4-16

God is the object of the faith ascribed to all these patriarchs of the Bible, who trusted his promises and heeded his commands. By contrast, modern religions (among which we include secular humanism) have indoctrinated billions into the cult of mankind, wherein faith is placed in the immeasurable value of human beings. As the Christian is so quick to remind us, it is Man alone that has been made in God’s image, so the suggestion that mankind’s interests, much less his survival, should ever deign to bow before another creature’s is borderline blasphemous. Consider these remarks from Dennis Prager, a syndicated radio show host who espouses a mainstream Judeo-Christian world view.

It was mealtime on a flight somewhere over the United States. I noticed that both the middle-aged woman seated next to me and I had ordered special meals. I had a kosher meal, she a vegetarian one.

“Are you a vegetarian?” I asked the woman.

“Yes,” she responded.


“Because we have no right to kill animals. After all, who are we to claim that we are more valuable than animals?”

I vividly recall my thoughts. When she said that we have no right to kill animals, I felt a certain sympathy for her and her position. After all, I thought, here I am eating a kosher meal, and I have always understood kashrut to be Judaism’s compromise with vegetarianism.

But when she delivered the second part of her explanation, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. In fact, I was so certain that she was engaging in hyperbole that I said, “I certainly understand your opposition to killing animals, but you can’t really mean what you said about people not being more valuable than animals. After all, if an animal and a person were both drowning, which would you save first?”

I was sure I had posed a rhetorical question. So, when I received no response from the woman, I asked her if she had heard me. “Yes,” she responded, “I’m thinking.”

That was a bombshell. I recall my reaction as if it had happened last week: She’s “thinking”? What on earth was there to think about? Dennis Prager395

Seeing how Prager’s authority is founded on his alleged understanding of Scripture, he would do well to contemplate one of its most famous stories.

And יהוה was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. And Elohim said to Noaḥ, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And see, I am going to destroy them from the earth. And I shall establish My covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. And of all the living creatures of all flesh, two of each, you are to bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you—a male and a female.” Genesis 6:6,13,18-19

We already know from Hebrews that Noah’s faithfulness (obedience) was a curse to mankind, and it is common knowledge that he made exactly the opposite decision about who to save as Prager would, for which God was well pleased with him. If we are looking for definitive instruction regarding the nature of human stewardship over the planet, this is it. The responsibility of saving every species of animal life was a tremendous burden on Noah and his family, yet God judged the task to be so important as to delay the Flood to allow sufficient time for constructing the Ark. It would be exceedingly ignorant to presume that Noah obeyed, merely out of fear or “faithfulness,” a command which he inwardly considered absurd or beneath him. Clearly he never would have been chosen were his will not already in conformity with God’s, so that he would readily devote himself to the task, which is to say that he valued the lives of animals enough to want to preserve them. Apparently he was the only man on Earth willing to do so, for which he was awarded the title “preacher of righteousness” and considered “blameless” by Yahweh himself.

We have been told that God knows even the number of hairs on our heads (Matthew 10:30-31), and this, too, is used to justify the egocentrism and geocentrism of Christianity. Clearly God employs such knowledge to care for us and to deliver us from evil. If we are to obey and imitate him, we must employ our labor, knowledge and technology to care for the other creatures of this planet and deliver them from the evils in which we have ensnared them. Noah was asked to risk the lives of the last surviving humans on this planet in order to preserve the animal kingdom, so we have no right to complain about God tasking us with too heavy a burden as to stop senselessly butchering them. Even apart from this specific issue, continued refusal to submit to God’s role for our species comes at our own peril, for we have been warned countless times that we shall be treated in the same manner that we treat other creatures (men, too, are creatures, and animals). One can scarcely object to God allowing Satan and his minions to inflict so much suffering upon humans, considering that even the most cunning and cruel of Satan’s schemes pale in comparison to the abject evils to which we have subjected animals over the last 6000 years.

Humans, and Christians in particular, like to believe that their superiority to animals in the natural hierarchy (which is a fact) evidences their right to dispose of these creatures however they like. Yet we have barely even scratched the surface, and have already seen that this conviction is entirely at odds with the testimony of Scripture and the commandments of God. The central abominable subconscious belief of Christianity is that human beings are the pinnacle of Creation. The conclusions of this logic are as wretched as they are multitudinous.

For instance, one could conclude that this is what inevitably derives from the doctrine of Christ’s atoning death as a scapegoat for the sins of mankind, but in fact it is the implicit belief that humans are important enough to merit such consideration by virtue of naught but our very existence which has led to the establishment of this definitive Christian doctrine. Either way, it perfectly communicates just how much inherent esteem Christians believe our species deserves to be held in. Swept under the rug are the Old Testament days of yore, when God judged people by the concordance of their actions with his commands. Now all one has to do is “believe in Jesus” and all other sins will be overlooked.

What underpins this change in their minds is that God finally repented of his overly harsh attitude and realized that humans are his most precious and cherished creation. Israel’s long history had shown him that he could not realistically hope for anyone to live up to his “high standards” (which he himself has asserted are not even burdensome). Faced with the decision between enforcing his arbitrary standards and embracing humanity, he chose the latter, because humans are just too valuable to discard merely on account of their stubbornness to conform to commands that are allegedly both unreasonable and unimportant. So God finally decided to stop capriciously consigning countless “innocent” (by the Christians’ reasoning, no one human is more sinful than any other) humans to hellfire for no better reason than to appease his transient whims. (Meanwhile, the issue of why, if we are indeed so important and so beloved, any of us would be so consigned, if not due to our disobedience, for which everyone necessarily must be treated in like manner in order for there to be any justice, remains unanswered. So to conclude that God is unjust is to go too easy on him: he is a raging psychopath.) To consecrate and concretize this new era of a kinder, gentler supreme being, he allowed himself one final orgy of senseless brutality by ordering the torture and murder of his only son, who was somehow also himself, because although he had previously been a sadistic sociopath for ridding the world of a few miscreants, he could not bear the thought of being that way toward his beloved “children” anymore, so he took the form of a man and committed suicide in order to appease his own bloodlust. After all, “God is love” (1 John 4:8).

This is the history of God’s plan of salvation for men—the “Gospel”—in a nutshell. As ridiculous as it is, this is the interpretation of Scripture necessitated by the underlying belief that humanity is God’s supreme creation, which is the basis for the entire paradigm of Christianity. It is this belief that, ultimately, makes mankind more powerful and righteous than God himself, as even he has had to yield ground on his principles in order to accommodate the multitude of Man’s weaknesses. In a very real way, all of this has made the Creator subject to the dictates of the beings that he has created: humans are of such supreme value that their maker is obligated to bestow eternal life upon them, presumably so they can commence spreading the rape and pillage of this planet to as many as they can reach, and all because of their obstinacy in a matter which is wholly trivial compared to the far-reaching benefits obtained by faithfulness. Meanwhile, we rewrite God’s Word however we see fit, for the express purpose of making him our scapegoat and whitewashing our own sins against him, so that he bears false witness against himself.

As troublesome as it is to the mainstream Christian perspective, it is clear from Scripture that God values human lives more than those of other creatures, but this is a matter of degree, not kind, as the Christians would have it. In making this point, when Yahshuah said that God knows the number of hairs on our heads, he was merely comparing us to wild animals so that it is understood that he cares for both humans and nonhuman animals alike. The idea expressed there is that we have a role to play in the maintenance of Nature. God is shown to employ such knowledge to care for us and to deliver us from evil, but this does not establish that we have free license to do whatever we please—it means that God is watching us and will instruct us in the ways of self-preservation and also hold us more accountable for our sins than we would be held if he was not so concerned, like any parent will discipline his own children to a greater extent than someone else’s. If we are to obey and imitate him, as children ought, then we must employ our labor, knowledge and technology to care for the other creatures of this planet (including humans) and deliver them from the evils in which wicked men have ensnared them. This is the very first priority of all those who would obey him; the second is to learn what we can about them (without torturing them with vivisection) in order to better serve them.

If this seems like an awful lot of work or that it will require a massive shift in our use of resources, then consider that our very own survival absolutely depends on it, per the passages invoked by the Christian on Yahoo! from 2 Peter and Revelation. Consider again the case of Noah, who was asked to risk the lives of the last surviving humans on this planet in order to preserve the animal kingdom, and that the very context of 2 Peter falls back on this as an analogy by saying the world was destroyed by water, and will be likewise destroyed by fire, for the same reason. We have no right to complain about God tasking us with too heavy a burden, because nothing we could do for him could ever repay what he has done for us, nor compare to the precedents established by the teachers of righteousness (Enoch, Noah, Job, Moses, Daniel, Yahshuah, etc.). It would be a lot easier for us to follow the path of righteousness than for one man to do all the work himself in protest of the world’s rebellion, so if they can do it, then surely we can, too.

Like Noah, our lives exist to carry out whatever purpose God has ascribed to them, and he has both the right and the power to end them if we are disobedient and neglectful of that purpose. Christ himself came to serve, not to be served. The corollary to this is not that God exists to serve us, but that Yahshuah, as the ultimate servant and ruler of us all, is to be the prototype for all who would call themselves Christians, and that no one has any right to call himself such who would lord it over the whole of God’s creation with their “dominion” theology, the way other heathens do.

But יהושע called them near and said, “You know that the rulers of the gentiles are masters over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever wishes to be first among you, let him be your servant, even as the Son of Aḏam did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28

Apparently this notion is entirely agreeable with Christians when they imagine Yahshuah washing their feet as he did Peter’s, but what they cannot tolerate is citing this same principle to the intended end, in order to suggest that they are obligated to behave in the same manner. Indeed, it was once the case that Christian rulers (e.g. Catherine of Aragon) would wash other people’s feet as a demonstration of piety, though this is traditionally a practice of “heretics” like the Waldenses and Hussites because the precedent comes from the Bible. Nothing could better evidence the fact that Christians wish to be served than the callousness with which they consign Christ to his death, demanding his blood to atone for the sins they steadfastly refuse to cease committing, not to mention their indignation at the proposition that they are obligated to serve animals in any way other than on their dinner plates. It is not as though Yahshuah invented an entirely new ethic; instead, he merely made it abundantly clear that the true nature of the dominion bestowed upon Adam in Genesis 1 is service and responsibility (insuring the survival and well-being of all of Earth’s creatures), not privilege (employing and enslaving Earth’s creatures to benefit him). As children of Adam, our very lives are in God’s hands, and we are bound by this responsibility not just when it is convenient for us, but even when it requires risking and sacrificing our very lives.

What this tells us is that 1) God values all life, not just human life (it was God who commanded Noah to save the animals, and even materially supported him to this end); 2) God cares far more for the propagation of the various species which Man has little to no regard for, except as a food or labor source (just as they were preserved from the Flood while virtually all of humanity was destroyed, so shall they find peace in the kingdom of heaven, while sinners shall only find peace in the lake of fire); 3) righteous humans actively participate in the preservation of God’s creations, sacrificing their own comforts and perhaps even risking their own lives in the process, and are commanded by God to act in this manner; 4) authority is not given for the purpose of exploitation and destruction, but to act on God’s behalf (i.e., the polar opposite).

