The Abomination of Desolation

Chapter 1: "The End Thereof"

 

 

 

There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
Proverbs 14:12; 16:25 (ISR)

 

Those of you who have read The End of Learning and/or The Nazarene Way will know that our stated aim is, in the words of Milton, “to repair the ruins of our first parents by regaining to know God aright, and out of that knowledge to love him, to imitate him, to be like him, as we may the nearest by possessing our souls of true virtue, which being united to the heavenly grace of faith makes up the highest perfection.” The emphasis which we would like to place here is on true virtue, and on heavenly grace, for “the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24), and “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:5-8).

Believe it or not, this message and the “miraculous” acts commanded here involve something much more mundane than you may have previously been led to imagine. With that in mind, the purpose of this treatise is to set the record straight in regards to the Bible’s position on vegetarianism, with the aim of reforming the paradigm of mainstream Christianity to accommodate the moral imperatives espoused by the founders of the Christian sect. To do so, we must show what the Bible’s position is, rather than what it is blindly assumed to be by the masses of Christians, as the mainstream Christian establishment has deliberately lied, or at least maintained strict silence about this position. This will entail a great deal of discussion about the historical and hermeneutical context of Scripture, and of how the scriptures themselves have been misread and, in some cases, even tampered with to render a meaning contradictory to the one intended by its authors.

In the course of this examination, it will be seen that violence against nonhuman animals is not only expressly prohibited in the Bible, but is actually presented as a great abomination, as well as the primary cause of our own suffering and death. It will be understood that the Bible’s position in regards to humans is a nonviolent one—certainly at least as far as it pertains to innocent humans (as opposed to just wars, or criminals put to death by the State, for which exceptions are often made). However, we intend to show that nonviolence is not the biblical ideal only in regards to humans, but in regards to both humans and non-humans alike. Although our focus is on nonhuman victims of unprovoked violence, it should be remembered that the moral imperatives discussed in the present book extend to all creatures, including humans.

We realize that many of the things we say will meet with objections from mainstream Christians, and may even meet with some reasonable objections from non-Christians. As this is essentially a plea for mercy as much as it is a dry presentation of factual data, it may be natural for the reader to focus on the data and overlook the moral imperatives, which carry vastly more force and weight. As such, the natural tendency may be to reject the entire premise, simply on account of one or two things perceived to be mistakes in the interpretation of Scripture, or some such thing. However, this natural tendency is only ever ego-driven and counterproductive to repentance and salvation, the real theme and subject of appeal in the Bible. The Christian will recognize the obstinate pride which causes a “sinner” to fail to repent, but will he recognize it in himself, knowing that he himself is, in fact, also a sinner?

One of our main premises is that sin leads to death, or that we die because we sin. This begs the question of what is sinful, because the goal of the instruction is to mitigate sins and their consequences. Christians always insist that it is literally impossible for anyone not to be in a state of sinfulness, so why is it that they object whenever anyone tries to point out what their sins are and to call them to repent? Not only is this exactly what Scripture commands us to do, but it is also a blessing, for which they ought to be extremely grateful.

An analogy should suffice to cut through the culturally-informed bias and reshape our views on how this process works in real life. It will be understood that God has forbidden theft, so we might apply this to the act of stealing a candy bar from the local grocery store. What is actually going to kill the culprit—the theft, or the candy bar? The theft itself demonstrates willful rebellion, but the thief could always put it back to atone for the sin right up until the moment it is consumed. It is the consummation of the sin (eating the candy bar) which causes death.

When the candy bar is eaten, assuming the thief even has a conscience, he will be thinking about how it was wrong of him to steal it, but ironically, he will not be thinking about how it was wrong of the manufacturer to steal the milk that went into producing it and which cost a life, or how it is wrong for him to eat it, thereby destroying the possibility of his redemption. So the second sin is the one which merits death, because the second sin is the one which will have sealed his apostasy. The consumer is the end of the chain of sin; he is responsible for the life that was stolen. His death will result from the choice to eat it, though not from the choice to steal it, because death is the payment, the consummation of a life of sin—and this is true whether he stole it, or whether he purchased it legally.

Truths like this (that it is far more evil to consume a product of death than to steal it) are seldom easy to integrate, and require perspective—the capacity to view things in their true relations or relative importance, which can only happen when we step away from our preconceived biases based on limited, subjective experiences. If your goal is not to discern the truth, but to merely reinforce what you already believe and think you know, then you will never have the right interpretation and the truth will elude you. If, on the other hand, your goal is indeed to discern the truth and how it relates to your life and your environment, it will come naturally, once you have attained perspective.

The fact that we have anticipated and sought out each of the objections to our thesis that are routinely levied by Christians, and the fact that we have soundly refuted them, one by one, ought to suffice to show that we are serious about what we say, and that the truth lies on the nonviolence side of the argument which we have espoused. If you still cling to your suppositions once this treatise has been presented to you and you have had a chance to meditate on its moral prescriptions, then you have literally made a conscious choice to act in accordance with unrighteousness over righteousness. While this may not seem a big deal on the surface, Yahshuah (which is the name by which we will be referring to the man known as Jesus Christ) himself has declared it to be the only sin which is unforgivable. So if you believe your salvation depends on acknowledging him as your savior, as opposed to living according to God’s will, then you have rejected his own words in favor of the illogical doctrines of wicked men, and may reasonably expect to be the subject of whatever punishments you hold to be in wait for those who have been disobedient to his will.

“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. Because of this I say to you, all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven men. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Aḏam, it shall be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the Set-apart Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” Matthew 12:30-32

The plain facts of how Christianity has strayed so very far from Christ’s teachings that it openly rejects them are the same as those underlying any other religion. Firstly, the religious establishment charges itself with the maintenance of the customs it has devised to perpetuate religious ceremony, while expressly forbidding inquiries; to hold a point of view not sanctioned by the establishment is to be marginalized (and/or persecuted) as a “heretic.” In reality, such organizations are only ever comprised of nothing more or less than a lot of people whose personal views and ambitions are diametrically opposed to God’s will. This is clearly why God forbade the Israelites from appointing a ruler over themselves in the stead of his own hand-picked prophets and judges, who were to act in his stead as the sole and supreme sovereign of their nation. When God did appoint some ruler over them, it was either one from among the very worst possible candidates, in order to teach them a lesson, or else a foreign king who was to steer them back to the path of righteousness. The Persian king Cyrus, for example, is called an “anointed” one (that is, “messiah”) in Isaiah 45:1, appointed by God to accomplish his will. Given the fact that Cyrus was a strict vegetarian from his youth, and given the overtly vegetarian philosophy of the state religion of the Persian Empire, it is easy to see why, if we also understand what God’s will actually is.

Be plant-eaters, O you men, so that you may live long. Keep away from the bodies of [beasts], and deeply reckon that Ohrmazd, the Lord, has created plants in great number for helping [beasts] and men. Avesta, Book 61

As every nation at one point or another has been so inclined to follow the heathen policy of appointing some sort of alpha male psychopath as its ruler, we see in this a natural tendency and will to be ruled (that is, to not accept the responsibility of making decisions for oneself, even though it is never in one’s best interest to be exploited and abused by someone else), both in the temporal sense and in the spiritual one. More likely than not, the individual is inclined to think that if someone else makes decisions for him in terms of what is socially acceptable, then that someone else will be held accountable for his own decisions in terms of how he intends to go about breaking God’s laws. However, he is a fool indeed who thinks that God will not hold him responsible for his sins, just as he will hold any king responsible for his.

Firstly, Christians who allow the establishment to perpetuate its many abuses against the laws of both men and God, and who willingly consent to its mandates without even so much as objecting, are obviously as party to this debauchery as the ancient Israelites were in appointing a king over themselves. If a Christian cannot even bring himself to question the legitimacy of the Church’s teachings on a particular subject simply on account of the fact that his ancestors similarly failed to do so, then there is no sense in which he has not rejected God in favor of his devotion to the establishment. In every such case, his religion has failed him, whether by producing spiritual fruits or by effecting his salvation. He is truly the blind led by the blind in the famous parable: the ditch awaits him as surely as it does the one to whom he has deferred. Were it any other way, it would be unjust, and it is an assumed characteristic of God that he is incapable of enacting an injustice.

Secondly, such blind religious devotion is the enemy of truth and reason, even as justice. People deceive themselves by allowing the power group to do both the thinking and the doing for them, even when the Church makes no effort whatsoever to actually keep the very law it presumes to enforce to a double standard. In an age where the Church is plagued by one scandal after another, yet still manages to maintain its power and prestige, one can only wonder why every Christian does not just drop the pretense of being a follower of Christ and call himself what he really is: a spiritual whore and pedophile protector. If a Catholic defends the Satanic sex abuse practices of the clergy, or the war crimes of the Vatican’s Jesuit agents, it is not because his faith is under attack and he needs to pass some sort of test by holding onto it, but because his paradigm is so immoral that the immoral world itself has passed righteous judgment upon it. This is exactly why a foreign warlord like Cyrus could be set above Israel as God’s appointed sovereign. Knowing that the whole world lies in the power of the Devil (1 John 5:19), what could be more damning than to say that God had to search the world for a shepherd for his own flock?

Lastly, like any other religion, Christianity has a holy written text which is invoked on the one hand to support the rule of the establishment (though there is nothing in the Bible to actually be invoked in support of it, and a whole lot to the contrary), and on the other, to silence the opposition. It may very well be the case in other religions (especially Islam) that the authority of the sovereigns is largely derived from their texts. However, the Bible was not written by worldly men whose only real concern was in establishing their own authority, whether temporal or spiritual. In many cases, the authors have indeed laid claim to spiritual authority in order to teach, but never does the authority lie outside the line of God’s express will. We can argue about whether or not the prophets really had God’s authority, or whether they presumed to speak for God when there really is no God, but such questions should not be on the minds of Christians who have already decided that the prophets had such authority. Either way, the Bible speaks for itself, and our goal here is not to interpret it, but to expose it, and thereby overrule the doctrines of the Church by the plain speech of its own pretended authority.

Furthermore, to maintain the position that God’s authority is invested in those who teach and do his will is to openly and vehemently deny such authority to the priests of the established religious orders that have usurped it from them. Ultimately, it must be accepted that the Bible, not the establishment, represents God, and that the establishment’s claim to represent him to any degree is as hostile to God’s will (as disseminated through the prophets) as it is spurious. While most Protestant Christians will not object to this in principle, in point of fact, they will still give the establishment their unwavering support when it comes to the establishment’s self-appointed authority to interpret Scripture, upon which all rests (especially for Protestants, who take Scripture as their authority, rather than superstition, as Catholics do).

If we really want to know the truth about what God has to say through Scripture, what we need to do is let Scripture speak for itself, and not try to fit it into a preexisting paradigm, especially one created, advocated and espoused by the very same establishment which seeks to undermine it at every possible opportunity. While this may seem a bit biased or unduly hostile, it is actually a plain declaration of truth, for which we will be providing mountains of irrefutable substantiation. Our goal here is to tell the truth plainly; it is up to the reader to muster the courage to quell the emotions present in whatever knee-jerk defensive reaction that he has when he reads something which does not already agree with his preconceived beliefs. What we are offering is the much-needed perspective which the Church is so very, very afraid of coming to light.

“And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For everyone who is practising evil matters hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But the one doing the truth comes to the light, so that his works are clearly seen, that they have been wrought in Elohim.” John 3:19-21

That being said, the amount of hostility a real Christian meets whenever he presents any truth to a pseudo-Christian is staggering. He does not merely encounter a logical rebuttal (the truth cannot be logically rebutted). It becomes a personal affair, with a string of ad hominem vitriol in the place of rational debate. This is the common response, which we have witnessed more times than we could ever possibly have counted. The most typical response is predicated on the notion that no mere man can comprehend the truth, though it is also simultaneously assumed that all Christians uniformly know, understand and regularly participate in deep mysteries which they have never even bothered to ponder or investigate themselves. Even when the testimony comes packaged with a miracle and backed by a crowd of witnesses, the response of those who hold the consensus view always remains the same:

And those hearing were cut to the heart, and took counsel to kill them. Acts 5:33

We do not fault the Christian religion (or any other religion) for this very human trait. It is not a characteristic of a religious disposition, much less of a particular denomination of religious currency, but of a convicted conscience. The natural course of action for a man who is dissatisfied with the state of the world is to address it; the natural response of the world is to defend itself, rather than give redress to grievances that would necessitate the possibility of change. Our brains are hardwired to discredit what disagrees with our prior experiences, and it takes real humility to accept that we may be wrong. However, the fact that some can do this means that all have the capacity to, and that is exactly why the kingdom of heaven ideal is not just some pie-in-the-sky pipe dream that we are all waiting for but do not really expect to ever happen, but actually an inevitable reality.