Christians, who are more invested into the belief in mankind’s superiority and supreme value than anyone else, will object that we make too much of one “story;” Noah’s Ark says nothing of God’s desire to save a drowning animal rather than a human who steadfastly refuses his instruction, but was purely a practical necessity. Yet we have already seen that Christians believe that God will magically restore the world which they have raped and pillaged, so we must wonder why he did not show such consideration to Noah. Instead, his reward for being righteous was to shoulder the burden for the mistakes of the rest of his species. If this is what was asked of Noah, what manner of wrath has been stored up for those who transgress God’s will and abuse his creation? Surely such thoughts weighed heavily on Noah’s mind in those lonely months aboard the Ark, surrounded by nothing but water where mountains and trees had been, but we imagine that more than anything, the entire enterprise must have engendered a tremendous sense of humility in the face of God’s power and majesty. The whole of mankind, while clearly nearest to God of all his creations, was hardly granted any more space than any other species—just a few spots on the Ark—and only what one man was able to construct with his own hands, while furthermore being charged with tending to all the needs of all the other species onboard. Clearly, then, anyone who would have assumed, like Prager, that there was nothing to even think about, or who would have insisted that any animal aboard the Ark should have given up his seat in order to spare more humans (at the expense of the salvation of the whole species) never would have been allowed to set foot on it to begin with, but was destined instead to perish.

Consider further the sheer amount of effort dedicated to this quest in the first place. Given its dimensions, it must have taken Noah and his sons an entire lifetime by our standard just to put the Ark together. The average Christian, on the other hand, even with a fairly realistic sense of the impending cataclysm, cannot be bothered to read or even look at what God commands, much less look at the result of their wanton destruction of Earth and its myriad life forms. We have trouble even so much as getting them to watch a 1-minute video so they know where their “food” comes from. Some get so horrified or disgusted at images of the conditions on animal farms and in slaughterhouses that they shudder and immediately decide to avoid it altogether, specifically because they know it will spoil their appetites. We ask whether this is truly what it means to adhere to the mandates of conscience, or whether the concept of the conscience being “seared as with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2), so often employed as a hostile response to Scripture-based objections to the Christians’ meat-eating habits, sounds more like an analogy to the cattle branding which used to take place on ranches, or the atrocious debeaking of chickens on animal farms.

That Christian thought would follow the line of reasoning that applies the very same condemnations which are directed at them to the proponents of the biblical position is not surprising, given that they axiomatically believe humans to be the crown of God’s creation, being the whole universe. Many will even argue that although the universe is currently estimated to contain nearly 1 trillion galaxies (a low estimate, by our reckoning), life exists on one planet alone, which just so happens to be ours; everything else was created merely to “glorify God.” With this as their basic premise, it is no wonder that Christians believe our planet is expendable. Meanwhile, its nonhuman occupants fall somewhere on a scale between impediment to and implement for the glorification (deification) of Man. So brazen is this pride that we, the most wretched and abominable species of Earth, imagine ourselves to be the sole purpose for the creation of not just our own planet, but the very universe itself, so that the extinction of other species is irrelevant. Such was the reasoning behind the serpent’s lie to Eve which she believed because of her gullibility and pride, and is said to have gotten us into this mess to begin with.

Perhaps God will simply transport all of us somewhere else once we have trashed this planet; if no other planets are inhabited, then he certainly has many options to choose from! Of course, this view is more than merely antiquated, as scientists have discovered many planets suitable for habitation. It is also certainly not biblical, so Christians cannot even fall back on their “reason is the enemy of faith” mentality without implicitly admitting that their faith is founded upon naught but superstitions which are easily debunked by science and Scripture alike.

Also contributing to this view is the aforementioned fact that most Christians believe that any kind of concern with the material world is questionable, if not downright evil, and that as Christians, we are to be concerned with far more important matters (i.e. “saving souls”). This ignores the fact that to be spiritual is not to have a lack of concern for the material world; rather, it is to not let ourselves be overcome by lustful desires for the things of this world. We have already demonstrated how the Christians’ paradigm is predicated on carnal lusts and selfish desires—especially as it pertains to the matter in question. The desire to obtain and consume the pleasurable items of the material world (including foods chosen according to individual tastes and convenience rather than for nutritional and life-sustaining qualities) in order to gratify our carnal lusts is fundamentally selfish, and ignores the importance of the rest of God’s creation and how we are supposed to fit in it. Conversely, to keep our desires in check and to place greater importance on the survival and thriving of the rest of God’s creation is to demonstrate humble selflessness, and therefore some measure of spirituality, in accordance with the mandates of Scripture, which is precisely the opposite of what Christians would have us believe.

Christians may want us to believe that their lack of concern for the material world demonstrates that they are applying the biblical mandate to deny themselves and be more spiritual. However, in reality, they only practice the appearance of such. Christianity as practiced by the masses employs and advocates very little asceticism and denial of personal desires; most struggle just to overcome temptations which a person whose heart is aligned with God’s will literally never even experience. It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to criticize a concern over the material world which is motivated by selfless desires when the Christian is simultaneously engaged in gratifying his same carnal desires. This amounts to the pretense of spirituality with none of its actual fruits—exactly what they routinely accuse vegetarians of.

Even for the Christian that does practice self-denial in some form, it should be obvious that concern for the material world is not just a “nice sentiment,” but rather a fundamental responsibility that God has left with human beings, without which we are really no use to him or his creation. The type of “rule” that humans were given in Genesis 1:29 should be clear by virtue of the fact that all of Creation belongs to God. At best, we are simply caretakers of it in his stead. This is the true nature of dominion, even where it actually does apply to the humans of Earth.

The earth belongs to יהוה,
And all that fills it—
The world and those who dwell in it.
Psalm 24:1

O יהוה, how many have been Your works!
You have made all of them in wisdom.
The earth is filled with Your possessions.
Psalm 104:24

“You are יהוה, You alone. You have made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that are on it, the seas and all that are in them, and You give life to them all. And the host of the heavens are bowing themselves to You.” Nehemiah 9:6

Because in Him were created all that are in the heavens and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or rulerships or principalities or authorities—all have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all, and in Him all hold together. Colossians 1:16-17

How long shall the land mourn, and the plants of every field wither? The beasts and birds are consumed, for the evil of those who dwell there, because they said, “He does not see our latter ending.” Jeremiah 12:4

“When you besiege a city for a long time by fighting against it to take it, you do not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. If you do eat of them, do not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man to be besieged by you?” Deuteronomy 20:19

You made him rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all under his feet,
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens,
And the fish of the sea,
Passing through the paths of the seas.
Psalm 8:6-8

Who has given to Me first, that I should repay him—under all the heavens that is Mine? Job 41:11

God values all of his creations, and does far more to care for them than his appointed caretakers ever could. So really, we are just here to lend a hand. If this upsets our delicate sensibilities based on pride and preconceived, self-generated notions of our importance and free will or self-determination, we just need to get over it and let God have his way. Surely, to do so will produce results that are better in every way than anything we can imagine for ourselves, anyway. This is, after all, God that we are talking about; how could anyone really think he knows better than that one conscious entity defined and characterized as that which is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, unfailing, constant and eternal?

The esteem of יהוה is forever,
יהוה rejoices in His works.
Psalm 104:31

He established the earth on its foundations,
So that it would not totter forever,
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they flee;
At the voice of Your thunder they hurry away.
They go up the mountains;
They go down the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
You did set a boundary, they do not pass over,
They do not return to cover the earth.
Who is sending the springs into the valleys,
They flow among the hills.
They give drink to every beast of the field;
Wild donkeys break their thirst.
The birds of the heavens dwell beside them;
They sing from between the branches.
Watering the hills from His upper rooms;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of Your works.
Causing the grass to grow for the cattle,
And plants for the service of mankind,
To bring forth food from the earth,
And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make the face shine,
And bread which sustains man’s heart.
The trees of יהוה are satisfied,
The cedars of Leḇanon which He planted,
Where the birds do make nests;
The stork has her home in the fir trees.
The high hills are for wild goats;
Rocks a refuge for rock badgers.
Psalm 104:5-18

Put simply, this planet was given to Man not as a gift with which to indulge his lusts and pleasure himself, but as a responsibility to tend to, safeguard and watch over. Based on the most casual reading of Scripture, any concept of human ownership of that which is not even our own handiwork is not only null and void, but constitutes the foundational attitude warranting our destruction. We are fortunate , which means we owe God our deepest gratitude and appreciation, so that we are constantly trying to repay the debt.

“‘And the land is not to be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine, for you are sojourners and settlers with Me.’” Leviticus 25:23

Land reclamation in the ancient world consisted of “land improvement,” which can lead to soil erosion and desertification. This is not a matter of not having a right to even utilize God’s property. We certainly do; in fact, we have the obligation. It is, however, a matter of recognizing, first and foremost, that the obligation stems from the fact that it is his property, not ours.

“Rule and fear belong to Him, making peace in His high places.” Job 25:2

“Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I ask you, and you answer Me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding.” Job 38:2-4

Esteem יהוה with your goods,
And with the first-fruits of all your increase;
Then your storehouses shall be filled with plenty,
And your vats overflow with new wine.
Proverbs 3:9-10

[And we swore] to bring the first-fruits of our soil and the first-fruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, to the House of יהוה, also to bring the first-born of our sons and our livestock, as it is written in the Torah, and the firstlings of our herds and our flocks, to the House of our Elohim, to the priests attending in the House of our Elohim. And that we should bring the first-fruits of our dough, and our contributions, and the fruit from all kinds of trees, of new wine and of oil, to the priests, to the storerooms of the House of our Elohim; and the tithes of our land to the Lĕwites, for the Lĕwites should receive the tithes in all our rural towns. Nehemiah 10:35-37

We are indentured servants, employed as caretakers, charged with utilizing his creations in productive ways that are consonant with his will. Truth be told, we do not even have ownership rights over ourselves, and therefore are obligated to conform ourselves, first and foremost, to God’s will, which begins with our thoughts and desires, and extends principally to how we sustain our bodies (with what we eat, though Sabbath observance is also significant to this). Our very life is a gift, and this is exactly why it is within God’s power and right to take it away if we abuse it. Simply questioning his authority to do so merits death.

“Should a reprover contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves Eloah answer it.” Job 40:2

If all we do is destroy God’s creations, then what right do we have to continue controlling any part of it? What right do we have to everlasting life when we do nothing but demonstrate our negligence with what little we have been given in this life, and our outright contempt for the gift of life itself, even where the self-interest is at its height—that is, with our own bodies? God has taken pains to make us in such a way as that every cell serves a purpose, every organ is essential for life, and every sense is unequivocally precious, to the point that they are designed to turn against us and kill us if we are disobedient. Why would he make death-mongers everlasting freeloaders of his kingdom, with the rights of full property ownership and free will that are given to a beloved son in perpetual inheritance? Will any king make an openly treasonous rebel peasant the regent of his kingdom? Will any reasonable employer make a drunk his VP? Surely we can all agree that God has a better sense of justice and propriety than the very basest man.

Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land! In my hearing יהוה of hosts said, “Truly, many houses shall be a waste—big and fine ones, without inhabitant. For ten acres of vineyard yield one bath, and a ḥomer of seed yields one ĕphah.” Woe to those who rise early in the morning pursuing strong drink, who stay up late at night—wine inflames them! And the lyre and the harp, the tambourine and flute, and wine are in their feasts; but they do not regard the deeds of יהוה, nor see the work of His hands. Therefore my people have gone into exile, because they have no knowledge. And their esteemed men are starved, and their crowd dried up with thirst. Therefore the grave has made itself wide and opened its mouth beyond measure. Their splendour and their crowd and their uproar, and he who is exulting within her, shall go down into it. Isaiah 5:8-14

Suffice it to say that when humans not only neglect their responsibilities and misappropriate the resources they have been given, but even go so far as to feed upon the flesh of God’s other creations and to take great pains to this end, this is not exactly what he had in mind when he gave humans the responsibility of watching over the planet. For just one infraction of God’s commands, Adam was kicked out of the grove where he was employed and made to suffer the consequence of being without the Tree of Life. What God has in mind for our “dominion” is to rid the world of lawless destroyers in order to purify it and establish his righteousness in it.

“And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead to be judged, and to give the reward to Your servants the prophets and to the set-apart ones, and to those who fear Your Name, small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” Revelation 11:18

So we see that, contrary to the responses to the inquiry we have seen above, God has not just revoked the status once given to Man in his perfect state, but also declared his intent to destroy those who destroy his creation. Furthermore, this punishment will be carried over to the Second Death according to the same criteria, the only difference being another (last) chance to repent and conform.

In summary, neither this planet nor the creatures upon it have been given to mankind to dispense with however we see fit. We are but the appointed overseers of another’s property. How well we fulfill our duties shall determine whether we are fit to be entrusted with even greater responsibilities, and whatever rewards are deemed commensurate with our efforts. As we do not have the right to do with God’s creations whatever we want, we will be judged according to how well we look after his property, just like any reasonable employer will promote his employees based on merit and on the needs of his company—that is, how the company benefits from his productivity—certainly not on a combination of slothfulness, refusal to adhere to expectations and company regulations, and wishful thinking on the part of the employee. God’s company is Nature; how we take care of it will determine whether we as individuals have earned a shot at owning anything of our own.

And He also said to His taught ones, “There was a certain rich man who had a manager and he was accused to him as wasting his possessions. So having called him he said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, for you are no longer able to be manager.’ He who is trustworthy in what is least, is trustworthy also in much. And he who is unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. And if you have not been trustworthy in what is another man’s, who shall give you what is your own?” Luke 16:1-2,10,12

“And another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I kept laid up in a handkerchief. For I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take up what you did not lay down, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I shall judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was a hard man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow. Why did you not put the silver in the bank, that when I come I could have collected it with interest?’ Then he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who possesses ten minas.’ But they said to him, ‘Master, he already possesses ten minas.’ For I say to you, that to everyone who possesses shall be given; and from him who does not possess, even what he possesses shall be taken away from him. But those enemies of mine who did not wish me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.” Luke 19:20-27

And the Master said, “Who then is the trustworthy and wise manager, whom his master shall appoint over his household, to give the portion of food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his master shall find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you that he shall appoint him over all his possessions. But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male servants and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant shall come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour that he does not know, and shall cut him in two and appoint his portion with the unbelievers.” Luke 12:42-46

The word ‘drunk’ here is a little misleading; its meaning in Scripture is ‘sated’ or ‘full,’ rather than ‘inebriated’ or ‘intoxicated with wine.’ So when 1 Peter 4 condemns “indecencies, lusts, drunkenness, orgies, wild parties, and abominable idolatries,” he is just being very redundant in order to establish the point that eating meat is sinful. (How “abominable idolatries” is a clear reference to flesh-eating will be explained in more detail later.) Likewise, Paul’s critical comments about “drunkenness and orgies” in Galatians 5:21 and Romans 13:13 are aimed at criticizing the Roman/Galatian practice of stuffing one’s face with food, rather than wine and sex, exclusively.

This is evident when Paul uses methyei (μεθύει, from G3184) or “drunk” in contrast with peina (πεινᾷ, from G3983) or “hungry” in 1 Corinthians 11. The latter word is the same as the one which he employs in Romans 12:20 to say, “When your enemy is hungry, feed him,” but the former is not the same as that which he employs to say, “If he thirsts, give him drink”—the difference being that we are to give even our enemies what nourishes them, rather than what fills or intoxicates them (i.e. what they need, though not what they might want). How much more should this apply to those over whom God has given us this responsibility—the animals!

For, when you eat, each one takes his own supper first, and one is hungry [πεινᾷ] and another is drunk [μεθύει]. 1 Corinthians 11:21

Later in the same epistle (15:34), Paul says ἐκνήψατε δικαίως or “sober up righteously” to describe the wakened state in which one does not sin, by having knowledge and abstaining from flesh. In any case, the point is not to seek knowledge or advancement, or to win favor with God, but to simply submit to God’s rules and become the people we were meant to be. We have the example of how a master who has been given dominion ought to be in the person of Yahshuah, so no one who utterly refuses to make any kind of attempt to exemplify him as a role model has any cause whatsoever to call himself a Christian or a follower of the Way.

And יהושע came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations, immersing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Set-apart Spirit, teaching them to guard all that I have commanded you. And see, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Amĕn. Matthew 28:18-20

“‘Is it not right for me to do what I wish with my own? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ Thus the last shall be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.” Matthew 20:15-16

Viewed in light of all this, clearly the argument becomes that the consumption of meat is not an even remotely acceptable practice, especially now, with conditions on animal farms being what they are, seeing as how it displays a blatant disregard for God’s creations and an outright contempt for his ultimate ownership of and authority over them. Of course, the ultimate authority that humans could ever exercise over God’s creatures is when to end their lives. Indeed, God has made it clear that humans in general have not been granted such authority precisely because they have never proved themselves worthy of it. Just look at what happened to Yahshuah, and how eager the Christians are to put the blame for his murder on themselves (and everyone else), as though that somehow justifies their obstinacy and disobedience, rather than aggravating it.

If anyone still wishes to insist that putting mankind’s dominion over the earth into its proper context does not prove that we are forbidden from consuming meat, then it should serve as ample evidence to point out that it is in Genesis 1:26 where God announces Adam’s dominion; exactly three verses later, he is told that his diet shall consist of plants (only). We must wonder why God would prescribe any diet to Man whatsoever if we are free to eat whichever of his creations we wish. To persist with such a clearly specious line of reasoning is tantamount to saying that Adam and Eve had dominion over the Tree of Knowledge, and that God was wrong to kick them out of the Garden.

The issue of dominion aside, most Christians who want to defend the consumption of meat on a biblical basis will first point to another passage from Genesis:

“And the fear of you and the dread of you is on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the heavens, on all that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea—into your hand they have been given. Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants.” Genesis 9:2-3

In this particular passage, God instructs Noah and his sons directly after the floodwaters have cleared and they have disembarked from the Ark. Most Christians want to claim this passage as evidence that God has changed his mind, rewritten the rules that were handed down to Adam and Eve, and changed mankind’s acceptable diet forever after. Typically they are content to invoke this passage and leave their argument at that, with no further examination of the issues we are about to discuss. No context is provided, and no answer is given as to why God allegedly changed his mind from when humans were originally designed to be herbivores, if this is even acknowledged at all apart from the reminder in the passage itself.

No explanation is given for why, a millennium and a half later, God gave the Israelites a law which included dietary restrictions intended to set them apart from the heathen nations, the implication being that the heathens were sinning by virtue of the fact that they were eating whatever they wanted, and consequently, that those who follow their practices even now are also sinning. In fact, Christians reject all dietary restrictions specifically on the grounds that the whole Law has supposedly been done away with, and therefore that all sins are acceptable to God, but we will not digress on this point. It ought to be remembered that Noah was just one man, and was never told that this was a new “law” at all, much less that it was for all generations, as the covenant of circumcision and certain aspects of the Law of Moses are. In summary, Christians offer no explanation for why God even makes these concessions to Noah in Genesis 9, though the fact that eating meat will not be acceptable in the kingdom of heaven is more or less undisputed.

In order to understand Scripture with an aim towards deriving principles applicable to everyday life, as opposed to merely justifying traditions and whims, one cannot sweep such contradictions under the rug: resolving them, especially when they pertain to matters of such import, is required. Therefore, in an effort to accept this responsibility, we will now present the reader with several explanations for this passage. Due to the lack of material evidence, as well as the brevity of the Bible’s account of these events, we cannot claim with certainty which of these alternatives best explains what happened some 5000 years ago. However, they are not mutually exclusive, and more importantly, what the sum total of these considerations does rule out is the possibility that Christians, or any other human for that matter, are free to consume flesh with impunity. Furthermore, by the end of this discussion, it ought to be clear precisely how shameful it is that Christianity has defaulted on its responsibility by failing to examine these issues more closely, if it can be said that it has examined them at all.

That being said, our first consideration is that Genesis 9:2-3 constitutes a temporary allowance granted in order to ensure the survival of the only remaining humans on the planet. The significance of this allowance cannot be appreciated without first recognizing that Noah and his family were vegans, though perhaps the only ones in the world by this time: God simply would not have chosen them otherwise. As such, to think that they would have been happy with this state of affairs, or that they would have relished the abolition of the restriction against eating meat, is pure projection. Furthermore, there is nothing in Genesis 9 to suggest that this concession was ever allowed to anyone other than Noah and his family, in stark contrast to the everlasting covenant expressed a little further into the narrative.

“And I, see, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you, and with every living creature that is with you: of the birds, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. And I shall establish My covenant with you, and never again is all flesh cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again is there a flood to destroy the earth.” And Elohim said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for all generations to come: I shall set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud, and I shall remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and never again let the waters become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I shall see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between Elohim and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And Elohim said to Noaḥ, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” Genesis 9:9-17

What we have precedent (though not sufficient for certainty) for in Genesis 9:2-3, then, is saying that the consumption of meat is allowable (though not ideal) in situations where the survival of humans is at stake. This is a rather common theme in the world’s various religious/ethical systems, particularly those of the indigenous cultures of Asia and North America, where the kill is revered and a new hunt only begun once the animal has been entirely consumed. If left to themselves, apart from societal influences, most people would find killing animals altogether regrettable and undesirable, preferring to wait until it was necessary due to famine, just as most people are not inclined to cannibalism, but may resort to it in extreme cases where their survival depends on it. Either case (of killing a nonhuman animal, or of killing another human, and then eating the corpse) entails negotiating an emotional/psychological obstacle which is built into our subconscious minds to varying degrees of conscience.