As far as this is concerned, the most common objection is that there is nothing we can do to create the circumstances necessary for the much-desired outcome. However, if the Christians really believe this to the point of telling us not to bother, then it is hypocritical for them to do anything to try to accomplish it themselves. The difference clearly lies in the fact that what they are seeking is the status quo, and that they are afraid of change. Catholics believe the kingdom is already here, as much as that is an affront to reason and piety alike, while Protestants typically regard the kingdom of heaven as a reward for good behavior, from a deity who holds in his hands the power to do whatever he wants. Certainly this has merit in Scripture; even so, they make no real account for the punishments which have been devised under this system, nor what the actual criteria for merits and demerits are. If God is going to create the kingdom of heaven on his own, then why do “good” in the area of evangelism—the least essential, if the premise is true—but not in any other?

It is true that the kingdom of heaven is not brought about by “man’s wisdom,” in the sense that the Christians use this term. However, wisdom is wisdom; consciousness is consciousness. What makes us think and feel the way we do is the same thing that makes God think and feel the way he does, only to a lesser extreme due to our relative ignorance and apathy (at least in terms of depth of feeling, which comes from, or is perhaps synonymous with a heightened sense of spirituality). Ancient philosophers understood this very clearly and ascribed the same sentience to all creatures, with the presumption that some form of God is in all of us, in some measure. This principle was the basis of natural philosophy, which produced the fruits of the natural sciences which have been so revered in the West to this day. In fact, along with the natural sciences of the Socratic philosophers, it was also the basis of modern theological systems within the Abrahamic religions, which are rooted in the natural philosophy of men like Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides and Averroes.

We should never fall into the trap of thinking that our fallibility is tantamount to total impotence, as surely as we should never fall for the appeal to authority of men more fallible even than we—men like Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides and Averroes. To simply state that no mind can touch the divine is essentially to say that the divine cannot touch any mind. This dismissive, ignorant view begs the question of why those minds were even created in the first place, as well as how we are any different from the biological organisms we (or at least those who make this argument) suppose ourselves (themselves) to be greater than. It will not be argued that we are the strongest species on Earth, or the fastest, or the most agile, or the most adaptive, yet we are unquestionably the dominant species primarily because of our capacity for exercising intellect and pooling resources to solve complex problems. Furthermore, it is natural philosophy which empowers us to do so, because abstract thinking is what creates the designs in our minds which then take the form of new technologies. Technology only exists where there is a purpose for it, and our sense of purpose is according to need (or desire), which is a concept foreign to beasts that have little or no volition, and act only (or mostly) on instinct and impulse.

The use of “man’s wisdom” as a pejorative expression in the Bible assumes a different approach to any given situation than the one God has laid out for us. To take this term and run in the other direction with it by discrediting wisdom itself is to offend God in every case where it is actually God’s will, through Man, that is being spoken of. There are so many positive remarks in Scripture pertaining to individual discretions that it is not an exaggeration to call philosophy (“love of wisdom”) the major theme of the prophetic tradition.

A closer examination of this subject will indicate that wisdom lies in temperance, which is to say, the exact opposite of indulging in one’s unnatural and unnecessary tastes, and this is exactly in agreement with the ancient philosophers and the medieval theologians alike, whose works and ideas were more rooted in the prophetic tradition of ancient Israel than in any other source. For if the lower animals generally act according to basic impulse, but included among these impulses are the emotions of unconditional affection and the willingness to make sacrifices (even the ultimate sacrifice) for loved ones, then ought we not to exercise restraint with even greater measure? To speak otherwise is to argue the case for immorality and injustice, and although this may seem preferable to the one who lacks the virtues associated with empathy and conscience and knows only self-interest, it is an interest which is ignorant and counterproductive to self. It is the way which is beset with suffering, and which ends in death.

He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul:
he that keepeth understanding shall find good.
A false witness shall not be unpunished,
and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
Delight is not seemly for a fool;
much less for a servant to have rule over princes.
The discretion of a man deferreth his anger;
and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.
Proverbs 19:8-11 (KJV)

He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul;
but he that despiseth his ways shall die.
Proverbs 19:16 (KJV)

Contexts such as these, of which there are a multitude in Scripture, often contrast the ideal of wisdom with satisfying one’s transient tastes. This dichotomy is actually a major theme in Scripture. In some cases, the lessons are explicit, such as in the commandments, while in others, they are subtle and demand studious attention, such as in the dietary restrictions: only animals which “chew the cud” and have a cloven hoof are allowed to be eaten. Labor is typically associated with making an effort to discern the truth, while hunger is used as a metaphor for spiritual depravity. In a case such as the one presented above, the warning is clear enough to the one who does not need it. (Note: the following text uses the Tetragrammaton, or the Hebrew characters for the name of God in the Bible, יהוה, read ‘Yahweh.’)

Laziness makes one fall into a deep sleep,
And an idle being suffers hunger.
He who guards the command guards his life,
He who despises His ways dies.
Proverbs 19:15-16

Cease, my son, to hear discipline,
And you shall stray from the words of knowledge.
A witness of Beliyaʽal scorns right-ruling,
And the mouth of the wrong ones
Devours wickedness.
Proverbs 19:27-28

Listen to counsel and accept discipline,
So that you are wise in your latter end.
Many are the plans in a man’s heart,
But it is the counsel of יהוה that stands.
What is desirable in a man is his kindness,
And a poor man is better than a liar.
The fear of יהוה leads to life,
And he remains satisfied,
He is not visited by evil.
A lazy one buries his hand in a dish,
And does not bring it back to his mouth.
Proverbs 19:20-24

Examples like this are in abundance in Scripture. However, we may assume that “baby Christians” who crave “spiritual milk” know next to nothing of what is contained in Scripture, much less how to understand the rich and sometimes complex use of metaphors. Only an in-depth examination of the changes to the text will demonstrate just how devious the Christian establishment is, and how the average Christian has been hoodwinked into supporting an overtly Satanic ideology, which actually takes a lot more effort to understand than a plain reading of the text would, due to the logical fallacies of such indoctrination.

In this randomly chosen case, the final word of the second-to-last line of the original Hebrew is variously translated into English as ‘bowl,’ ‘hand,’ ‘dish,’ ‘chest,’ ‘bosom’ and ‘armpit.’ The only case of ‘armpit’ is in the Catholic version of the Bible (which in English is the Douay-Rheims Bible), which reads, “The slothful hideth his hand under his armpit, and will not so much as bring it to his mouth.” In the context of food being brought to the mouth to be eaten, whereupon it goes into the esophagus and then the bowels, the meaning is clearly lost. Who takes a spoonful of food from his dinner plate and then sticks it into his armpit? It can only be that the Catholic translators were just so stupid that they mistook the rather obvious meaning, or else that, for some reason, they deliberately lied in order to render a different meaning. This being so irrelevant to the Bible’s actual position on the subject of diet and nutrition, or to the ethics of humans’ treatment of animals, we might infer from a pattern of this kind of treatment of the text that the Church has taken great pains to destroy the Bible’s position on eating meat altogether, right down to the obscure, off-topic metaphors tucked away in the middle of Proverbs.

The truth is that the Church has indeed made such a concerted effort. However, most people are so fully unaware of this effort today that we sincerely doubt there has been any deliberate modification to the text (as opposed to honest mistakes in the interpretation due to lack of understanding) for hundreds of years (since before the modern languages which we read came into being). This particular change occurred when the original manuscripts were translated into Greek and Latin in the early AD era. The Septuagint and Syriac manuscripts—both faithful translations—render the word in question as ‘bosom,’ while the Targum and Vulgate—both deliberate subversions of the original texts (the one Jewish and the other Roman)—have given us ‘armpit.’

As in this case, simply knowing which of the ancient manuscripts are less reliable than others is often enough to identify which of the modern translations have butchered the meaning more than their counterparts. We say this with utmost certainty, having poured over key passages in the original languages and then compared them to all the available translations. What we have found again and again is that the same translations typically show evidence of deliberate tampering, while others show evidence of incompetent renditions from ignorance. What we have yet to see, unfortunately, is any translation of the ancient texts in any modern language which is faithful to the meanings of the passages, much less to the spirit of the texts. This necessarily implies that no one even knows how to read Scripture anymore, or that if they do, they are not publishing Bibles.

Suffice it to say that nothing has changed since Rome decided it needed to have a monopoly on the texts. Policies like this have been in place ever since. In short, Christians have been reading out of the wrong Bible for the last sixteen centuries, and few have the audacity to question the establishment’s interpretations even when they have identified its malicious intentions and various means of subversion. (This fact holds all the more true for those lines which would produce the most controversy if rendered properly, such as the ones we will be paying the most attention to.) There are certainly a few Christian vegetarians who have questioned the moral standard of their religious establishment, but they have typically resorted to making defensive arguments which could never compel any other Christian to adopt their views, rather than objecting to the Church’s overtly Satanic ideology or reinterpreting the evidence from Scripture.2

Once again, this is a problem of sheer ignorance; the task of going back to the source and working out all the details of how the mainstream has gotten it so wrong requires a lot of time, a lot of patience, a lot of perseverance in the face of persecution (especially without the support of loved ones), and a lot of hard work. Few could ever even find the time, much less the incentive to do so. Not only that, but it also takes the right perspective, a sharp intellect and the courage to delve into the unknown, all of which religious types are not exactly famous for. So it is no surprise that it has never been done until now.

Before the details of the examination can be presented in such a way that they will make sense, the right interpretative bias must already be established—though perhaps not accepted. (Acceptance is by way of persuasion.) What we need for a correct interpretation of Scripture, by which we can understand the mindset behind its composition, is a return to natural philosophy, upon which the moral/ethical perspective of the Bible is almost, though not entirely based. The Bible must serve as the foundation of our learning and knowledge regarding this subject, but not as the sole reference to easily and dismissively rebut every truth which comes our way, once and for all. Even if we were to try to employ it in such a manner, we would still err, for it would still be subject to our own interpretations. In order for it to actually have any real value for us, we must make the effort to understand it—the way it was meant to be understood—not to merely invoke it when it suits our purpose, whatever that may be, as those with the agendas (Christians and atheists) are both so accustomed to doing. Besides, as valuable as it is for teaching us how to live righteously, the Bible does not hold the answer to every question we could ever ask.

For instance, one of the most important questions we can address is the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, somewhere other than on the surface of Earth. Christians, ever hopeful to see their geocentric views exonerated, typically cling to the notion that whatever is “out there” (and to deny that it is at this point in time is to merit ridicule) is just some sort of quasi-rational apparition (a “demon,” usually) intended to make us think that their faith is unfounded, as though its existence serves no other purpose. In other words, the Devil is persecuting them, or God is trying them, or something along those lines. Meanwhile, there is nothing in the Bible to merit such a position, and rational minds are drawn more to Islam than to Christianity on account of the fact that Muslims do not so flatly deny what we all know to be true, and which therefore needs to be addressed, due to the gravity of the issue and the ramifications for the established religious orders.

In all honesty, every religious paradigm is behind the times. Every religion is shown by scientific progress to be lacking in merit. This is not because of a lack of credibility in their foundations of understanding, however, but because of a lack of willingness by the adherents of those religions to allow for progress. This includes those of the new scientific paradigm, perhaps even more so than the followers of conventional religion, as they tend to be even more dogmatic and rigorous in their views. If Catholics and Protestants can be said to be overly superstitious, then those who like to pretend that they are “scientists” tend to be overly skeptical. In either case, it is a matter of social indoctrination, where the group not only dictates and informs, but also constantly reinforces its own views at the individual level by appeals to consensus—as though the group consisted of something other than individuals—effectively eliminating the possibility of correcting any errors that have seeped into the underlying system of beliefs, especially the belief that such errors cannot even possibly exist within the system.