Only those whose survival actually depends on eating flesh because there is nothing else to eat are ever morally justified in killing, and only to the extent that they had no other choice and regretted it, rather than that they took any amount of pleasure in it. This does not include populations which find themselves in harsh climates. Humans have no business venturing where vegetation does not grow, especially if the existing vegetation can support wild animals, which do not by themselves constitute a viable long-term food supply. (Plants are still needed both for the human predator and the nonhuman prey. Even “locavores” must rely on agriculture rather than game to some extent.) Historically, human migration patterns are thought to have followed those of animals, meaning that if they had settled in fertile regions and grown crops instead of being lazy, they would not have wound up in harsh climates. Relatively recent settlements in arid lands and tundra have made the argument from necessity moot because of the means of transportation which have enabled the settlement, and therefore also the movement of foodstuffs.

An example of the allowable exception would be someone in such a location whose access to this supply has been cut off, and who does not have sufficient stores for reasons other than negligence. In the real world, this only ever happens in exceedingly rare cases where individuals or groups find themselves stranded far from a food source, such as survivors of a plane crash in a remote region who have little or no survival education and are unable to be rescued within the first few weeks. In any case, such situations would always entail trapping or hunting—acts of desperation—never settled animal farming. So to say that this allowance translates into license for citizens of First World countries to bypass the produce section and head straight for the deli at their local grocery store is as blasphemous as it is illogical, and flatly denies the intent of the concession (as meat destroys the human body and produces its death, whereas the intent is to sustain its life, and only as a temporary measure and last resort).

Agricultural societies are universally recognized as a more advanced form of civilization than are hunter-gatherer societies (if such can even be called societies at all). The former is more difficult to establish by far, but rather than suggesting that it is the more unnatural state in which Man may exist, given that we are made in God’s image, it ought to be exceedingly clear that we were meant to employ the mental faculties he bestowed upon us in order to create societies that utilize said faculties, rather than living in squalor and desperation like savage beasts. Everyone knows this instinctively; appeals to caveman paleo fantasies serve only to justify savage diets, as opposed to eschewing the fruits of technological innovation. Of course, establishing even a basic agricultural society takes far more time and effort than does wandering into the forest and killing a wild animal, which is why it is perfectly reasonable that God would have allowed Noah to behave in such a manner, but only for survival purposes. 5000 years later, having reached the level of technology and resource acquisitions that we have, to use our knowledge and resources to continue and hone practices which are no longer needed for survival (i.e. animal farming) is not only contrary to the spirit of the allowance that God made to Noah, but to employ God’s gifts in the destruction of the rest of his creation for no other reason than because it pleases us to do so. Human beings have undeniably already settled into their allotted habitations and accumulated more than enough knowledge and resources to easily feed the entire planet on a plant-based diet.

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having ordained beforehand the times and the boundaries of their dwelling, to seek the Master, if at least they would reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each of us. Acts 17:26-27

The only reason it is even problematic is that there are not enough people eating this way already, and that virtually all government subsidies for food production go to animal products. We can live without eating meat, with much more benefit and ease than it takes to sustain the untenable status quo, therefore we should. That it is healthier to not eat meat leaves no good reason for us to keep doing it, and considering that this planet is now home to more than 7 billion humans, and that the planet simply cannot support a carnocentric diet for that large a population, this should be our final clue as to what kind of diet will need to be adopted if we are even going to survive as a species, much less establish the kingdom of heaven on Earth. To justify not doing what is necessary to maintain our own health and to ensure our survival as a species on the basis of an alleged concession made to one man 5000 years ago is to purposefully ignore that the conditions of the planet and of humanity have changed dramatically since that time.

Furthermore, it is not as though this is a recent development: mankind had acquired sufficient knowledge and resources to sustain itself on agriculture well before the institution of animal sacrifice (being then synonymous with meat consumption) in ancient societies, which clearly came about as a result of people having enough time on their hands to do things that were not immediately necessary for their survival. The famous Roman orator Cicero had already observed, several decades before the birth of Christ, that Man is destined to a better occupation than that of pursuing and cutting the throat of dumb creatures. Surely, a Christian whose hope lies in the resurrection of the dead and a better life to come in the kingdom of heaven, wherein, we are told, such practice does not exist, can see the wisdom in this.

So why do Christians consciously participate in and actively contribute to an economy which is entirely built around it? Could it be that they are what the Bible calls “lovers of self ... lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:4-5), “whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things” (Philippians 3:19)? Anyone that has ever fasted for as little as 48 hours should agree that if humans were judged according to how steadfastly they obeyed the commands of God as opposed to the commands of their stomachs, the vast majority would be put to shame. “Heathens” participating in hunger strikes for righteous causes, therefore, have accrued more merit than have lifetime, church-going Christians.

Clearly, anyone who wants to claim to have the authority of the Bible on his side must deal with these issues, as they have no origin except the Bible itself. If one cannot discern the intent behind God’s commands in Scripture, then one cannot rightly claim the ability to infallibly deduce God’s will from Scripture. The fact that Christians will do little more than point to a handful of selected verses, removed and isolated from their contexts, while insisting on remaining ignorant about those contexts and all passages which do not appear to support their doctrines, and then leave it at that, acting as though the case is closed and they have won the argument, demonstrates that they have no interest in engaging in a pursuit of the truth in this matter, or even in entertaining what God (through Scripture) really has to say about it. Consequently, it demonstrates that they cite the Bible not because they are interested in the truth or in doing God’s will, but merely because they have chosen their lifestyle, are inimically opposed to reforming it, and want to claim that the Bible is on their side so as to squelch any further debate on the matter. As they invoke the Bible, let us turn to the Bible for our rebuttal.

The fact that the allowance of Genesis 9:3 was intended as a temporary measure is evident in 7:2, where Noah is told to bring more pairs of clean animals than unclean, because it demonstrates that the gods had meat-eating in mind for him well before the Flood, even though it was the very thing that caused them to unleash it. (If they did not care what he was eating at all, then they would not have specified that the extra animals be of the “clean” varieties.) Thus it is apparent that Noah and his family were to use the extra supply of clean animals first, which implies that the concession was only made as a matter of dire necessity, and was therefore anything but a mandate for all people, for all time and for any situation. Instead, the land should have been clear for agriculture by the time the supply was exhausted. Indeed, this is the case, as 9:20 says Noah became a “man of the soil” and planted a vineyard right after the Flood, though the KJV maliciously calls him a “husbandman,” as some meat-eaters will not even allow the Bible that much room to express its own ideals, even when the ideal leads to some kind of sin which they revel in, as it did with Noah and his drunkenness. They may as well praise him for it.

Of course, some will object that Noah and his sons, though perhaps morally inclined, were not strict vegetarians, or that the Bible does not explicitly state as much, so it would not follow that he would have found it reprehensible rather than desirable to eat meat, and that it has therefore not been shown that if it was truly allowed at all, it was only as a temporary measure to ensure the survival of the human species. However, there are multiple indications that Noah and all his ancestors were undefiled by meat, apart from some of the hints we have already seen. The most obvious one pertains both to his character and to the purity of his DNA.

This is the genealogy of Noaḥ. Noaḥ was a righteous man, perfect in his generations. Noaḥ walked with Elohim. Genesis 6:9

The very fact that it was supposedly said in Genesis 9:3 that meat-eating was now allowed to Noah and his family indicates that they had previously observed the command not to, otherwise there would have been no reason for it, or else Noah would not have been seen as blameless before God. Having established, then, that Noah and his sons were strict vegetarians, it ought to be clear that the last thing they would have done upon hearing God grant them permission to eat meat is to gratuitously indulge themselves. Only a modern person addicted to meat consumption would imagine otherwise, ignorantly believing such a prohibition to be a great sacrifice, the abolition of which would be cause for celebration. It is an affront to God that Christians view his laws as sacrifices rather than statutes established principally to protect them from harm, being too childish to know any better and protect themselves. No vegan would ever think this way, because a vegan informs himself about the facts and chooses conscience as his guide, rather than only obeying some sort of convention begrudgingly and then celebrating when he no longer thinks he needs to.

The Christian mentality, on the other hand, even goes so far as to equate God making allowances with God desiring that we partake in those allowances, when common sense should tell us that precisely the opposite is implied. The wording of Genesis 9:3 is the same as that where God informs Adam of what he is to eat, but the idea of allowing something undesirable actually associates it with what he was not to eat. God permitted Adam the opportunity to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, just by putting him on the same planet as other animals, but that in no way suggests that he had any desire at all that he would, or that there were no negative consequences for Adam when he did. This is an issue which does not just affect a couple and their offspring, but every creature on Earth. To want to get away with as much as you can by saying “God has permitted it” is to provoke God the way the Israelites did in the desert and the serpent did in Eden.

Furthermore, to say that God has permitted it because he approves of it is to beg the question of why he seemingly changed his mind, and to imply that he permitted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit because he approves of sin, and a myriad of other such absurdities. For instance, if the prohibition of the original sin has been undone, then why have the consequences not been? On the other hand, we do well to remember the consequences of the Fall, and the implications which it has for us. It is understood from Genesis 9:4 and the lead-in to 9:5 (“and/also”) that the context of 9:5 assumes that God has actually forbidden killing here (and therefore all but scavenged meat), because he is telling Noah that he is protected by his position on violence, just as all the other animals are. Some translations of 9:5 even go so far as to imply that God will hold us accountable for each and every animal we kill—and God’s idea of accountability is “a life for a life.”

“But you are not to eat meat with blood in it. (Blood is life.) In addition, I will demand your blood for your life. I will demand it from any animal or from any person. I will demand the life of any person [who kills] another person.” Genesis 9:4-5 (GWT)

Also, I will certainly demand an accounting regarding bloodshed, from every animal and from every human being. I’ll demand an accounting from every human being for the life of another human being. Genesis 9:5 (ISV)

The only real precedent which this accounting has in Scripture is the mercy which God had on Cain because his punishment was too much for him to bear (Genesis 4:13-15). Of course, a person cannot be avenged many times over, as Cain was promised he would be, because he cannot be killed more than once. However, this assumes that “Cain” was one man, rather than a whole tribe, as the context seems to indicate. Even assuming that there was really a man we call Cain and that there is nothing metaphorical about the narrative, the precedent which is established in Genesis 4 leads to the conclusion in 9:4-5 that all men are protected from all animals, rather than that special favor was granted only to Cain and his descendants when they were threatened by the “beasts of the field.” We allow that these “beasts” were human, but the Christians do not, so they will not object based on this point, which is the only reasonable objection or loophole in the present argument.

In any case, the blood debt for a single murder is still the same for many murders, because it is ultimate, 100% of what anyone could ever pay. The point here is to show that there is no essential difference between committing a single premeditated act of violence by eating meat and being a serial killer; either act makes you a murderer like Cain (which is exactly the point which Yahshuah made in his rant against the Jews), and the penalty is death. At least a serial killer has an excuse, because serial killers are categorically psychopathic. The difference is that societies determine what insanity looks like, so if a society is psychopathic (as all are), then it can hold radically dissonant views simultaneously—but only if it is psychopathic. It is understood that the kingdom of heaven is not, and that the gods and men who live in it do not tolerate such flagrant abuses of the regulations which make possible its existence.