Certainly, it is no secret among those employed in biomedical research that their profession (which is very pertinent to our study) is tightly controlled, driven by promise of profit, and generally if not explicitly counterproductive to human well-being, not just because the medical establishment has no desire to see us all well, but also because the majority of their peers tend to be slothful when it comes to accepting controversial data which lead to controversial conclusions. Thus actual scientific pursuit, which is synonymous with religious pursuit, and whether it is approached from one angle or the other, becomes diametrically opposed to the established order, which is concerned with preserving the status quo.

For instance, the Bible does not say that the earth is flat, yet many people believe it does because they have been told as much, even by the Christian establishment itself. Yet it is to the Church’s credit that it once espoused this view, because it was the prevailing scientific opinion of the time. Where the Church erred was in its refusal to admit its mistake and allow for the scientific progress of the Renaissance era, going so far as to famously persecute Galileo. As a result, no one looks to the Vatican to tell us about the universe, whereas they did before. The problem lies in the fact that it takes a long time for dogmas—whether theological or scientific in nature—to change, and unlike scientific laws in the present era, theological debates tend to be settled when the establishment’s position is wrong rather than right, and this position is regarded as immutable even after having been shown to be wrong a billion times over.

Considering that this should all be obvious to anyone of a rationally-minded persuasion, perhaps those of the “science” disposition can all agree that “faith” has got at least some things wrong. Perhaps those of the “faith” disposition can all agree to the same notion about “science.” But can those of the “faith” persuasion admit to themselves that it desperately needs to rework its entire basis of understanding, to the point that the Bible literally needs to be rewritten with a whole new interpretative bias—one that is in line with the spirit of the original authors, rather than whatever the self-appointed clergy have in mind? Perhaps not, perhaps we will always be plagued with notions of flat-earth interpretations, but how could they ever really know, unless they first allowed for the possibility, and then went through all the trouble of learning the languages themselves, nuances and all (as opposed to reading along an interlinear translation), and decoded all the parables?

The type of understanding which the God of the Bible demands of those who would know or worship him is the type that overcomes finite human interests, like whether one’s ego is hurt by the prospect of losing relationships with other pedophile protectors. Truths only hurt those who are invested in falsehoods, anyway. Their pursuit is the defining characteristic of both true science and true religion, which are really the same thing. False science and false religion are also the same thing, and amount to the denial of truth.

Generally speaking, science and religion both hold that truths are constant and immutable, though there may be some variability based on how broad the scope is (e.g., the exact amount of radiation put out by the Sun may vary a little from one moment to the next, but it is never true that the Sun does not put out radiation). It is never true that the immutable truths (such as that burning stars radiate) are subject to change based on individual perceptions. Those of the “science” persuasion have no trouble with this, as it is a blatant contradiction of material evidence. However, religious dogmas are unlike scientific dogmas in that they derive from mere opinions rather than material evidence. In this way, science has the upper hand—except where religion produces evidence. Our evidence is the Bible; we might say that some parts are more enlightening than others, but that it is also true that the Bible never has no light to give as long as it is examined.

Unfortunately, people of religious persuasions seldom see it this way. Jews accept the Old Testament in principle and summarily reject it in point of fact. Christians do the same, and add the New Testament, while making some measure of concession that they reject the Old Testament in principle as well as in point of fact. Catholics, meanwhile, reject everything that is true wholesale, because science intends to uphold all truths, and science is perceived as the enemy of faith. Then science, in its bid for supremacy, fails to account for its own shortcomings with the catch-all “We don’t know,” as though that somehow substantiates the error of presumption which it is theoretically supposed to avoid in the first place, in order to keep its integrity. The Bible, meanwhile, gets left by the wayside, as does the veneration which all men owe to their common Creator, in favor of the rhymes and rudiments of all these spurious, manmade traditions. Where any appeal to it is made, it is only to establish the very same beliefs which have taken its place at the heart of Man’s knowledge of the cosmos, and then twisted, reworked to the point that it bears no resemblance to the original product, and used against its own conclusions.

We humans are most inclined to subdue the kinds of immutable truths as those presented in the Bible when our personal survival is at stake, so it should not be surprising that most of us choose our diets by highly subjective means. After all, people are no less arbitrary and subjective in regards to which religions they profess, and Scripture itself is regularly likened within the pages of the Bible to “bread,” which needs to be chewed before it can be swallowed (hence the fact that only animals that chew the cud are ever allowed to be eaten—ever). The typical motive behind which religion a person professes is that he was raised that way; the typical reasoning is that it feels right. Likewise, the typical motive behind which dietary fad a person adopts is that it is convenient, while the typical reasoning is veiled so thinly that it cannot even be called a justification, though perhaps ‘excuse’ is the most appropriate word—the point being that he does whatever makes him feel good, just like with religion, even though it will literally kill him, and he probably knows it.

At first glance this seems counterintuitive and altogether improbable, as nothing is more valuable to an individual than his own life, so there is every reason to be as diligent and objective as possible in determining what dietary regimen will best preserve health and increase longevity. Be that as it may, observed behavior does not match this expectation: humans usually consume foods which destroy health and decrease longevity, even when consciously striving to achieve the opposite. Why this is so cannot be answered simply, but the information necessary for making the proper deductions will be furnished over the course of this study. Ultimately what it all comes down to is choice: the choice of whether we obediently eat from the Tree of Life, or whether we rebelliously seek the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and hence, our own demise. A full explanation of this and the other metaphors contained in and used as parables (teaching tools) in the Bible is another of the goals which lies before us. In the meantime, we need to cover several important items from philosophical angles, so that it can be seen that the things which people typically believe give them the wrong interpretations—especially the notion that the optimal diet for humans is something other than what our Creator has explicitly told us to eat, which is a gross affront to God’s wisdom and benevolence on many levels, even as it is an indication of Man’s boundless ignorance and vanity.

As it is, the most pertinent data regarding the optimal diet for humans gets buried beneath an onslaught of obfuscation presented by the establishment that would keep us in the dark, and then mindlessly repeated by people who know no better, just like the mainstream views on hamartiology (the branch of theology which concerns itself with the study of sin). Were it the case that individuals educated themselves in the fundamentals directly, undertaking to study human biology, nutrition, and the findings of thousands of research scientists, this would not be possible. Instead, we see the same inherent problem as with cult-based religion: most people entrust their lives (and where it concerns the ethics of murdering hapless victims for mere bloodlust, their souls) to self-appointed experts who claim to have done the hard work for them, such that all that remains is to purchase a book or DVD, which typically prescribes the use of expensive nutritional supplements and specialty food items.

Such a wide range of dietary fads exists that most conclude either that there is no hope of ever determining the optimal human diet, or else that there is no such thing: everyone is different, and each individual must find what works for himself or herself by trial and error. No doubt the creators of these fads are in it for the money, but there would not even be a market for their wares if not for the abject ignorance of the masses, who are ultimately eager to purchase neither health nor longevity, but only validation of their prejudices, for which they are more than willing to pay with their very lives, content to believe that God will cover their sins for them, or, in the case of those who truly have no sense of right and wrong, that there is no such thing as sin (even against one’s own self). Therefore, the success of a dietary fad depends not upon how well it models reality and urges its customers to obey nature’s laws, but upon how well it appeals to what its customers want to hear, and how well it helps them rationalize away the truth of the fact that they are very, very sick, both spiritually and physically.

The consequence of all this disinformation and misinformation is that it comes as a surprise for the typical malnourished human to learn that humans are naturally herbivores (vegans, actually, apart from the need for human breast milk during infancy—after infancy, our bodies become ill-suited for this, too). This fact is very controversial, because the main argument that is used in support of cruelty toward animals is that eating animal products is necessary for human health, and we have all had that drilled into our heads by the meat and dairy industries, through their government sponsorship, and even by our parents who went through the same brainwashing. Vegetarians, and vegans specifically, typically like to defeat this supposition by pulling out scientific data in support of their position. Vegans across the board tend to at least be familiar with the main arguments, and regard the lifestyle as the result of having a familiarity with scientific facts pertaining to health, nutrition and animal welfare issues. While vegetarianism tends to be rooted in sentiments, most vegans have chosen the lifestyle specifically because of such facts.

So it is fairly easy to discover the truth behind the lies, as there are many vegans who are very vocal about it, though they often tend to form their arguments with the focus on animal welfare issues, and address the health and nutrition aspects by answering objections on the basis of the opposition’s propaganda, as we have done here. As we said earlier, the basis of veganism is compassion, but people who are concerned more about themselves than others tend to think in terms which vegans do not, as in what it is that is in their own best interest to be eating. For most vegans, the health issues are secondary, if not irrelevant, and it can be frustrating to have the major issues consistently ignored and to see so many people just not care about anyone but themselves. Yet it is also important for us to get the point across, and a big part of this is answering serious questions about the ramifications of a vegan diet.

Rather than glossing over these questions, we will be answering them satisfactorily, for the ramifications are critical and essential to our overall thesis, which supposes that God has made us to eat plants, but not animals. If he has not, then either he has lied to us, or he has contravened his own will by countermanding his own commands (as the meat-eating Christians universally attest), and the ramifications of either of these premises leads to logical contradictions about the very nature of God, which is to say, blasphemies of the highest order. So the issue of whether we were really designed to eat plants is at least worth a serious look, rather than supposition, and we have devoted the next chapter to this task. Again, the positive premise is that we are indeed designed to subsist on a strictly plant-based diet, and that to deviate from this pattern is such a grave sin that it inevitably leads to the death of our mortal bodies, prior to the judgment of our souls.

Our supposition is essentially that God has designed his will into the human body, and that the alternative is absurd. Could he have created us in such a way as that we must do that which he tells us we must not? Such a blatant contradiction begs the question of whether the person who espouses this view regards God as evil, or merely mischievous. Should we take the more reasonable approach by assuming that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), then we are already in agreement with conscience, as well as with science, and therefore with the other world religions, and no one will find fault with our reasoning except the misinformed atheists who will argue that we are not even designed at all. This is actually the basis for most of the prevailing arguments for carnism, which generally have their foundation in one derivation of the “paleo” myth or another, but they have made their way into the mainstream, so some Christians have also picked up on them without even realizing that they have implicitly accepted Darwinism as the premise of their views on biology and nutrition. (See Appendix A.10 for our response to this myth.)

Now, supposing that God has designed his will into the human body in such a way as to enforce his commands directly, the inevitable conclusion is not just that if we do what we are told, we will live, but also that if we do not do what we are told, then our Creator wills that we should die. If we eat the way he designed us to eat, and in a way that is in accord with his moral prescriptions, we will be rewarded with a long and healthy life; if not, we will be beset by disease, suffering and shorter lifespans. Taken to its logical conclusions, this means both that we ought to recognize the sin behind the disease as soon as it sets in, and also that those who cause their own bodies (not to mention the bodies of their victims) suffering and death in this life will also not inherit eternal life unless they repent, for the afterlife is nothing but a continuation of this life, save that God’s will will be done on Earth as it is in the heavens. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that what he wants and expects out of those in the kingdom of heaven is any different from what he wants and expects of us now. The hint is already obvious by virtue of the fact that it is said that we have been made in his own image (Genesis 1:27), and then just two verses later we are told exactly what we should be eating.

As every vegan ought to know, the facts from biomedical and nutritional science are wholly and conclusively supportive of the vegan ideal, due to the underlying fact that we are indeed natural herbivores, and that to select food options from within our own kingdom is tantamount to fostering disease, and ultimately death. For instance, it has often been observed that the human digestive tract is actually longer than that of a horse—and the longer a species’ digestive tract, the more well suited that species is for a plant-based diet (and more poorly for a carnivorous or omnivorous diet).3 (Horses are herbivores, too.) Similarly, our closest simian relatives are vegans, though we have actually seen people argue that gorillas are omnivores because less than 1% of their diet consists of insects they eat while grooming each other. The inference to be drawn from this, we are told, is that humans are natural meat-eaters, which really does nothing if not demonstrate the paucity of good arguments for them to draw on. Besides, it is not as though meat-eating humans will ever be seen eating bugs they pull out of their body hair, or that they will purposely eat >99% plants and <1% live ticks, flies and lice—at least not in “civilized” society.