With that in mind, what could be more schizophrenic than simultaneously protecting human life as sanctimonious, while systematically ravaging the rest of Earth’s sentient creatures for the sake of mere pleasure, even to the point of forcing famine upon roughly 20% of the allegedly precious global human population itself? It is not as though the animals themselves make such arbitrary determinations about which animals ought to be protected from violence based on whether or not they are human, much less without any sense of morality. If anything, such decisions would be made based on whether or not other animals belong to their own species. If a carnivorous animal lacks a sense of morality enough that it kills, it only does so because it is programmed to. Humans have no excuse, given that we regard ourselves as substantially more intelligent than all other animals, and therefore not prone to such base instincts as to fail to comprehend that we actually have no natural instinct to kill and eat moving creatures the way carnivores do.

Even the most barbaric of human societies still use tools to hunt their food, and still cook it, rather than eating it right off the bones of a fresh kill. That is not to say that a man may not sometimes eat a whole creature taken from the ocean, but the ocean is not his natural environment. Sushi is carefully prepared by a chef and presented on a plate in an economic exchange as though it were food; the consumer never hunts and kills the fish or the mollusk with his teeth. The man who eats insects that he digs out of the dirt or picks off a tree does so because he is lost in the woods and desperate to survive, or else completely insane.

Now put this understanding in the context of Genesis, which assumes that Noah was not just a normal man, but actually a prophet of nearly 600 years, which is to say, a man who necessarily possessed the intellect and sense of morality to enable him to act in accordance with reason and conscience, even (especially) where others fail. He would not have interpreted license to sin as a luxury, using it to feed his gluttonous appetite, like the nephilim before him who, in so doing, brought about the Flood. Another interpretation of Genesis 9:5-6 leads to the conclusion that God was saying to Noah, “Just as it has been given unto you to seek and prey upon the lives of animals, and the dread of you is upon them, so shall the dread of me be upon you, because I am going to require (as in, seek—not just hold as a statute, but actually seek to acquire) your blood (the blood of men), at the hands of beasts (by way of the animals, as my agents), other men, and even your own brother. With all these, I will capture and destroy your lives.” The fact that this warning comes immediately after the dispensation on eating meat hints at the idea that it is not a dispensation at all, but a declaration of intent to requite the sin of it in retaliation.

We have no doubt whatsoever that the most plausible interpretation, that God is depicted as having told Adam and Noah the same thing (discussed below), is the right one. Either way, the one interpretation which does not make sense either in its own context, or in the greater context of Scripture, is the free license supposed by the Christians. This is why there are such stark differences between the different translations of 9:5; none of the translators are sure of what to make of it, because they have not allowed for the possibility of its meaning something other than that God was telling Noah that whatever dietary restrictions he had placed on mankind before were being lifted. The fact is, Christians do not use Genesis 9:3 to justify the eating of pets, or insects, or other more exotic choices for food, as they do the species raised on animal farms; it is used selectively, in defense of what they are already doing. Imagine that.

The bottom line is that God did not find meat consumption tolerable prior to the Flood, and God’s will is not arbitrary, so we must assume as an a priori bias that he did not simply change his mind, but that there must be a reason for the allowance, and that the final say in terms of what has ultimately been allowed cannot be accounted for in the contradiction of his expressly stated will in the beginning. What we really need to do is look to the New Testament for the final say. As for the reason for the allowance, the only explanation that fits is that a change of conditions on the planet took place such as necessitated a temporary change in diet, but not such as necessitated a change in morality, because otherwise God’s will is completely arbitrary. The alternative is that the conditions in the beginning were those which were unacceptable, but these were the conditions which God himself created and called “good” when he had examined them, and this assumption would still negate itself by making God’s laws subject to change.

Noah and his family, having far more sense of God’s will than any Christian, still would have seen meat consumption as a very great sin, and this would have been understood even if God himself stood before them and granted a short-term allowance for it. We need to remember, after all, that they had just seen their planet torn apart thanks largely to the introduction of meat consumption by the Watchers (fallen angels of the antediluvian world), so to think that they would have themselves eaten meat with anything other than extreme trepidation (not to mention revulsion on account of their long-standing veganism) is foolish in the extreme. Of course, this begs the question of why God, after having gone to such great lengths to preserve Noah and his family from harm, did not also obviate the need for them to depend on eating flesh to survive.

While not the only resolution to such a query, this does suggest another consideration regarding Genesis 9:3: that this passage needs to be seen in the light of a historical narrative. As stated earlier, to say “I give to you” is not to say “I give to you and all your descendants.” The narrator is assumed to have been Moses, and it was Moses who delivered the Law which contradicts this notion many times over, which begs the question of why he would have included it at all, had he not meant it as a mere record of the event, with no imperative implied, as it is plainly at odds with the dietary restrictions of his own Law. We might even infer that Moses was critical of Noah, as before the Flood he is described as righteous and perfect, but after he began to eat meat, all of a sudden he was getting drunk and being taken advantage of.

The absurdity of the alternative to seeing it in the light of a historical narrative ought to be self-evident. Shall we also assume that, as the Israelites under Moses were told that none of them would enter the Promised Land because of their sin, none of their descendants ever would, either, even though we know that even a few of those then living (and millions who came after) ultimately did? Obviously, if we interpreted everything as always applying to everyone in every place and time, then nothing would make sense—ever—except the axiom that we all die. Furthermore, we must not be so literal in our interpretation of the Bible as to take for granted that God himself had a conversation with Noah directly after the Flood and told him that eating flesh would be permitted, especially considering that this is a direct and blatant contradiction of his own command just a few chapters earlier in the same book.

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will not fulfill it? Numbers 23:19 (ESV)

The point of the story is clearly to provide an explanation of how this practice came to be regarded as acceptable after the Flood even though, as Moses’ immediate audience would have known after hearing him preach about it for many years, it was so detestable as to have been a major contributing factor to the onset of the Flood. If this passage was more a literary device than an exact factual account of what transpired directly after the Flood, from this we can deduce a couple of things: 1) prior to the Flood the consumption of flesh was considered such a great sin that its tolerance in Moses’ day could only be explained by having God himself make a pronouncement to that end; 2) even at that time people were still conscious enough of their actions to realize that something seemed inherently wrong with eating flesh, and even if its practice was widespread and even done by the priests, there was still at least enough awareness and abhorrence that Moses felt it necessary to address how it became tolerated.

On the basis of nothing more than what has already been discussed, it should be clear that Genesis 9:3 does not permit Christians the free license they have nevertheless derived from it. This conclusion has been reached by dealing with the text as every Christian has received it. But as this is the sole scriptural basis for the Christians’ ideas about the dispensation to eat flesh, let us examine the text more closely to prove the point and dispel any lingering doubts. As we might suspect, it is not really their fault that they have the wrong ideas about it, except that they have made no effort to discern the truth about it or reference it against the rest of Scripture (especially the New Testament). As with most Christian doctrines, their misunderstanding ultimately derives from a misreading of the text, which is attributable to their reliance on the Jews for their interpretation of Scripture.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Jewish scribes have literally added the word לכם (lakem ‘unto you’) where it suited them, and that it is missing from the original Hebrew manuscripts. This is incredibly significant to the proper understanding of the text, because without “unto you,” there is no indirect object: the possession is inferred as “I give to you.” Of course, it is also inferred from a proper reading (the possession necessitates an object), but what is actually given to Noah as his possession is made a whole lot clearer when we realize that lakem has been manually inserted to change the meaning. It is no wonder, considering that the second instance of the insertion in Genesis 9:3 is followed by את (ayt, H853), the untranslatable primary article (i.e. “a,” but it really should not be translated as anything at all), which the translators have rendered “you.”

Recall our earlier discussion of the word לחם (lekhem, H3899), signifying plants as foods (or solid plant-based foods), and the other words which we have already demonstrated were subverted by the translators, in order to show their willful intent to destroy the meaning of other passages related to dietary restrictions. The difference between לכם (lakem) and לחם (lekhem) is slight enough to almost go unnoticed, but for the fact that it is followed by the word לאכלה (le’aklah, from H402). This same word is translated in Jeremiah 12:9 as “to devour,” elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 16:15) as “to eat,” and in other places (e.g. Ezekiel 15:4,6) as “for fuel.” The lamed distinguishes it from aklah (H402), meaning ‘food,’ thereby giving it the meaning of ‘for food,’ while the kaf at the beginning of the next word, ירק (ka’yereq, from H3418)—and this is the only use of כירק in Scripture—signifies that this is the word which is taking the property of the object. (As a prefix, kaf has the meaning of ‘like’ or ‘as.’)

This necessarily means that the punctuation which the translators have added is arbitrary, and that the passage makes more sense without it, both grammatically and syllogistically, as God was simply reiterating to Noah what he had said to Adam, in the context of what he is to do with the animals which have been put under his charge. Imagine that; God has not actually changed his mind between sending the Flood to destroy carnivorous men and telling Noah immediately afterward that he is okay with that now—the Jews and the Christians changed it for him. Compare the NIV’s rendering to a literal rendering of Genesis 9:3, without anything added:

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (NIV)

Everything that breathes shall take for food of the green plants I have given all.

A comparison between the NIV’s rendering of the whole context (9:1-6) and a literal translation is as follows:

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.”

And (the) Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and said, “Bring forth much fruit to fill the land [ha’aresh]. Dread and terror shall be on every creature of the land [ha’aresh], and on every bird of the heavens, on everything that creeps of (those of the) earth [ha’adamah—i.e. the “serpents”], (and) on all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they shall be given. [And now that dominion is given, here are the rules for stewardship:] Everything that breathes shall take for food of the green plants I have given (to) all, but flesh that has spirit [nephesh], which (is its) blood [דמו, damow], eat not. And surely (those) poor [דמכם, dimkim] like yourselves [לנפשתיכם, lenapsotaykim] I will require by the hand (of) every beast. And I will require by the hand of man [ha’adam], by the hand of (a) man’s brother, (he) who sheds (the) blood [דם, dam] of man [ha’adam]; by man [ba’adam] (his) blood [damow] shall be shed. For in the likeness of (the) Elohim man [ha’adam] (has been) made.”

Notice there are three separate words that are translated as “blood” or “lifeblood” (properly דם or dam, H1818) in this context. The main cause for contention here is with what God requires. Damow indeed means ‘blood.’ In other words, “whatever has had blood in it”—not what still has blood in it—“and whatever looks like you (has a face): do not eat.” However, the dalet in dimkim signifies a prefix, ‘that’ or ‘which,’ and the final mem indicates a plural, without which the passage makes no sense. The only word in Hebrew which even begins with mem and kaf is myk (H4134), and that is the whole word—meaning there is no other plausible alternative to supposing that the word rendered “blood” (or “lifeblood”) here means anything other than mykim, which is to say, ‘the poor (plural)’ or ‘the lowly,’ or ‘the oppressed.’ In other words, “If you disobey me, I will require your blood for the blood of the victim.”

The only other use of “the fear of you” (ומוראכם, H4172) in the Old Testament is Deuteronomy 11:25. This is critical to understanding where Moses was going with this description of what happened after the Flood, because it evidences the mind of the author of the Genesis 9 narrative. What we see here is that those who obey are blessed, as it says of Noah right at the beginning of the passage (meaning, necessarily, that he obeyed), and that those who disobey are cursed. This is what it means to have “the fear of you” upon other creatures; it can hardly be interpreted as free license to murder them, though it certainly pertains to the issue of dominion.