A full review of the scientific literature is outside the scope of this treatise, and has already been competently handled by other vegetarians and vegans, so suffice it to say that from a big picture perspective, as well as a scriptural one, the idea that humans were created in such a way as that we would require meat and dairy in our diets is to flatly deny the legitimacy of Scripture itself. It is to insist that, contrary to the repeated assertions of Scripture and common sense alike, God is either grossly incompetent as a creator, or else he does not tend to his own creation. The fact of the matter is that humans were undeniably created to consume plant foods only, and it necessarily follows that the consumption of animal products is completely contrary to how we were created, and therefore highly inimical to long-term human health. It does allow for survival in bad situations as a last resort, but it was only ever meant to be such.

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

It is utterly preposterous that some low-carb diet fads advocate high quantities of meat and dairy for good health, in the face of abundant scientific data to the contrary, and are taken seriously by anyone. Unfortunately, most people are so entirely ignorant of the research which stands behind the nutritional principles they were taught as children that when they encounter what seem to be reasonable objections and contradicting studies raised by a veritable army of fad diet guru-salespersons and a chorus of bloggers repeating the same message, they feel informed for the first time in their lives and liberated from dietary disciplines they never wanted to follow to begin with. Of course, most people are also so entirely lacking in critical thinking skills that it never even occurs to them to thoroughly analyze all claims and base their final decision not on emotions and base desires, but on logic and reasoning.

Some who recognize that we are natural herbivores will argue that it depends on your ABO blood type, and that only people with the A type are actually natural vegans. There is some truth to this, in that the digestive systems of the A types are less acidic, and therefore less equipped to break down the complex proteins in meat and dairy. However, that only means that people with the A blood type are even more suited to a vegan diet than others, that they are well suited to an even wider range of plants and plant-based foods. The level of acidity in the other types is nowhere near where it would have to be in order to negate the underlying facts about our anatomy. The pH levels of the human stomach range from 1.5 to 5 (1.5 being the most acidic, i.e. during digestion),4 while carnivores persistently maintain pH levels between 1 and 2.5 By comparison, cows (who are natural herbivores like us) maintain a stomach pH of about 6 in the abomasum (the chamber of their stomach which is most similar to ours), which is lowered to about 2.5 for digestion6—still not low enough to eat meat safely.

So we can see that we are much more like cows than cats in terms of our stomach acidity, and not well equipped to process meat efficiently, as the blood type diet fad would have us believe, to say nothing of the longer bowels in humans.7 In reality, the blood type diet fad is only based on anecdotal evidence, and only aims to show which foods are known allergens to which types, and does not translate well into determining what the optimal diet for any given type is, but only into making general recommendations for avoiding indigestion. Just because a certain food does not give you indigestion, that does not mean it will not give you cancer or diabetes, and this is the real test as to whether or not you were designed to eat it. Consider that O types ought to be the most suited for dairy consumption, based on the premise behind the theory which the fad is based on, yet most people who are diagnosed as lactose intolerant have the O type.8 (In truth, all humans are lactose intolerant, but for some reason, it seems to affect O types more than others.)

Regarding this issue of lactose intolerance, it is supposed that our bodies have not evolved to adapt to the breast milk of other species, but the truth is we have hardly evolved at all (that the extent of our evolution is practically discernible in the variability of blood types, and perhaps DNA haplogroups, but not beyond these micro factors). Each species was created to consume only the breast milk of its own species, and only during infancy. The reason dairy products are toxic to us is that they are unnatural to us. We may as well be trying to eat rocks if we are going to consume something which turns into stones in our organs.

Furthermore, the variability of blood types is the result of malicious genetic tampering intended to put us off the natural track of the A and B types—the devolution of our species—going all the way back to the beginning. We are not trying to say that Adam and Eve were the only humans in the beginning, but it would be absurd to suppose that between one male and one female there were four ABO blood types. Something else happened in our early days which the Genesis narrative has not made very clear. Had our first parents not deviated from the plan, and had there not been race mixing afterward (as also prohibited by God), we would not be a hybrid species, and would not suffer any kind of adverse effect for eating anything that was originally intended for us, because our DNA would have remained intact. It is essentially the changes to our DNA which actually initiate the disease process by first turning the body against itself, while the dietary factors cause it to progress, so race mixing and genetic tampering predispose us to diseases based on genetic factors before we are even born, as mutagens do after.

Knowing this, the single most important point for establishing what the proper diet for humans is, is determining the original intent of whoever programmed our DNA. Our position is already clear, and we will be using the Bible to evidence it throughout the remainder of this treatise. However, the Bible’s position only even merits consideration if it matches scientific data. If it were true that we had some sort of biological need to eat animal flesh, then it would stand to reason that the scientific premise of the Bible is bunk, and that its position on morality is therefore subjective (as opposed to universal and immutable), and therefore not pertinent to every human being. This is why establishing that we are indeed natural herbivores is so crucial to our thesis, but once this is accomplished, the case will be shut and there will be no room for any skeptic to argue that carnism is morally acceptable, because there will be no room for excuses. From that point on, we will be demonstrating how antagonistic the Bible’s position against carnism really is, and how it is by far the most important issue raised therein.

This initial task (covered in the next chapter) of corroborating the Bible’s position with scientific research can only really be done by the study of pathogenesis (how diseases happen) and pathophysiology (how diseases work). The reason for this is that when the body is functioning properly and nothing is amiss, we may assume that is what the Creator had in mind, but when something goes wrong, whatever has caused the malfunction represents a different agenda or genetic mishap. A famous French aviator remarked, “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” When it comes to biological organisms in nature, this is profoundly true. When it comes to the Bible, it is all the more so in regards to we who have been made in the image of God.

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
Psalm 139:13-14 (ESV)

Every single organ and appendage, and every single cell in the body serves a specific, special purpose. Each specific purpose evidences the intent of the overall design. For instance, our teeth are clearly not designed to rip apart flesh, as are those of any carnivore/predator, but are perfect for grinding plant food—an ability which carnivores lack. (See Appendix A.4.) A myriad of less obvious biological characteristics show just how our digestive systems treat plant-based foods as medicine, and animal-based foods as poison.

Furthermore, our design is so specific that when organs are first created, new cells are given specific instructions as to what they are to become, based on need, and only then sent to their appropriate locations. Ultimately, we need them all to function properly, and once they take on a specific role, they are not designed to carry out other functions. So whatever causes the death of a single cell can essentially be said to cause death to the entire body, even though students of medicine and human biology typically do not understand this because they are not observing anyone in perfect health, so they do not know what perfect health actually looks like, and because the body has mechanisms to routinely clean up dead cells and rid the body of pathogens. A physician will argue that there is nothing out of the ordinary about cells dying, that it is simply a matter of aging, but no physician will argue that the same natural aging process which kills cells does not also contribute (if not cause) the death of the body as a whole, so the argument is moot.

Beyond the body’s own internal mechanisms, the question of what constitutes a pathogen is certainly addressed in medicine, but doctors and researchers in the medical field tend to drop the ball when it comes to understanding how absolutely critical proper nutrition is to good health, and to what proper nutrition actually is, because the consensus paradigm of the medical establishment is one of profit-driven allopathic treatments rather than holistic health and prevention, so there is no economic or career-influencing incentive for physicians to incorporate the relatively new scientific data, and the conclusions which they lead to. It takes the right premise about what the body requires for sustenance (not just to convert food molecules into energy, but for sustenance) just to make sense out of the data.

This is where the Bible comes in. Genesis 1:29 (which we will examine in more depth later) states unequivocally that the original human diet was plant-based. (Fruitarians often refer to their diet as the “Garden of Eden” diet.) This was still true after the Fall of Man, whereupon, we are told, Adam was informed that his life would depend on agriculture, rather than hunting or herding, or even foraging (which could very well include discovering carcasses, considered unclean throughout the Bible). Moreover, we are told unequivocally that the exact same state of affairs will return to Earth in the future, as a matter of returning to an ideal state of abundance and freedom from suffering.

And to the man He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘Do not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you are to eat of it all the days of your life, and the ground shall bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you are to eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you return.” Genesis 3:17-19

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

According to this, not just we humans, but all animals are under a divine curse, specifically because we have been disobedient regarding the command to abstain from violence (specifically, the violence of killing animals for consumption). What does this say, if not that the world in its current form, which includes all manner of violence—from modern warfare and despotism to animal cruelty and meat consumption—is ignorant of Yahweh and his ways, if not overtly and hostilely opposed to them? It takes little effort to find prophetic observations in Scripture which attest to the fact that all the world lies in corruption, self-indulgence, spiritual depravity, deceit and wanton wickedness. Even supposing that one man or a small percentage of men cannot effect a positive global change in order to bring about the utopian ideal, can anyone deny that it is far better to act as though we were already living in the kingdom of heaven than to just go with the flow, especially when there are many who do not espouse an overtly Christian ethic, yet whose motives and actions are nevertheless in line with God’s commands?

“This is the covenant that I shall make with them after those days, says יהוה, giving My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I shall write them.” Hebrews 10:16

For not the hearers of the Torah are righteous in the sight of Elohim, but the doers of the law shall be declared right. For when gentiles, who do not have the Torah, by nature do what is in the Torah, although not having the Torah, they are a Torah to themselves, who show the work of the Torah written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or even excusing. Romans 2:13-15

Given that so many Christians enthusiastically participate in the wickedness, and how few can be brought to repent, does this not demonstrate how debased the hypocrisy and spiritual debauchery of the Christians is, and how much better off the world could potentially be without their influence? All one really needs to do is pay heed to his own conscience, for we all know that it is wrong to torture and to kill. Were such an approach to be applied faithfully and consistently by humanity as a whole, the result would be the immediate and permanent establishment of the kingdom of heaven. It would only take a moment of consciousness on the global scale to catalyze the change.

That is to say that the only thing standing in the way of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven is the failure of humans to take the steps to establish it themselves—failure which is chiefly attributable to the established world order, of which the religious establishment is the major party, the one from which all others are ultimately derived. Indeed, the Papacy, representing only half the world’s Christians (who are themselves in the world minority), has perpetually maintained its claim of sovereignty over every political authority on the planet for nearly two millennia, with the presumed force of heaven’s mandate and the constant threat of hellish violence to all who resist. This is why we pray for God’s will to be done “on earth, as it is in heaven”—because right now, we are in hell. This, along with their worldly concerns and hypocritical treatment of other ethical issues (abortion, for one), shows to what extent the so-called Christians cannot possibly be servants of Christ, and therefore have nothing going for them, even in theory, and in spite of all their pretenses of being “saved,” “sanctified,” “forgiven” or “redeemed.”

“No one is able to serve two masters, for either he shall hate the one and love the other, or else he shall cleave to the one and despise the other. You are not able to serve Elohim and mammon.” Matthew 6:24

יהושע answered, “My reign is not of this world. If My reign were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Yehuḏim. But now My reign is not from here.” John 18:36

So it should be self-evident by now that one must take steps to establish the kingdom of heaven, because it will not establish itself, and that this “one” is not God, but rather every individual who would inherit it, by contributing to the effort of the larger group (as “one”). It should also be self-evident that one must fight for it, and that fighting entails hard work, sacrifices, and actively resisting the established order. Those who fail and/or refuse to comply with the minimum requirements will not be forced to make changes, such as the meat-eating Christians are only likely to accept once they have been forcefully imposed. Rather, they will not even be welcome in this renewed earth.

That is to say that only real Christians, whether they call themselves such or not (veganism is a distinctly biblical ideology—more on that later), will enter the kingdom of heaven, and real Christians do not kill or consume death, as we shall see. In the meantime, let it not be supposed that the ideals to be realized in the kingdom of heaven are anything other than a continuation of what God has expected of mankind since the beginning. It should be obvious that what was intended for Adam and called “good for food” is also what was intended for his descendants. However, people generally fail to realize this, much less how important it is in the overall context of Scripture, because the meaning of the metaphor pertaining to the Fall has never been clarified for the masses. So this, too, will be one of our main tasks.

Our premise is that the kingdom of heaven is the return to the innocence and bliss of the state of Man before the Fall. This has as much to do with physical well-being (life) as it does negating the consequences of our mistakes (death). As the world has chosen a state of sin for itself, the focus of the true Christian must be on mitigating (remitting) sin, and on sustaining life. Our reasoning is that this simply cannot be accomplished without compassion, which is the natural result of a healthy respect and appreciation for “lesser” life forms. To be “holy” is to be “set-apart,” and to be set-apart is to avoid societal norms on the one hand, and on the other, to have compassion where others do not.

Unfortunately, vegetarianism and veganism are often seen not as proposed solutions to the world’s problems, but as personal preferences or alternative lifestyle choices, like musical tastes or sexual preferences. In the minds of meat-eaters, if two men go to a restaurant together and one orders a hamburger while the other orders a salad, both should be happy. However, it does not work like that in reality. A Muslim and a Jew will not agree on where they go to worship God, or what the worship will look like.

Vegetarianism and veganism are both “ism” words, meaning that they represent ideologies, not random diet plans; there is a particular set of values and beliefs behind each one. Although they are generally grouped together, and many people do not even know the difference, the difference between them, in our estimation, is greater than the difference between vegetarianism and the default, or between Islam and Judaism. Sure, these two ideologies share much in common, but then again, so do the Abrahamic religions. Political correctness demands that we all accept each other’s views and behaviors, no questions asked. But what is asked of a vegan is that he accept rampant, systematic abuses that will inevitably bring all life on Earth to ruin, including forced slavery, rape, torture and mass murder for untold billions of animals, and preventable sickness and disease, famine, malnutrition, poverty and premature death for most humans, without even so much as a hint of prosecution of justice, or even education. “Don’t force your views on us,” says the public, as though it is a matter of worthless opinion, rather than priceless fact. Therefore, what is asked of the vegan is that he goes against his own conscience, for no other reason than that everyone else does.

As for the differences between vegetarianism and veganism, they usually come down to the recognition of the facts upon which veganism is based. Vegetarians are people who have made the conscious decision to abstain from eating meat. There are numerous reasons why a person might make this decision, but the reasons are generally sentimental (based on empathy, as veganism normally is, in part), moral or religious in nature, and sometimes based on the nutritional and health benefits of eating plants and plant-based foods. (In the case of veganism, if the decision to eat a plant-based diet is based on health concerns or dietary preferences rather than ethical concerns, then it is not really veganism, but strict vegetarianism. Veganism encompasses more than diet, as explained above and below.) Some vegetarians eat fish, while others do not. These are called ‘pescetarians’ (or ‘pescatarians’), and are not considered vegetarians by vegans. Vegetarians who eat milk or eggs are called ‘lacto-ovo-vegetarians,’ and there are also lacto-vegetarians and ovo-vegetarians; it depends on what else besides meat the person in question abstains from.

Vegans eat no animal products at all, so they are also called strict or total vegetarians, because they eat strictly plant-based diets. However, in order to qualify as a vegan, one must also adopt the ethos, which entails the belief that it is wrong for humans to abuse or exploit animals in any capacity. Technically, vegans avoid things which vegetarians may not, though the two ideologies are generally in agreement where the issue of killing or intentionally harming animals is concerned. For example, a lacto-ovo vegetarian is as likely to get upset about a bullfighting performance as a vegan is, but probably not a rodeo. In any case, vegetarianism is entirely compatible with veganism, as vegans never eat meat.

The confusion over what it means to be a vegan is over what it means to eat a plant-based diet. There is no term for this (and rightly so, for to eat a plant-based diet is to eat what is natural for human consumption—the most appropriate term for this is ‘herbivore’), so anyone who does not eat any animal products is commonly referred to as a vegan. However, vegans are people who have made the decision not just to refrain from eating foods that have animal products in them, but to abstain from using products derived from the exploitation of animals, and to abstain from such exploitation. The underlying motive for choosing veganism is necessarily a moral or ethical one: the vegan believes it is wrong to kill or exploit animals. (This necessarily includes fish and fowl as well as land animals.) So simply eating a plant-based diet does not make one a vegan. Put another way, vegetarianism is a diet ideal that can be based on any idea, or even just personal preference, while veganism is a lifestyle based on ethical or moral grounds, and is inclusive of vegetarianism.

Veganism requires constant awareness and vigilance. A vegan does not just read the list of ingredients on the packages of the food he eats; he also informs himself of how they are produced, if they are not natural, to determine whether they come from animals. He only uses toiletries which are “humane” or “cruelty-free” certified to ensure that they are not tested on animals, as the vast majority of hygiene and personal health care products are. He avoids clothing items made from wool, fur, leather, or anything else which is derived from animals. If he has pets, he adopts them from humane shelters or rescues them himself instead of buying them from pet farms or pet shops, and does not keep them in cages or otherwise mistreat them. All these characteristics define the minimum criteria for veganism, so you can see why it is regarded as a lifestyle decision rather than a personal preference or diet orientation.

Now, in order to understand why vegetarianism (even strict vegetarianism) alone does not constitute asceticism or holiness, it helps to realize that there are a billion vegetarians in the world. That is more than the number of citizens of all the English-speaking nations put together. So it may be true that vegetarians are still in the minority, but it is not true that they are completely “set-apart” from the majority. In fact, it is actually quite easy to find vegetarian foods other than raw fruits and vegetables both at restaurants and at supermarkets, but it is just as difficult to find things which are suitable for vegans at either.

In the United States, only one million, so far less than 1% of the population, are vegans, compared to the roughly ten million, more than 3% (and rising), that are vegetarians.9 (Most other countries lack similar data.) It is estimated that about 10% of the American population eats a vegetarian diet, while restaurants report that about 27% of the customers want a vegetarian option when they order.10 Compare that to the only 3.4% of the nation that professes any sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and how much awareness is given to that issue.11

John Davis, the former trustee of the Vegetarian Society (UK) and author of World Veganism: Past, Present and Future,12 says that among the first things he started posting on the Internet were statistics pertaining to the numbers of the types of vegetarians around the world. Remarkably, the number of vegetarians has not gone up since he originally started collating this data in 1995, even though vegetarian and vegan options have become much more widescale. According to Davis, very many of the people who call themselves vegetarians or vegans are not actually committed to the ideal, but actually what true vegetarians call “flexitarians.” Davis astutely observes, contrary to the express wishes of most vegetarians and vegans, that these “flexitarians” are representative of all religious practice (like the “hearers” of the Law, as opposed to the “doers”) and will only actually become true vegetarians when a tipping point is reached and they do not have to think about it much, as evidenced by the fact that many committed vegetarians have become vegans in recent years, since the vegan lifestyle has drawn more attention to itself and made it easier to adopt.13 The implication, of course, is that the essential reason veganism is not more widely practiced already is that it takes constant vigilance, and few are therefore willing to commit to it, because most people are too lazy or too self-centered to care enough, even if they have the inclination.

We view vegetarianism as a stepping stone to veganism, a less preferable option for people who are not conscious enough about animal rights issues to take the further step, but preferable to the default. Consider that most New Agers are not even vegetarians, despite their universal rule of “love and light,” and all the lip service they give to “Christ consciousness,” which is none other than veganism in reality, and which most New Agers would even recognize as their own term for what we call the kingdom of heaven. We attribute this to lack of compassion (love) and awareness (light/consciousness), or to hypocrisy, as most New Agers have no incentive to break the mold of their indoctrination and do what is actually right both for themselves and for the world (or the universe) as a whole, as opposed to pretending to do the same because it makes them feel good. If this seems harsh, consider that most New Agers would not sit through a video or a discussion detailing the abuses which farmed animals endure at the hands of their human oppressors, unless they were coerced by peer pressure, but neither would they stop consuming dairy products after such an attempt at intervention has been made. Even the Dalai Lama, the poster child of the New Age Movement, is not a vegetarian, though his residence in India does not cook meat, due to India’s (not Tibet’s—India’s) social conventions.

We would hope that those who ascribe to any one of the Abrahamic religions could be persuaded to actually live in accordance with their pretension that theirs is the “one true religion,” the supreme moral code, handed down by God, to serve as the one and only light of salvation for the nations. It is our sincere desire that not all mainstream Christians would be found to be hypocrites and no better than their New Age and Jewish counterparts on Judgment Day, but that the gospel which they live by and spread might actually be that of Christ—the remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven. We certainly do not expect the Pope to inherit everlasting life, but we would like to think that the leader of the Christian community in the final days will be more laudable than the man who falsely claims to be the reincarnation of the Buddha, but rightly points in the right direction, even if he will not go there himself, when he says “My religion is compassion.” Compassion, the spirit of veganism, is the ideal of Christians and Buddhists alike, whether or not the billions who call themselves one or the other actually practice it.

And יהושע said to him, “‘You shall love יהוה your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great command. And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commands hang all the Torah and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:37-40

For this, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other command, is summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Love does no evil to a neighbour. Therefore, love is completion of the Torah. Romans 13:9-10

For you, brothers, have been called to freedom, only do not use freedom as an occasion for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the entire Torah is completed in one word, in this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” And if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! And I say: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not accomplish the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. And these are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you desire to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under Torah. Galatians 5:13-18

If I speak with the tongues of men and of messengers, but do not have love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all belief, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am none at all. And if I give out all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I am not profited at all. Love is patient, is kind, love does not envy, love does not boast, is not puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not seek its own, is not provoked, reckons not the evil, does not rejoice over the unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth, it covers all, believes all, expects all, endures all. Love never fails. And whether there be prophecies, they shall be inactive; or tongues, they shall cease; or knowledge, it shall be inactive. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be inactive. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. But when I became a man, I did away with childish matters. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know, as I also have been known. And now belief, expectation, and love remain—these three. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13

The word translated here as ‘love’ is agapē (ἀγάπη, G26), which means ‘goodwill’ or ‘benevolence.’ It is translated into the Vulgate as caritas, or ‘charity,’ and the KJV retains this meaning, as it was still understood in the early 17th century. Christians often call it “God’s love” and ascribe some sort of mystical or quasi-rational significance to it, because supposedly only God is even capable of unconditional love. In practice, the application of this nonsensical understanding of the word derives from the fact that Christians are generally so unwilling to adapt compassion as a virtue, much less as a way of life, that they think they are in a rare state of spiritual enchantment if they happen to cross the line into the domain of saintliness.

The meaning of agapē is indeed quite distinct from the other Greek ‘love’ words, in that it connotes a general rather than a personal affection. Agapē therefore denotes compassion, and ‘love’ is practically a mistranslation. This is extremely significant to our understanding of Scripture, as the communal meals which all Christians participated in during the period of the composition of the New Testament were called “agapē feasts,” and membership in one of these communities actually depended on this participation. (That is, you could be barred from the community if you decided to eat on your own.) If we did not know the meaning of the term, we might think of these feasts as wild parties or barbeques where everyone was happy and reveling, gorging themselves on steaks or hot dogs, but really they were the community’s way of ensuring that none of its members were straying from the path of compassion.

Now consider that in the same context in which Paul tells us that love does no harm (or evil) to a neighbor, he tells us that all creation groans because of the bondage imposed upon it by evil men, which it eagerly waits to be liberated from (Romans 8:19-22). Considering that 7 billion humans kill 120 billion land and aquatic animals every year for a food source that is unnecessary for their survival and actually detrimental to their health, the “extreme” ascetic ideal of veganism is actually what is natural (what God intended), and is only extreme because it is abnormal (as what is “normal” is the way of the world). We can plainly see from the Romans 13 passage that Scripture in its entirety amounts to an appeal to do no evil (none) against your neighbor.

The only question that still needs to be addressed, then, in order for it to be shown that the ideal of the Bible is veganism, is what a “neighbor” is. This is a fairly simple and straightforward question, and the answer lies in the realization that what is meant is not ‘the person who lives next door to you,’ as that would imply that you are free to sin against everyone else. Clearly that is not what the spirit of the text intends to convey. On the other hand, when we realize that Earth itself is our natural habitat, and the ones who live near and among us are not only humans, then we broaden our idea of neighborhood to encompass all Earthlings—human and nonhuman alike. Indeed, the planet is even likened to a “mansion” by Yahshuah in John 14:12—the implication being that we are merely tenants of a single room that does not belong to us any more than our neighbor’s room belongs to us (or to him)—one of many in his Father’s house, or the universe. By this standard, the nonhuman creatures of Earth are not even our neighbors, but our housemates—our family. The idea of killing and eating a member of one’s own family ought to be appalling to anyone with a conscience, but it is only a small step of reasoning which leads to that conclusion based on Scripture.