“‘For if you diligently guard all these commands which I command you, to do it, to love יהוה your Elohim, to walk in all His ways, and to cling to Him, then יהוה shall drive out all these nations before you, and you shall dispossess greater and stronger nations than you. Every place on which the sole of your foot treads is yours: from the wilderness, and Leḇanon, from the river, the River Euphrates, even to the Western Sea is your border. No man shall stand against you. יהוה your Elohim shall put the dread of you and the fear [ומוראכם, umowrakhem] of you upon all the land where you tread, as He has spoken to you. See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, when you obey the commands of יהוה your Elohim which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commands of יהוה your Elohim, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other mighty ones which you have not known. And it shall be, when יהוה your Elohim has brought you into the land which you go to possess, that you shall put the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ěyḇal.’” Deuteronomy 11:22-29

Some will object here that the arguments from Genesis 1 and 9 do not constitute the sole objections from Christian doctrine or from Scripture, or that vegetarianism is not mandated in Deuteronomy as it is in Genesis, and that we should be looking to other parts of the Bible for the answer, particularly the New Testament. Indeed we will—we have given Genesis 9 this attention only because the Christians do; it would serve our purpose much better to focus on Genesis 1 and leave it at that. As it is, it needed to be explained that there is no contradiction between the passages apart from what the Jews and Christians have created.

All of this is to say that while it is true that Genesis 9:3 evidently documents that the consumption of meat has been permitted, we ought not to assume we have read it rightly and drawn the correct inference, knowing that the misconception is based on a deliberate tampering of the text. Before we can turn it into a universal axiom and declare all sins acceptable, without accounting for why God was still thoroughly enraged over it a full 3000 years later, we must ask why the allowance was seemingly made, and whether it gives us the kind of free license that Christians assert. As Paul says (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23), “You say everything is permitted, but not everything is profitable.” Knowing this, do you really want to provoke God by doing what you know he despises, and pretending like it is in accordance with his will?

יהושע said to him, “It has also been written, ‘You shall not try יהוה your Elohim.’” Matthew 4:7

Given these details, it certainly is not sufficient for a meat-eater to point to Genesis 9:3 as justification and then be on his merry way. It simply is not sufficient to ignore these facts and choose to cling only to that which ratifies the lifestyle choices we are unwilling to change. Instead, we must proactively seek all these facts in their context in order to arrive at an understanding of how our present circumstances should be treated, or else just drop the pretense of caring what God has to say about our filthy habits.

No matter how you choose to look at it, it is simply illogical to isolate this one statement from its context of Genesis (“In the Beginning”) and focus on it exclusively. Moses would be appalled, as God is appalled, to know that his words have been employed in this way to destroy the spirit of his text. It is undeniable that the Bible asserts that in the beginning, Adam and Eve were the first humans made in God’s image, and they were vegans before they fell, so veganism is the closest thing one can attain to godliness in this area of life, and therefore what should be strived for, instead of casting about for whatever one can get away with. Considering that eating flesh will not be allowed at all in the kingdom of heaven, the choice that is presented to us, as Adam and Eve had theirs, is whether we want to strive for or against its establishment.

All of this has been to show that having dominion over the animals of Earth, as described in Genesis 1:28, does not amount to having authority to pick and choose which ones we will eat based on our arbitrary tastes, but to act as their guardians and servants. The very idea of the former being God’s intent is revolting, as it makes him outright malicious toward his own creation. All one needs to do to realize that it is false and that having dominion over them means never eating them is read the very next verse:

And Elohim said, “See, I have given you every plant that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it is for food.” Genesis 1:29

Think about it. What could be more out of sync with God’s plan for creation than its completely unnecessary destruction, and why would such behavior be rewarded with everlasting life? We have been told repeatedly that the end result matches the intent of the way it was before it was ruined by malicious men. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that men will have the final say over what happens to God’s creation. One does not need to have a thorough understanding of Scripture to realize that such vanity is associated with the apostasy of Satan and all who have determined to follow him, and is dealt with harshly by Yahweh.

But someone might say that even if we ourselves are not meant to eat flesh, there are still carnivores among Earth’s species, so God created a system with death and meat-eating in it, and we are merely part of it. We will deal with this objection in the next chapter. For now, it suffices to point out that whether or not this is true is irrelevant, because it was never intended that we would be a part of it (whether before or after the Fall), and it was also originally intended that the kingdom of heaven would reign supreme over all the earth, while God never relinquished it to us or anyone else as a possession. Whether there are now carnivores is his prerogative and has no bearing on whether there will be in the future. It is obvious that the same gods who have the capacity to genetically engineer and alter our DNA and also our minds (as evidenced by our creation, and the reduction of our lifespans and reprogramming of our speech) can also turn carnivores and omnivores into herbivores. This is exactly what Scripture tells us will happen.

And a wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and a leopard lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child leads them. And cow and bear shall feed, their young ones lie down together, and a lion eat straw like an ox. And the nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the adder’s den. They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of יהוה as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:6-9

The word ‘mountain,’ here as elsewhere in Scripture, is symbolic of government. The Canaanites (and therefore the apostate Israelites) built their altars on hills, so when the Prophets speak of God’s “holy mountain,” they are talking about a government founded upon an ideal very different from that of the flesh-eaters. Isaiah indicates very clearly that the “mountain” will be established throughout the earth, though perhaps it is only meant to be read as ‘the land.’ This kingdom belongs to God, and God will have his way. His way is the same always and forever, so it is absurd to say that he will accept something now, but not later. (The implication is that meat-eating is presently “allowed” because we are under Satan’s rule, hence the spectacle of Christians urging adherence to Satan’s mandates rather than God’s laws.)

“For I am יהוה, I shall not change.” Malachi 3:6

יהושע Messiah is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

“‘An everlasting law throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you do not eat any fat or any blood.’” Leviticus 3:17

Notice that in the passage from Isaiah, the lion’s food is straw. This is not remarkable merely for the implication that an infamous carnivore’s diet shall change radically. Straw does not grow in the wild, but rather is a by-product of agriculture, comprising the dry stalks of cereal plants. From this we can infer that the dietary habits of lions will not be inexplicably and miraculously altered by supernatural intervention. Rather, humans will take direct responsibility for feeding them (and, by implication, all creatures, or at least all carnivores) a suitable plant-based diet (and the fact that it is straw implies it is a byproduct of our own food source), thereby eliminating their need to hunt. Compare that to the idea which people have in their heads of children frolicking in the hills with a variety of smiling, happy animals who are peaceable only because God snapped his fingers and miraculously changed their personalities, like the whole scene came straight out of a Disney movie based on a fairy tale.

Christians have declared, out of ignorance and selfishness, that they have neither the power nor the responsibility to care for animals to such an extent. “God,” it is thought, “has made them this way; who are we to change it?”—while simultaneously insisting we have dominion and that such dominion gives us authority to torture, maim, kill and eat them. Yet we already know that the fallen state of the world is not God’s fault, but that of humans. By what twisted logic, then, can Christians conclude that the continued fallen state of the world is not their fault, and therefore not their responsibility to fix? What is assumed to be “natural” is actually nothing more than tolerance of sin, for even in this present day there are well-known examples of so-called carnivorous animals eating strictly vegetarian diets.

Aside from the issue of whether mankind can alter the behavior of animals, consider how foreign the concept of even wanting to is. Most Americans are not willing to make slight modifications to their lifestyle in order to prevent the poverty and starvation of other humans, much less to dedicate significant resources towards ensuring that animals have enough food to not have to resort to killing and eating each other. This speaks volumes about precisely how far short most people fall of the vision of the kingdom of heaven. Service-based dominion demands the dedication of our lives towards the preservation of all life, human and nonhuman alike, on a massive scale, rather than on an individual, self-serving basis, as when someone feeds his own pet but eats other animals and sets lethal traps for anything he deems a pest. Seeing as how both our abject neglect and our wanton rapaciousness combined lead directly to all ofthe suffering and death within the animal kingdom, we can be certain that God will hold us responsible for the destruction caused by other creatures under our watch, as surely as he will hold us responsible for the behavior of our own offspring.

That being said, our tendency for neglect and self-absorption is no accident, nor is it the result of the unbiblical doctrine of “original sin.” Humans, particularly those living in First World countries, have been deliberately steered in this direction, and the indoctrination is far more subtle than the overtly kill-or-be-killed mentality inculcated by capitalist and socialist economic systems alike.

In the US and other developed countries, meat composes a significant portion of the normal diet, contributing more than 15% to daily energy intake, 40% to daily protein intake, and 20% to daily fat intake. The demand for meat in developing countries continues to grow as the production and consumption of meat increases with available income. A shift toward a dietary pattern characterized by high meat consumption also appears to supplant the consumption of cereals and other foods of plant origin …

Looking in more detail at US meat consumption, USDA data indicates that total meat consumption has increased notably over the last century, nearly doubling between 1909 and 2007. Twenty-two percent of the meat consumed in the US is processed. According to NHANES 2003-2004, total meat intake averaged 128 g/day …

According to international FAO data, total meat consumption (excluding fish) in the US, EU, and developed world as a whole has increased relatively steadily over the period from 1961 to 2003. As early as 1961, total meat consumption in the US was nearly double that of the EU and the developed world as a whole. From 1961 to 2003, total meat consumption continued to increase in all regions: nearly doubling in the EU and increasing approximately 1.5-fold in the US and developed world, as a whole. Carrie R. Daniel, Amanda J. Cross, Corinna Koebnick and Rashmi Sinha396

Clearly the problem is getting worse. That it has been going on for thousands of years is evidenced by the passage from Isaiah cited above, so we will benefit from a closer examination of it. Here it is again for quick reference:

And a wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and a leopard lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child leads them. And cow and bear shall feed, their young ones lie down together, and a lion eat straw like an ox. And the nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the adder’s den. They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of יהוה as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:6-9

The Masoretic Text, the product of Jewish scribes working between the 7th and 10th centuries, is the foundation of most English translations of the Old Testament. Notice that the first phrase of Isaiah 11:7 states that cows and bears “shall feed.” Due to the overall context of this passage, the clear implication is that they shall feed together. Nevertheless, this is not what the MT explicitly states, and roughly 80% of major English translations are faithful to the Jewish version of the Hebrew.397 The Septuagint (LXX) version of Isaiah 11:7, on the other hand, contains ἅμα (ama, G260: at the same time, at once, together; as preposition, ‘together with’), leaving no room for interpretation or doubt about the meaning of the phrase. English translations of the LXX, in recognition of this fact and in opposition to translations based on the MT, render the full phrase as, “the ox and bear shall feed together.”