But this all supposes that the question of the morality of any sin depends on the position of the culprit, although sins are basically defined as such because of how they impact others. In order to properly evaluate the morality of animal slaughter, one must take a look at the issue from the animal victim’s perspective, which has been completely denied by the meat-eater’s unexamined assumption that animals have no interest or understanding of the value of their individual lives. When this is done, the natural response is for the human to break down in tears and remorse for past behaviors. In other words, experience teaches us that to contribute to the mechanisms of animal farming by buying and consuming animal flesh is to go against conscience. If this was not the case, then the companies packaging and selling the meat would not be heavily invested in steering us away from awareness of what the meat consists of, as well as what’s in it, to the point that they package it with known carcinogens just to make it appear more life-like and thereby improve the chances that it will be bought. Nor would there be so many vegans and vegetarians.

This is not a matter of alternative lifestyle choices, or of faddist interests, but of conscience and consciousness. Christians typically believe in absolute morality, meaning that whatever they decide is right and wrong necessarily applies to everyone, everywhere, for all time. Exceptions are made, of course, wherever it is necessary to justify an untenable notion, such as in their abolition of the Law, but even then, the dispensation is credited to God as the author of the change of policy. In the minds of Christians, there is no personal exemption from the consequences of sin. Perhaps this is one area that they have done well in, up to the point that they want to make God responsible for their cherry-picking policies. However, they do wrong by asserting that they have free will when they do not,14 and then again when they fail to account for the wills of other creatures.

The very idea that Man sits alone at the top of the universe’s hierarchy as having free will, being the only creature that God loves, and that he cares not at all for the others—an idea which is necessary for establishing that eating them is morally acceptable—is utterly preposterous. To then extend this idea to the realm of subjectivity and make it a matter of moral relativity is to go against the very spirit of Christian evangelism. At some point, the needs and desires of the animal victims must be accounted for, including the right to live. Otherwise the standard by which we judge the matter comes back to us, and we are deemed unfit for life, because we decided not to listen to what God had to say about it, but chose our own way. That is what it means to chalk it up to a personal choice—that and that Man is God, because only God is free from consequence of choice. And that is really what this is all about, because every man who cares only for what he chooses to care for, and dismisses all else as something to be used and abused, implicitly regards himself as the sovereign of the universe. Honestly, whoever thinks himself special because he is a man really needs to wake up to the order of the universe.

If eating animals is a choice, then we must believe in at least the following six absurdities:

1. that we as humans have some sort of unspoken and inherited “right” to kill and eat animals no matter how trivial our reasons and just because we can;

2. that humans are “superior” to all other species and that somehow that superiority translates into a justification for doing whatever we want to animals. In this way, human interests always “trump” animal interests, even when the human interest is trivial and the animal interest is a matter of life and death;

3. that all animals conveniently exist only to serve one species—our own (even though most have existed in some form for millions of years before homo sapiens);

4. that just being a member of another species somehow justifies exploiting someone;

5. that we can turn animals into objects without making them victims;

6. that the victim does not exist or does not care what happens to him or her.

On the other hand, If you take the interests of animals at all seriously, then eating animal products cannot be considered a “choice.” A choice necessitates ownership over the options. No one has a “right” over the sovereignty of others who were designed by nature to be free agents as we are. Robert Grillo15

A vegan does not say, as a Jew or mainstream Christian does, “What can I get away with, and how much of it can I get away with?” He does not look for loopholes in the law to which he is bound, or put the consequences of his choices on someone else—Jesus or otherwise. Rather, he takes responsibility for what goes into his mouth, and for the manufacture of the products which his purchases support and compel. The vegan policy is “better safe than sorry,” not “out of sight, out of mind.”

That is the difference between the way of death and the way of life: one seeks to uphold and obey the Law, and the other seeks to obviate it. A man may think himself clever by finding a loophole, as the Christians routinely tell the rest of us that Jesus is God, and that he contradicted himself in a massive way by suddenly doing away with his own Law (the orthodox position, in spite of its absurdity), but God is not fooled, and they pay for this treachery with their very lives. They may think they have found something to exploit, but we all suffer and we all die. Only those who follow the way of life may find life; all who follow the way of death ultimately find death. Of course, death is what sells to people who are inclined to death, but righteousness is not a popularity contest, and the stench of a rotting corpse (which is what Christians make of the Law by refusing to give it life) ought to draw nothing but suspicion.

“For wherever the dead body is, there the eagles shall be gathered together.” Matthew 24:28

Consider that the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) which made its way into the public milk supply in the late 1990s was cultured from E. coli.16 A conservative policy would be that the milk is unclean according to the Law, and not to be consumed, if only because the presence of the E. coli demonstrates fecal contamination. A liberal policy might be that the milk is suitable, as the mutated bacteria do not demonstrate fecal contamination, as the rBGH has not been in contact with feces (though the milk itself clearly has other contaminants in it), or even because it has been mutated and is not therefore actually the thing which was originally prohibited by the Law. Another might be that the milk is suitable because the Law itself does not expressly prohibit ingestion of either milk or feces, even though some passages (e.g., Deuteronomy 23:12-13) do make it very clear that the presence of feces defiles. Some Christians, totally unaware that there even is a Law in the Bible other than (and above) the Law of Moses, might say that the Law of Moses is not even representative of God’s will, or that the particulars have been done away with, and that this is one of the particulars, so we have no obligation to obey it. However, the very presence of E. coli can be lethal in and of itself, regardless of whether it has been genetically modified, and cow milk, as we will see, necessarily brings about the death of any human who drinks it. So in all cases, whoever would seek to find and exploit a loophole in the Law only deceives himself, and still pays the penalty whether he saw it coming or not.

These hypotheticals may seem extraneous, but they are actually very pertinent to our study. We started this campaign for animal welfare knowing full well what the Jewish and Christian religions are all about, having been immersed in Scripture. Since then, our research into the goings-on of the reception of the message of Scripture has uncovered a pattern of unbelievably hostile contempt and rejection of it by those who most loudly profess to uphold it. It is tempting to cite whole articles here in order to demonstrate the point, but a few examples should suffice for now, given the material we will be covering further on.

That our hypothetical scenario about milk is very realistic is evidenced by the fact that the same logic is used, in the case of pigs—described as even more revolting to Jews than feces is—by no less an authority than Mendy Kaminker, the editor of the Hebrew edition of Chabad. In the article “Pigs & Judaism: Deep revulsion, but a promising future,”17 Kaminker cites rabbinical sources to prove that Jews really have no idea why God forbade the Israelites from eating pork, though they have had more than 3000 years to think about it. The subheading implies there was no reason, and that God gave the command “just because.” Meanwhile, the arguments against eating pork provided by the Gentiles, according to this tradition, are “illogical and deserving of mockery.” Worse yet is the utterly antagonistic view which Kaminker represents, while simultaneously pretending obedience to the Torah, to the point of deliberately uttering a false prophecy.

Today, then, the pig represents the bad side of life. It turns out, though, that in the future we will be allowed to eat it:

Why is the pig called [in Hebrew] chazir? Because in the future, G-d will return [le-hachazir] it to Israel.

In the era of Moshiach the world at large will be purified and achieve a higher spiritual level, so that the pig will become permissible for food. (How does this square with one of the basic beliefs of Judaism, that the laws of the Torah will never change? Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar suggests that G-d will alter the pig’s physiology so that indeed it chews its cud and therefore bears both kosher signs.) Menachem Kaminker18

In other words, the role of the Messiah, according to one of the world’s foremost rabbis, speaking to and for all Jews on the Internet’s Jewish thoroughfare, is to teach Jews how to find loopholes in the Law so that they are not obligated to observe it—particularly in regards to some sort of latent desire to consume the very thing they profess the most revulsion for. In his mind (as in ours), what this means in the practical application sense is to encourage genetic modifications to things which Scripture holds as unclean, in order that the description no longer properly applies to that thing, as though making it even more abominable will make it fit for consumption. Needless to say, the sheer idiocy and hypocrisy of this point of view knows no bounds, yet sadly, it is not only representative of the Jewish and Christian positions on this matter, but is also already a present reality. Many people today are concerned about the implications of genetically altering our food sources, but it is generally only out of self-interest rather than a legitimate concern for the real dangers it poses, especially to animals and to Earth’s ecosystems, and especially in extensive hybridization. As we will see, the very notion of what is “unclean” constitutes an archaic description of what has already been modified, so that the only way to guarantee a previously “clean” food becomes unclean is to modify it, per Kaminker’s prophecy. Kaminker’s Messiah is therefore nothing short of the Christians’ Antichrist, and the “higher spiritual level” he anticipates, the reign thereof.

Honestly, this kind of present-day Pharasaism should not even come as a surprise to those who know what Judaism and Christianity are really all about. Kaminker’s views are entirely rooted in Jewish tradition, and if it were not for the fact that he himself upholds them, we might thank him without criticism for reporting the position. Nevertheless, it is impossible to carry the kind of weight that Kaminker does within Judaism (or Christianity) without first putting one’s faith in such atrocious affronts to God’s revelations to Man, and to reason. Chabad has elsewhere dealt with the issue of why pigs exist at all, concluding that the reason is the same as in the case of any “clean” animal. According to the rabbis, a species’ very existence depends on whether or not we humans are supposed to eat it, even if we have no idea as to why we have been allowed some and not others, other than “just because.”

Question:

Why do Jews consider certain animals, such as pigs, to be unclean and therefore not edible? I am under the impression that G-d made everything, including pigs and other non-cloven-hoofed animals. Whatever G-d made cannot be unclean, or perverted. Man has made certain things unclean and perverted, but I don't see how this can apply to non-cloven-hoofed animals.

Response:

You are entirely correct; G-d created everything in the world with a purpose. After all, if it had no use, why would He bother bringing it into existence? The question is just what that purpose is.

Some edible things have a very clear purpose: Eat the item with the intention to use its energy to serve G-d. Other things, G-d tells us in the Bible, have another purpose, and that is that we do not eat them.

This does not mean that we have no use for anything derived from a non-kosher animal—just that they are not to be eaten by a Jew. So you can use pigskin to bind your books and you can feed unkosher meat to your pet. But a Jew who eats non-kosher food is just not helping that piece of food serve its divine purpose. After all, it was G-d Himself who commanded the Jews not to eat it. Menachem Posner19

This is the official response from those presuming to teach the Law, and given the authority to do so by the adherents of the Jewish and Christian religions. So when the present authors are criticized for attempting to overturn thousands of years of established traditions, our response is, “Look at the traditions” rather than simply deferring to them and appealing to consensus in place of valid logic. How did it even come to be that views deserving of intense scorn and ridicule have come to be established and esteemed, if not by widespread vice and treachery? This is not a vain objection from some sort of fringe heresy, as commonly alleged, but from Scripture itself, and is one of the main questions which we will be addressing in detail once we embark upon our examination of it.

The fact is, the absurdity of this manmade tradition is self-evident because God made everything for a purpose, and neither the Bible nor our interpretations should have even be needed before the whole lot of this rubbish is dismissed. Even if this is not immediately apparent, due to a misunderstanding of the true nature of Judaism and Christianity, the fact that such ignorance and moral depravity are condemned throughout Scripture ought to be so apparent from a reading of it. That the Jewish rabbis and Christian ministers bring God into it and tell us that their views are his, when he clearly and consistently says the exact opposite, is blasphemy, and merits, at the very least, critical review and summary condemnation.

Ultimately, as with all issues of morality, the issues under our examination are simply questions of ethics. The main ethical problem with the treatment which these issues have been given is that they deliberately ignore the victimization, upon which its morality is founded. The main ethical problem with eating meat is that it requires killing, and that—not whether a particular animal chews cud and has a cloven hoof, or whatever—is why it is morally unacceptable. Secondarily, it also produces death in the one killing; it is an aberration of nature, of life, and of nourishment. It is also bad for the environment, destroying whole species and ecosystems. So regardless of how it is seen by any particular group with any particular ethos (e.g., Jews who pretend to abide by the Law of Moses, or Christians who pretend to uphold the moral statutes of the Bible), it is therefore contrary to God’s law (i.e. natural law) in every respect, and to God himself.

This is obviously the same problem as with animal sacrifice, for which an allowance was made under the Law of Moses, albeit extremely reluctantly. There really are no differences between killing an animal and animal sacrifice except that the latter is a pretentious reinterpretation of the former through the lens of religious custom which brings God into it. They both exploit and destroy animals, innocent victims whose care the culprits have been entrusted with, in order to further the culprits’ selfish interests. However, an argument could be made that God allows or even commands sacrifice but not killing itself (or even vice-versa), so we will examine each separately in the context of Scripture.