The LXX also demonstrates a corruption that was introduced into 11:6 in order to change its meaning. In translations based on the Masoretic Text, this verse states that “the calf and the young lion and the fatling [shall eat] together.” Other translations render ‘fatling’ as “fattened calf,” “fatted calf,” and “fatted beast.” Contrary to the sentiment of this passage, the clear implication is that the calf has been fattened for slaughter, and thus that animal sacrifice shall persist in the kingdom of heaven. This is no fault of modern translators, for the word מריא (mĕriy', H4806) is always used to denote a sacrificial victim. That the blame lies with the Masoretes is clear with the LXX’s assertion that “the calf and the bull and the lion shall graze together.” The implication that the bull feels secure enough to allow his offspring to be anywhere near a lion while it is eating is certainly far more consonant with Isaiah’s prophecy of the kingdom of heaven than is the intentional Jewish corruption of Scripture.

This may sound far-fetched from a scientific vantage, but it is not. One famous lion born in captivity refused to eat meat throughout her life and preferred to starve. Opportunistic photos were taken of her lying with one of her friends, a lamb, and overt associations with Isaiah’s prophecy were made. Scientists were baffled, claiming that no lion could survive without meat, and her handlers offered a reward to anyone who could devise a scheme to get her to eat flesh.398

This is not the only time this has ever happened, either. The British press announced a vegetarian cat in 2009, who only eats organic vegetables, with some fruits.399 In 2012, the National Sea Life Centre in Birmingham similarly announced it was keeping a vegetarian nurse shark.400

In each of these cases, the animal was traumatized and had not eaten before it was given what it wanted; the lion was the only cub to survive its mothers’ attacks (mercy kills, apparently, so her cubs would not live in captivity as she did), the cat was homeless and malnourished, and the shark had had a fishing hook in its mouth that needed to be surgically removed. In all three cases, the owners/handlers have tried to secretly supplement the diets of their animal with meat or fish, and in all three cases, the animal refused to eat the whole meal once it was discovered. The scientific implication is obvious: scientists who say that these animals have a biological need to eat meat are grossly mistaken—and these are carnivores. Imagine the moral implication: a lion, a housecat and a shark have better morals than the savage humans that disagree with their decisions so strongly that they try to force a change on them, even if they have to do it stealthily, falsely claiming that it was in their best interest because they “needed” it. It is no wonder, then, that parents try to kill their own children (even as adults) by force-feeding them death when they rock the boat by questioning the morality of eating meat.

Another implication is that, once the animal has experienced the psychological trauma of violence early enough in its life to develop an abhorrence of it, it does not pose a threat to other animals. This means that if they are raised properly, they do not need to be under constant supervision to ensure that they do not inflict harm, which would otherwise be the greatest difficulty which humans would have for managing them. Simply going for a few weeks without food, whether their suffering was due to emotional trauma or to physical trauma, has proved enough in each of these three cases to give the animals’ tastes the time they have needed to recalibrate, perhaps even causing a taste aversion to meat, just like when a human gets sick and can no longer eat meat or dairy products.401 In all three cases, the decision to go vegetarian was conscious and consistent. Apart from the implication that a 2-year-old cat is smarter than the average human being, the implication of this is that Nature may have originally intended that these species (and by default, all animals) should be herbivores.

Now consider that there are already mass-produced vegetarian options for housecats that contain all the synthesized nutrients they need as “carnivores,” and it ought to be apparent that we humans already have it within our means to feed the world’s carnivore species, which is all that it would actually take to prevent most acts of violence in the animal kingdom. This assumes no genetic tampering of these species whatsoever, which is also an option. However, our obligation is not to the carnivores only, but to all of Earth’s inhabitants.

The fact is, it is not just unnatural for animals to commit acts of violence on other animals; it is also unnatural for humans to do the same. We already know that children are not predisposed to violence, which means that we either grow into it by some sort of mysterious genetic factors (and testosterone is not to blame, as women are capable of becoming violent as surely as men) or that it is inculcated in us. Which of these two it is should be obvious, especially considering that most adult humans do have aversions to violence outside the context of unseen human violence against animals. When it is seen, the tendency is still to be abhorred, which is exactly why meat-eaters typically do not want to see where their meat comes from, because intuitively they already know, and experience cognitive dissonance.

Furthermore, far from a casual disregard, most people have a great antipathy for violence when it is close to them, and governments essentially exist on the basis that the only way for a small group of people to control many people is to make them afraid by way of violent threats (either issuing the threats, which only works as long as the threats are perceived as real, or else presenting the threats as coming from somewhere else, which requires the surrendering of liberties in exchange for supposed protection). Even when we are told that we are under attack or being threatened with violence, the tribal mentality of “us and them” only allows governments as much leeway as is deemed absolutely necessary, and any excessive application of force is seen as counterproductive and prosecutable. Scientific research has proved that the tendency for humans to make war is unnatural,402 contrary to popular opinion, indicating that wars only happen because governments are run by sociopaths who have come into their positions of power precisely because they are sociopaths. Put another way, only sociopaths use violence to gain power; therefore only sociopaths are in power, and the tendency to make war is not indicative of the disposition toward violence in humans, but in sociopaths.

Citing a small amount of economically-incentivized and easily-debunked data (we have already debunked virtually all of it), Sweden has just become the first nation to advocate low-carb, high-fat diets for nutritional reasons.403 Meanwhile, a young American who had been arrested for marijuana possession (already legalized in some states) was dying in police custody after he was told there were no dairy products in the food he was given, and ignored when he cried for help because of a severe allergic reaction because he had been lied to.404 Sweden already suffers from some of the highest cancer rates in the world; how many more unsuspecting Swedes will die needlessly because of their government’s initiatives, and their own failure to educate themselves with factual information?

It used to be that you could send your kids to school with homemade lunches, but that, too, has been done away with, and children are forced to eat meat and dairy products, among other completely arbitrary and inflammatory nutritional guidelines. Parents in Canada are now fined more than the cost of a homemade meal for each “missing” ingredient, such as the grain which was supplemented with Ritz crackers,405 which are not only genetically modified and completely devoid of any nutritional value, but also not even a grain. This ridiculous policy applies even to preschoolers in America, whose lunches are inspected and who are given chicken nuggets,406 unless parents can provide a doctor’s note annotating a medical condition requiring a specific diet that requires deviation from the life-threatening USDA guidelines. One such preschool that wrote home to inform a parent of its enforcement of these guidelines has on its weekly menu: corn dog or chicken nuggets with tater tots, beef tostada boat or peanut butter and jelly on white bread, pepperoni pizza or fish sticks with roll, pretzel sticks with cheese sauce or chicken teriyaki, cheeseburger or breaded chicken patty with seasoned fries.407

Apparently the need to live does not meet these criteria, as the guidelines necessarily mandate the opposite. (Just look at that list! A McDonald’s “Happy Meal” would meet the criteria, but a spinach salad or a fruit smoothie would not.) These inspections do not even account for the fact that, nutritionally speaking, it is better to eat less items at once than to eat several, or that most meals are eaten at home, and that some parents (such as the one cited here) make their children eat vegetables at home. So all this is really doing is ensuring that children are being polluted with known carcinogens without the parents’ consent, while reinforcing the view that the State is sovereign over Man, especially during Man’s formative years.

None of these stupid restrictions even have any basis in science or do anything to combat the early onset of atherosclerosis and childhood obesity; the whole point is to make it progressively more illegal to try to raise your children properly, in terms of both physical and spiritual health. Meanwhile, schools are telling parents that they will notify “child protection services” (i.e. do their best to have their children legally abducted and reassigned to other guardians by the State) if they do not provide documentation of regular medical and dental examinations.408 This puts them at the mercy of the doctors, when parents comply, and of the already overgrown bureaucracy of the police state when they do not. No recourse is allowed for parents who would rather not have their children vaccinated, or bring them to holistic health practitioners instead of State policy-pandering physicians. Dentists, of course, treat teeth with fluoride, a known neurotoxin which has no health benefit whatsoever, and which was originally patented in 1896 as an insecticide.409

Physicians, likewise, support the global vaccine agenda, which is perhaps the most insidious and ambitious attempt at mass subversion of natural rights under the auspices of public welfare ever undertaken. Many are experimental vaccines, such as the biological warfare agents that are regularly administered on military personnel and known to cause a wide range of debilitating symptoms and diseases. Aside from these, a partial list of ingredients in vaccines given to both children and adults in the general population includes:

  • Aluminum: a toxic metal implicated in brain disorders, including encephalopathies, dementia, seizures and comas; also a known carcinogen.
  • Ammonium sulfate: a poison effecting the gastrointestinal, respiratory and nervous systems.
  • Beta-propiolactone: a poison and known carcinogen.
  • Gelatin: a hydrolyzed form of collagen usually taken from the skin of cows and pigs.
  • Gentamicin sulfate: an antibiotic that can cause severe hearing and kidney problems.
  • Genetically modified yeast, micro-organisms, animal, bacterial and viral DNA: the principle component of any vaccine, sometimes live and sometimes inactive. Polio in particular has persisted exclusively through the polio vaccine, and is associated with bone and brain tumors and lymphomas. 
  • Formaldehyde (formalin): a poison used as embalming fluid; a known allergen, neurotoxin and carcinogen.
  • Human and animal cells: human cells are from albumin and aborted fetuses; other cells come from the blood, embryo, egg, serum and organs (brain, heart, liver, kidney, etc.) of a variety of mammalian species.
  • Hydrochloric acid: a corrosive which the stomach produces to break down food particles
  • Latex rubber: a polymer that can cause allergic reactions which are sometimes fatal.
  • Monosodium glutamate (glutamic acid, MSG): a neurotoxin that can cause severe allergic reactions, and a suspected mutagen.
  • Neomycin sulfate: an antibiotic that can cause severe allergic reactions.
  • Phenoxyethanol (phenol): a glycol ether typically used as antifreeze; a toxin and irritant known to cause nervous and immune system disorders.
  • Polymyxin B: an antibiotic and known neurotoxin.
  • Polysorbate 80: a polymer used as an emulsifier; a known carcinogen.
  • Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, lye): a corrosive and respiratory irritant that can cause blindness; can be fatal if swallowed (which it often is as a food additive).
  • Thimerosal: a mercury derivative and known neurotoxin and carcinogen; causes autism.
  • Tributyl phosphate: a poisonous ester normally used as a solvent, adhesive and herbicide.


Both live and inactivated viruses are grown in cell cultures and animal serums to produce vaccines. The varicella (chicken pox) vaccine was actually created from the lung tissues of two aborted fetuses.410 Squalene from shark liver oil is strongly implicated in nervous and immune system disorders, and is to date the only medically established causative agent of Gulf War Syndrome. Not just every vegan, but everyone who is at all concerned about health risks needs to stay away from all vaccines. Furthermore, giving a single vaccine to a child at birth is like giving 30 to an adult—and there is no way of knowing whether the child will even have an allergic reaction or not. Yet it is perfectly legal, “safe,” routine and even mandatory, while Christians who feed homeless people are increasingly subjected to punishment—that is, persecuted for performing acts of charity as their religion requires.411

Think about how absurd this is, for a moment, in light of the following example. The FDA has recently decided that walnuts are a drug, which means they cannot be legally marketed in the United States, while specifying that they are not approved, because they “are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease,” and “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.”412 Yet these same “medical practitioners” are the documented leading cause of accidental death in the United States (never mind what is undocumented), accounting for more than the rest of accidental deaths put together, as well as the third leading cause of death overall. In order to practice medicine you need to be licensed to kill rather than to save and heal, while the same government that bans walnuts recommends consumption of meat and dairy for everyone from cradle to early grave, and has started enforcing it on parents whose taxes fund both the public schools and government institutions themselves, but who have no say in their policies.