The ethical problem with eating meat, ultimately, is not a matter of what goes into someone’s mouth and digestive tract, though that is also a major problem. It is about the senseless, systematic and totally unnecessary killing of animals. This really needs to be understood from the outset, because due to the extreme compartmentalization of the mind regarding this issue, many people fail to connect the fact that the eating of animal flesh must always and necessarily be preceded by the killing or maiming of an animal. So, technically, it is not so much the actual eating of meat which is offensive as it is the actual act of killing animals.

However, due to the fact that anyone who has no empathy for the animals can only possibly see it from his own perspective, and that anyone who does have empathy does not need to be told it is wrong, our consideration will be directed to what it does to the culprit himself, and what the choice to eat meat says about the culprit in terms of his spiritual constitution. (This is also convenient, as it is also how the matter is approached in Scripture.) For it is not the act of sinning itself, but the predisposition to sin and the satisfaction a person takes in his sin that makes him an unrepentant sinner.

Any sinful act becomes more offensive by virtue of the sinner’s refusal to acknowledge the consequences of his behavior. In order to be eating meat, one has necessarily pronounced a death sentence on an animal, if only retroactively. He is therefore no less responsible for the death of that creature than the one who held the knife or pushed the button to end it.

In the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses, the one offering the sacrifice had to put his hand on the head of the animal as the priest held the knife in order for it to be a proper sacrifice, which is to say, a highly personal and emotional affair, and to ensure the consciousness of sin set in the way it was supposed to. The fact that a man can now eat meat from an animal he never even met (much less raised himself), produced by a highly industrialized killing and packaging process, which creates the impression that the product for sale was not even a living soul before, means it is not a sin of passion, but of premeditation. Whether or not he holds the knife that makes the kill is irrelevant to the fact that he has willed, and therefore brought about, the death of the creature he intends to consume. This is the core of the offense.

As Christians, we are called to be loving and compassionate, to be peaceful and kind. How, then, can any Christian claim to be embodying these virtues, or even trying to, when he chooses to cause other creatures to suffer and die unnecessarily on a daily basis, and for the sole reason of mere habit? In truth, the answer to this inquiry ought to stop here, as its answer ought to be obvious. The necessity of going much further in order to also address every possible objection to an answer which is inevitable is merely proof of the lengths to which the human mind which has succumbed to error and sin will go to rationalize its behavior. In order to fully address them, the fundamental questions we must answer are:

  1. “Have humans ever, anywhere, been granted license to kill and consume animals?” And so we must cover the nature of dominion (what is the nature of the rule which humans have been given over the planet) and whether we have been prohibited from killing in general, or from murder only, as well as how murder is classified and distinguished from killing (whether it applies to animals in the context of Scripture, or just to humans).
  2. “Are there exceptions and, if so, what are they?” This would include both individual cases and broad perspectives of killing in Scripture which could support an argument in favor of making exceptions while still adhering to the rule.
  3. “How do issues covered in the Bible affect us today, and how do they represent God’s will for us, here and now?”

 

It is certainly the case, and Christians will readily admit, that men were never given license to eat meat prior to the Flood. In fact, the fact that they were doing so is ultimately what caused it, as we shall see. However, as Genesis 6:6 says that God “repented” of putting us here, it could be inferred that he changed his mind and lowered the bar for us after the Flood, so that what had been the very cause of his anger and remorse was no longer regarded as sinful by him. This is obviously not in keeping with the rest of Scripture, wherein God is never depicted as having any tolerance for sin, especially to the point that he changes his own rules in order to accommodate men’s desires to sin (as opposed to forgiving them when there is repentance), but it is still by far the best argument which meat-eating Christians ever use because it broadens the scope by implying that God was angry for Man’s other sins, rather than the sins of violence and adultery in particular.

The same context (6:3) has God declaring that the lifespan of mankind would be limited to 120 years (the upper limit, on average, according to Psalm 90:10, is 80, but this is obviously for sinners; only the righteous live to 120).20 So we need to consider that if we are not living that long, we may not be doing what God intended. In other words, even if we have indeed been granted license, we have far exceeded it. This is already evident in Psalm 90:10, where it is stated that “the days of our lives are seventy years.” This seeming discrepancy is made all the more curious in that Moses, while widely acknowledged as the author of Genesis, is also credited with writing Psalm 90 (the only psalm attributed to him, in fact). The implication is that Moses clearly knew that the Israelites were living far short of the limitations imposed by God, and that this was due to their proclivity to sin. In light of the testimony that the strictly vegetarian Essenes often lived to be over 100 years old (we will examine this later), and the fact that Moses himself died at the age of 120, this implies not only that Moses himself was a vegetarian, but also that his statement in Psalm 90:10 identifies the consumption of meat as a significant cause of a significantly shortened lifespan. The context of Numbers 11 (discussed later) leaves little room for doubt about either of these points.

Of course, it will be objected that meat-eaters can live relatively long lives, too, but this supposes either that eating animal proteins does not cause terminal diseases such as atherosclerosis, leading to heart disease, and cancer proliferation, leading to metastasis—which it certainly does—or else that proliferation would not still occur at the same rate before the Flood as after, because otherwise it still would have killed you after the same amount of time from the point of initiation, if your diet was the same. Of course, people are exposed to more carcinogens now, as well as eating meat, but the point is still the same: once you have cancerous cells and they start to replicate due to your dietary habits, you only have a certain (and relatively short, by the 120-year standard) amount of time to live unless you reverse the tumor growth by changes to your diet. The only safe diet, therefore, is one which is free from carcinogens (particularly meat—there were no cigarettes and soft drinks in the ancient world, that we know of) and anything which facilitates tumor growth (particularly milk and dairy, but also meat and eggs). This is especially true for people who are designed to live longer than we can expect to, which includes our ancestors. (For more on this subject, as well as our response to the objection that meat-eaters can have long lives, see Appendix A.13.)

It is true that our bodies are able to process a significant amount of toxins without immediately dying. Still, it should give us some idea of just how toxic our environment has become since the Flood, when previously people routinely lived past 500, and the righteous ones to nearly 1000, whereas now the declared limit is 120, and most people are doing well to reach two-thirds of that. Rather than believing that God magically changed the limit on human lifespans, it makes far more sense to suppose that environmental changes (decreased oxygen supply, increased UV radiation, nutrient deficient soil, etc.) are responsible, and that in either case, the main reason people have not lived out their natural lifespans is the same, in relatively equal proportion.

This again suggests that the reason for short lifespans has nothing to do with an inherent frailty of the human body and everything to do with our failure to give it the conditions it needs to prosper. Some of these effects have accumulated over thousands of years and cannot be directly altered by any individual, but those factors which can be altered are those which most humans have shown no great inclination to care for, and in fact a hostile disposition aimed at defending one’s destructive habits which further inclines them toward death. Can we really say, then, that God has been unjust or even capricious (as opposed to benevolent and wise) in imposing the safeguards he has against extended human lifespans, which would simply lead to more rampant sin and destruction? Surely, if we try to see things from a perspective not our own, it should be immediately apparent that God’s benevolence applied to the rest of his creation requires that he would act this way.

At the very least, it will be understood that the diseases caused by eating flesh result in premature death in comparison with a natural human lifespan, even if it is not recognized as the cause. Yet there can be no doubt that flesh itself is death, and our language even reflects it. For instance, the word for ‘body’ in Latin (as in the “body of Christ,” used in the Latin liturgy of the Roman Catholic Mass) is corpus, from which we get ‘corpse.’ The word for ‘meat’ is carnis, rendered carne in Spanish. Carne means both ‘meat’ and ‘flesh’—there is no distinguishing between ‘flesh’ and ‘food that is flesh’ in Spanish like there is in English. In fact, this difference only found its way into English (itself a relatively young language) relatively recently.

The word we use to denote ‘food that is flesh’ is obviously ‘meat.’ It may come as a surprise, but when ‘meat’ was originally incorporated into our lexicon as ‘mete,’ it meant ‘food’ (solid food in particular), and never denoted any kind of flesh. The Authorized Version of the Bible (the KJV), first published in 1611, is generally credited with the establishment of modern English, and by citing it, we can plainly see how the word ‘meat’ (‘meate’ in the 1611 KJV) means ‘food,’ even in modern English, and even in the Bible, despite later inferences and additions to both based solely on the cultural norms which have developed due to laziness in regards to word associations and exactness of speech.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? Matthew 25:34-37

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Genesis 1:29-30

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Genesis 9:3

From this alone it is evident that bread, fruit and a flesh were all regarded as “meat” 400 years ago. The Hebrew word for ‘meat’ in these passages from Genesis is אכלה (‘ôklâh, H402), which always and only ever means ‘food’ (not ‘flesh’) or ‘fuel’ (as in ‘firewood’). This is quite distinct from מטעמים (maṭ‘ammîm, H4303), another “meat” word signifying a savory dish or delicacy. All uses of maṭ‘ammîm (and most of the uses of its root) are the 5 instances in Genesis 27 which refer explicitly to a meal carefully prepared from an animal carcass. Though the rarest, this is the only word which is properly translated as ‘meat’ by the modern understanding (that is, flesh in the place of food, but to the exclusion of food), but even then, the translators attach “savory,” so that we are reminded of how delicious dead animal remains are.

Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat [מטעמים, maṭ‘ammîm], that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death. Genesis 27:7

Other words that are translated as “meat” in the KJV signify things other than animal flesh, particularly מנחה (minkhâh, H4503) and לחם (lekhem, H3899). Minkhâh is translated as “meat offering,” though it is easily inferred from Leviticus 6 that it actually refers to a donation or voluntary tribute of grain, so a rendering of ‘meat offering’ is archaic and obsolete to the modern understanding. Lekhem, exemplified by Leviticus 22 here, is defined by Strong’s as “food (for man or beast), especially bread, or grain (for making it) … bread … food, fruit, loaf, meat, victuals.” Compare each of these uses to the use of klâh (‘ôklâh) in Chapter 25 to denote plant-foods, just as Genesis 1 employs it to denote garden foods.

And this is the law of the meat offering [מנחה, minkhâh]: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar. And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD. And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. Leviticus 6:14-17

But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat [לחם, lekhem]. Leviticus 22:11

But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land. And the sabbath of the land shall be meat [כלה, klâh] for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee, And for thy cattle, and for the beast that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be meat [כלה, klâh]. Leviticus 25:4-7

Who cut up mallows by the bushes, and juniper roots for their meat [לחם, lekhem]. Job 30:4

My meat [לחם, lekhem] also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou hast even set it before them for a sweet savour: and thus it was, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 16:19

So we see that “meat” in the KJV really has the connotation of ‘daily bread,’ especially considering that it does not just designate bread, but several Hebrew words which are used for different types of food, or whatever is eaten on a daily basis, as well as oils and sweeteners. This is exactly how ‘meat’ was originally understood, before it became associated with flesh (i.e. before flesh was substituted for food as a staple of diet). How it came to be so exclusive when it originally had such a broad meaning, if not because of a trend initiated by meat-eaters who fed their bloodlust to the point that they ceased regarding actual food as actual food, we can only speculate at. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the vocabulary of the English language is not nearly as deficient as it was 400 years ago, and the broadest term for food became associated with flesh, because other foods all already had names but flesh did not, because flesh denotes something which is not food (at least not for herbivores).

In any case, besides these four, there are a few other Hebrew words which are rendered as “meat” in the KJV. Perhaps the most relevant to us is מאכל (ma’ăkâl, H3978), defined by Strong’s as “an eatable (including provender, flesh and fruit): food, fruit … meat, victual.” The context of Deuteronomy 20 demonstrates how this “meat” is actually fruit. While it is not used to denote animal flesh in Deuteronomy, it is used to denote human flesh—as food for animals! In contrast, notice also that this word for ‘fruit’ meant not just “meat” to Bible-readers in 1611, but “medicine,” as well.

When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat [מאכל, ma’ăkâl], thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued. Deuteronomy 20:19-20

And thy carcase shall be meat [מאכל] unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. Deuteronomy 28:26

The LORD hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat [מאכל] for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast laboured. Isaiah 62:8

And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat [מאכל], whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat [מאכל], and the leaf thereof for medicine. Ezekiel 47:12

Other words that are translated as ‘meat’ in the KJV include אכילה (‘ăkı̂ylâh, H396), אכל (ōkel, H400) and τροφή (trophē, G5160). The first two simply denote food, while the last signifies “nourishment (literally or figuratively); by implication rations (wages): food, meat.” In their respective contexts, both of these connote ‘medicine,’ just like ma’ăkâl, and neither is used to denote flesh (though the Matthew 3:4 context requires an explanation, which we will cover later).