It was recently reported that the USDA allowed hidden feces, pus, bacteria and bleach in conventional poultry,413 though this should not be a surprise, considering that poultry already has arsenic (a known carcinogen) in it. The FDA in particular has scandalously approved known carcinogens like rBGH and a whole myriad of other disease agents. But marijuana (which has been shown many times over by clinical study to have medicinal, cancer-fighting properties) and almonds and walnuts are classified as illegal drugs by the FDA, which has prohibited some retailers from marketing them based on one of the exact same things which the American government also cites in its recommendations for eating meat for health reasons (fatty acids—except that in the case of walnuts, they have been shown to combat the diseases which eating meat has been proved to cause).

Knowing that this is the policy of the world government, and of the agricultural establishment which controls it, it should not be surprising to learn that one of the major goals of the genetic modification of our food sources is to depopulate the world. As part of this agenda, a protein which causes human sterility was isolated in 2001 by Epicyte, which then spliced it with corn and sold the resultant technology to DuPont and Monsanto, which were both already heavily invested in research to innovate and apply technologies to kill off the world’s human population. As if this is not disturbing enough, the same governments and institutions which put the genetically modified corn on the market are also responsible for the global vaccine agenda, and for the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. To date, no government inquiry of any kind has been made regarding the Epicyte corn, but it has been pushed through and safeguarded by politicians in America and its proxies.415 It is easy to see why when you do a little research.



In what sense is this not a war against humanity itself? ‘Biological warfare’ is defined as “The use of disease-producing microorganisms, toxic biological products, or organic biocides to cause death or injury to humans, animals, or plants.” Biological weapons “deliver toxins and microorganisms, such as viruses and bacteria, so as to deliberately inflict disease among people, animals, and agriculture.”416 In what sense do Monsanto’s State-sponsored, insecticide-modified corn and other foodstuffs not constitute the American government’s biological warfare agents to deliberately inflict injury and death to humans, animals and plants?

But it is not just Monsanto's foodstuffs that are used to this end. Genetically engineered retroviruses (vaccines), organic and inorganic compounds added to public drinking water and to air (chemtrails), chemical food additives, pharmaceutical drugs, herbicides and insecticides are all designed to accomplish the same thing. They do not have to kill to be weapons of war, but all of these do kill, especially when their mutagenic properties are compounded by consumption of animal proteins. Moreover, unlike conventional weapons, they are all designed to kill slowly, so that they can be used on the entire unsuspecting population of Earth, rather than just whatever civilians can be attacked as collateral damage of open warfare, because it was decided a long time ago now that the population needs to be kept in check. However, simply living on Earth is not a death sentence for this reason—the only people who really have cause to worry about what does not kill everyone (and the people responsible have no desire to kill themselves, so they cannot unleash anything that will eradicate mankind altogether) are those who are most susceptible to degenerative diseases initiated by mutagens—that is, everyone except the vegans. Were the situation to get much worse, not all vegans would necessarily survive a global pandemic, but many would certainly be among the last of the survivors.

On the other hand, this is just the situation in First World countries, and where the influence of the NATO countries extends. Governments around the world (at least, around the Third World) are beginning to take steps to protect animals, for the reasons that they are getting ready to implement the New World Order agenda which has used the veneer of environmentalism to justify its preconceived ideas about human population reduction. These governments are those that are most likely to defend the populations of their nations against the foreign threats. Botswana banned commercial game hunting in December 2012.417 Costa Rica recently announced its decision to close its zoos and release animals from captivity in August 2013,418 a measure which was followed by India’s decision to prohibit all animals from circuses just days later. (Wild animals had already been banned for more than a decade.)419

Even Israel, despite having by far the worst track record of human rights violations since the day of its very inception, has no interest in subjecting its own citizens to the horrors of genetic tampering. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrated that our take on the forthcoming Zionist policy is not mere fiction when he recently began expressing sympathy for animal rights causes, causing some to speculate that he may be turning vegan, presumably due to American vegan activist Gary Yourofsky’s recent activities and a growing support base in Israel.420 Netanyahu’s decision to follow the “Meatless Mondays” protocol421 seems to indicate that he is now trying to set a precedent for all Jews, citing that, “With my responsibility as prime minister to protect the lives of people here, I feel committed to increase awareness to fight cruelty toward animals.”422

The implications of this are enormous as we head into the final phase of the already ancient Zionist conspiracy to capture the Holy Land and rebuild the Temple of Solomon; without both the rebirth of the animal slaughter industry from the Temple in Jerusalem and the forbidding of all else in accordance with the Law of Moses, there can be no modern Jewish application of the Abomination of Desolation. Unfortunately, even Israel (a very wealthy and technologically advanced nation with the largest percentage of vegans of any nation, by far) is too backward to adopt any government legislation by any strictly political means, without religious incentives. These government initiatives have only been undertaken as a result of cultural influences in relatively civilized nations like Costa Rica, which detests violence so much that it has no military, and India, which has a long history of regarding animals as having the same innate rights as humans. When it happens in Israel, it will be for different reasons, and from the opposite direction (from the top of the religious/political ladder, rather than the base).

That there are still wars between men going on all the time, and that lions and oxen do not already feed (are not already being fed) together, means we have a lot of work to do. It also means that, in the future, all animals will be natural herbivores, meaning that they have been designed to be so now. Some may think we are just reading too much into it, but the fact is, how it will be in the future is consistent with how it was in the beginning, but not with the way it is now. To deny this is to deny the authority of Scripture.

“And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to every creeping creature on the earth, in which there is life, every green plant is for food.” And it came to be so. Genesis 1:30

For the intense longing of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of Elohim. For the creation was subjected to futility, not from choice, but because of Him who subjected it, in anticipation, that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage to corruption into the esteemed freedom of the children of Elohim. For we know that all the creation groans together, and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only so, but even we ourselves who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, we ourselves also groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. Romans 8:19-23

Seeing how the Bible declares that animals (including the human animal) were created as natural herbivores, this leaves the question of how we can now find so many carnivorous animals on the planet. Clearly the animal kingdom was tampered with, just as our species was, for reasons not the least of which included making them in large part omnivorous, if not outright carnivorous. (The presumption is that carnivores are naturally suited and inclined to eating flesh, but this is not necessarily the case, as we have discussed briefly in Chapter 2. A carnivore is an animal that does eat meat, not one that is designed to, and all animals are so designed that they would be better off without the toxins of animal proteins, even if they are more readily adapted than herbivores are to breaking down the acids and processing out the toxins quickly.)

All of this ought to serve to drive home the point that by no means did the Flood effectively wipe the slate clean and give humanity a fresh start, with a new, universally applicable rule about what our diet ought to be. In fact, the planet is still dealing with problems that were introduced at that time, and no one who lends any credibility to the biblical account of our origins will argue that we are better off now than we were, as vegans, in the beginning. That the same manner of genetic tampering with both our food sources and our DNA is being revived in modern times ought to go a long way toward demonstrating why humanity is in the midst of the events warned about in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere. As we delve into the Bible’s position on this (the Sin of Sins) and on the Abomination of Desolation in the succeeding chapters, do not forget that the position of the Church, and of mainstream Christianity as a whole, is, “I don’t think you are going to find anything in the Bible that speaks about Jesus telling man to take care of the earth,” and perhaps you will realize why God hates them both so very, very much.






391-394 “Are there any bible verses that address the environment?” Yahoo! Answers, 2008,

395 Dennis Prager, Think a Second Time, ReganBooks, New York, 1995, pp. 77-78.

396 C.R. Daniel et al., “Trends in meat consumption in the United States,” Public Health Nutrition, Apr 2011, 14(4), pp. 575-583,

397 This is according to the entries listed on Bible Hub:

398 “Little Tyke: True Story of a Gentle Vegetarian Lioness,” Animal Liberation Front,

399 David Wilkes, “Meet Dante: Britain’s first vegetarian cat who refuses to eat meat or fish,” Daily Mail, 13 Apr 2009,

400 “This vegetarian shark prefers celery to fish,” NDTV, 20 May 2012,

401 This can happen when a person realizes that he has gotten sick from eating them, but this is usually not enough, because people seem to think that illness is a normal part of the human condition, presumably because they are chronically ill, because they are always eating the wrong things and are chronically malnourished. Sometimes, however, the physiological reaction is more severe and leads to acute inflammation from minimal amounts of dietary animal proteins. For a taste of just how averse meat-eaters are to the idea of repenting, even when Nature forces it on them, read through the comments on articles which discuss the lone star tick’s ability to severely aggravate acute inflammation from consumption of meat and dairy products;

402 “Is It Natural for Humans to Make War? New Research Suggests Not,” Higher Perspective, Jul 2013,

403 Brian Shilhavy, “Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition,” Health Impact News Daily, 18 Oct 2013,

404 Radley Balko, “Today’s Drug War Outrage: Man Dies In Jail Cell After Misdemeanor Pot Offense,” Huffington Post, 6 Nov 2013,

405 Neetzan Zimmerman, “Mom Gives Kids Homemade Lunch, School Forces Them to Eat Ritz Crackers,” Gawker, 18 Nov 2013,

406 Sara Burrows, “Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria ‘Nuggets,’” Carolina Journal, 14 Feb 2012,

407 Daisy Luther, “Feds to parents: No lunches from home without doctor’s note, school lunch only,”, 15 Nov 2013,

408 Daisy Luther, “Be Warned: GovSchools Threaten Parents With Armed, Militarized Raids Unless They Comply With Demands,”, 22 Nov 2013,

409 Peter Meiers, “Patents on Fluoride Rat Poison & Insecticides,”

410 Shauna Wood, “A Breakdown of What’s in Vaccines,” Vaccination News, 9 Aug 2000,

411 “Christian Ministry Threatened With Jail Time for Serving Local Homeless and Elderly,” Charisma News, 19 Nov 2013,

412 Michael Tennant, “Walnuts Are Drugs, Says FDA,”, 16 Nov 2013,

413 We are unable to cite the source for this because it has been removed from publication:


415 F. William Engdahl, “GM corn to make men sterile already a reality,” Dr. Rima Truth Reports, 6 Mar 2008,

416 “Introduction to Biological Weapons,” Federation of American Scientists,

417 “Trade Partners Newsletter,” Botswana Tourism, Dec 2012,

418 Stephen Messenger, “Costa Rica announces plans to close its zoos and release animals from captivity,” treehugger, 2 Aug 2013,

419 Arun P. Mathew, “Animals to be banned in Circus,” Times of India, 8 Aug 2013,

420 Barak Ravid, “Could Netanyahu be turning vegan?” Haaretz, 13 Oct 2013,

Please note that the full text of this article is no longer available online without a paid subscription.

421-422 Jack Tonhaben, “Netanyahu and wife join Meatless Monday initiative,” Jerusalem Post, 11 Nov 2013,