And as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat. And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again. And the angel of the LORD came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee. And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat [אכילה, ‘ăkı̂ylâh] forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God. 1 Kings 19:5-8

And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat [τροφή, trophē] was locusts and wild honey. Matthew 3:4

The most obvious association between flesh and food in the Bible is Psalm 78, where ōkel is used disparagingly to signify flesh. The KJV accentuates the difference between flesh and food when it contrasts this instance of flesh being equated with food (ōkel) against manna, the “bread from heaven,” by referring to the former as “meat” and the latter as the “food” of angels, unlike all the other types of “meat” which we have already seen used in their contexts to describe food for humans. Moreover, the Hebrew words here are lekhem, which, as we know, basically equates with ‘bread,’21 and צידה (tzêḏāh, H6720), which means ‘provisions.’ The implication is that even where flesh is actually associated with food (meat), it is sinful, whereas the bread for which it has been substituted is nourishment that is fit for angels.

And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat [אכל, ōkel] for their lust. Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation: Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven, and had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven. Man did eat angels’ food [אכל, ōkel]: he sent them meat [צידה, tzêḏāh] to the full. Psalm 78:18,22-25

From all this it is plainly evident that “meat” means ‘food’—not ‘flesh’—in the KJV (and in the English language, prior to its evolution to accommodate the unnatural practice of eating flesh), and that if it is understood as the latter when it is read, then it is producing a misunderstanding. So we can see how theological arguments about the morality of eating flesh need to be better informed than simply pulling a passage out of the KJV (or any other translation) if they are to have any validity whatsoever. That said, now consider that the translators have been less than honest even where the word ‘meat’ is used to denote bread, and they cannot therefore be entrusted with the means of settling this dispute one way or the other; Matthew 15:37 is the best example, as “meat” is simply inserted where it does not belong, even if ‘meat’ is understood as ‘bread’ or ‘food.’ (The Greek reads only klasmáton, or ‘fragments.’)

And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat [κλασμάτων, klasmáton] that was left seven baskets full. Matthew 15:37

In summary, flesh is not even considered food in the Bible, and the application of the word ‘meat’ to rotting flesh was not originally made in modern English, and has only come about since the original publication of the KJV. In fact, this is true of practically all Western languages. More disturbingly, those words which have been adapted into the modern European languages to signify flesh-eating typically derive from cannibalistic practices. (This is also true of English to some degree.)

At least one modern author has made a historical association between cannibalism and the word ‘barbecue.’ In Cannibals and Kings, Marvin Harris writes, “The word ‘barbecue’ has an interesting history. It comes from the Carib word barbricot. The Caribs—whence the word ‘cannibal’—used the barbricot, a grill made of green boughs, to prepare their cannibal feasts.”22

One might object that in “civilized” nations, only animals are cooked on barbecues, but this is to evade the question at hand, which is whether this act is civilized at all. It is agriculture which is the foundation of civilization, while killing animals and feasting on their flesh is historically a nomadic enterprise, traditionally associated with desperation and starvation, due either to a lack of ability to build a civilization in the first place, or to harsh environmental conditions. If nothing else, one might consider that the etymological origins of the word suggest the precise association that God has with the act. After all, one could argue that eating human flesh is more natural to humans than eating nonhuman animal flesh is; given its composition, it is certainly healthier than the many alternatives.

In fact, anyone who wants to invoke an argument from nutrition to defeat the moral arguments against killing is shooting himself in the foot if he overlooks that the only sources of animal proteins which are actually ideal for human consumption are the ones he refuses to consume: human flesh, human breast milk, and other human bodily discharges. If we are going to live in a society which has so little regard for morality that eating animals is perfectly acceptable, and arguments from nutrition are even created and repeated en masse in favor of it, motivated purely by self-interest, then to abstain from the flesh and bodily discharges of humans and human corpses, which are rather easy to come by, as meat-eaters die every single day—this is sheer hypocrisy. It is so obvious that given enough time, our “civilized” society will recognize this fact and use the very same logic to arrive at the conclusion that we should be eating each other, though the expenses of human farming will effectively reserve it for an elite class. Perhaps it is not too much to suggest that what we are discussing has already been a reality for several centuries: or did you think the “vampire” mythos of popular culture just spawned out of nowhere but the mind of Bram Stoker? If so, then we would like to know just what it is you think goes on behind closed doors in the Vatican (the human sacrifice ritual at Bohemian Grove has already been exposed), why there are so many missing children in America, and why haemophilia, formerly called “the royal disease,” affects so many of the European nobility, who are themselves even descendants of the part-time cannibal whom Stoker modeled his Dracula after.

But before we digress any further into idle speculation, we acknowledge that most people are not consciously cannibals. Without a doubt, meat-eaters do consume trace amounts of human flesh, human blood, human skin and human hair, but only the most depraved do so consciously, and this does not include the large majority, because even for wantonly wicked men, there is a difference in kind, mentally, between eating an animal and cannibalism. Those who do it do so as part of an initiation into their cult; the practice is designed to destroy their conscience and their empathy for others. It is to this empathy and to conscience that we make our final appeal to the common man who is not so far removed from God’s grace as this, but first, we must appeal to the logical center and debunk the widespread notion that the diet which is one degree removed from cannibalism is what is best for our bodies.

First of all, there is something to be said for eating the same thing every day, if you think your body needs it. This would be preferable to not getting sufficient quantities of the item in question, which would be tantamount to malnourishment. Dietary fads—all dietary fads—are counterproductive to health, because they entail deprivation of something that your body actually needs. Most are aimed at achieving weight loss, because the types of people who go on temporary diets are the types who are concerned with their appearance but not their health, but the very idea behind weight loss as equating to health (even in terms of healthy appearance) is subjective, and offset by the common (and rather absurd) association between thin bodies and poor health. The way to look healthy is to be healthy, and the way to be healthy is to eat right all the time, not just when you are trying to fit into a bikini long enough to attract a mate. The idea that you can do something temporarily to achieve a certain physical state begs the question of why you would not do it routinely, if that state is indeed something you aspire to.

However, eating the wrong things long-term, when the decision to do so has been made by way of the recent publication of nutritional advice from people with no credentials in medicine and no knowledge of nutrition, still constitutes a faddist diet. The word ‘diet’ itself implies long-term commitment, and the faddism element is self-apparent, especially where it concerns the formation of cults to reinforce the misinformation and propaganda views, which is a regular phenomenon, if only because it helps to generate more sales of books and tickets for speaking engagements, but especially considering that it appeals to stupid people with common interests who tend to congregate into social networks, anyway. (Just go to any gym and pay attention to how many times you hear the word ‘paleo’ being thrown around.) The fact that such long-term dieting fads exist is that there is some measure of recognition that people are not eating right; the reason they die is that they do not produce the purported results, because they are based on misinformation rather than quantifiable facts, and on anecdotal sources rather than clinical research. For example, a generation ago, it was common for high school athletes to crack a few chicken eggs and guzzle them down in a glass before training or before a sporting event, because it was thought that eggs are healthy, but now athletes know better.

The underlying reason all dietary fads (including Rick Warren’s Daniel Plan) do not work is that they are based on one or more of the following false premises: that the health of any given human (unlike every other animal known to Man) is optimal when he eats something other than his natural diet (not that anyone following any dietary fad actually cares about what is optimal, short of the small percentage of people who train or participate in endurance sports, but lip service is typically rendered as part of the feel-good process of the façade of self-improvement); that he will achieve healthy weight loss by deviating from this natural diet (as opposed to temporary, unhealthy weight loss from malnutrition, which is the common feature of yo-yo dieting attempts); that the human body looks more appealing (to the opposite sex) when it is malnourished than when it is fed a natural diet (and malnourishment is not a matter of not eating enough, but of eating the wrong things—we can hardly stress this enough: the mal in ‘malnourishment’ is Latin for ‘evil’); or that what matters most for healthy weight loss is caloric intake (as opposed to what is being eaten) or even the type of calories, when consideration is given to proteins as better sources than carbohydrates. That is not to say that all dietary fads are aimed at temporary weight control (this is more the case for short-term diet plans), but they are still based either on one of these premises, or else on a false argument about what is natural and healthy to the human body.

If you stop and think about it, this is all quite remarkable, as human health really ought to be a matter of common sense by now. In the modern age, science and philosophy together have advanced well beyond the parameters of understanding available to even the most recently celebrated savants like Newton and Einstein, so that virtually anyone with a university-level education can claim more knowledge than these distinguished fellows. Even so, when it comes to dieting and nutrition, everyone thinks himself an expert, though the vast majority of people demonstrate by their eating habits alone, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they do not have even a basic comprehension of what is healthy (nutrition), much less of the mechanics of the human body (biology/medicine). Many will argue in support of dietary fads against people who have objectively studied these subjects for years, from a position of sheer ignorance and plain contradiction of well-established clinical research. To make matters worse, they will even get offended if you point out their incompetence to fully account for the most relevant data, though you happen to be a board-certified physician, or, as in the notable case of one student blogger’s challenge of T. Colin Campbell, the most accomplished and renowned epidemiologist in the world, with half a century of research and firsthand knowledge of thousands of clinical studies to draw on for support.

What is the natural, healthy human diet, really? This is a matter of objective fact, and therefore true science, rather than the kind of conventional wisdom that goes behind a dietary fad. Our inclination is to simply defer to those who are up to the challenge, and whose credentials warrant credibility. Yet for some reason (that reason being what the Bible refers to as the “spirit of error”), that has already shown itself not to be enough. People need persuasion, and it is more than safe to say that anyone who eats animals and thinks it is in his best interest to do so is either inclined to self-termination, or else so ignorant of every detail of the process that he has not made his decision consciously, but out of social indoctrination and continuance of habits he developed as a child, due to bad parenting. What he needs is to hear what his Creator has to say about it; he needs the Bible.

Far be it from God to not even tell us how we ought to eat, when our very lives depend upon it, and we do find more than enough evidence in the Bible to demonstrate its utility to this end. In virtually every instance, the prophets’ message is delivered as a dire warning against eating animal flesh, because that, more than anything, greatly offends the Almighty—though in many cases the warning of what not to eat is accompanied by an exhortation to eat other things, while in yet others, the latter stands alone. The most consistent aspect that we find in all of these admonitions and exhortations is that it is indeed God who commands us, lest it ever be forgotten that this is not a matter of dietary fads, food taste preferences or some other transient issue.

יהוה brings the counsel of the nations to naught;
He thwarts the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of יהוה stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations.
Psalm 33:10-11

“I have let Myself be inquired of, not by those who asked; I was found, not by those who sought Me. I said, ‘Here I am, here I am,’ to a nation not calling on My Name. I have held out My hands all day long to a stubborn people, who walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; the people who provoke Me continually to My face, who slaughter in gardens, and burn incense on altars of brick; who sit among the graves, and spend the night in secret places, who eat flesh of pigs, and the broth of unclean meat is in their pots, who say, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am set-apart to you!’ These are smoke in My nostrils, a fire that burns all day. See, it is written before Me: I am not silent, but shall repay, and I shall repay into their bosom, your crookednesses and the crookednesses of your fathers together,” said יהוה, “who burned incense on the mountains and reproached Me on the hills. And I shall measure their former work into their bosom.” Isaiah 65:1-7

It ought to be clear enough just from this that God does not approve of people eating animal flesh, yet this is a relatively tame rant; we have not even scratched the surface of the depths of his fury over the issue. One would like to think that the Bible could be used to inform Christians about objective truths such as that the Bible itself holds views expressly contrary to their own, the same way it is routinely used to spread their self-generated falsehoods, but in our experience, Christians are no more likely to regard what the Bible has to say on the subject of what we ought to be eating with any more credibility than atheists. This is exactly why the Bible’s position is so controversial, why it has never been expressed before, and why it needs saying now. To say that they have not made a mockery of it is to suggest that the Bible is not mocked by those who have heard what Christians have had to say and found it to be ridiculous.

We all know that Christianity has experienced a lot of criticism in recent decades, but few are willing to accept that the reason for this is that the religion as a whole is a mockery of God, and of the holy book which it claims to profess, and therefore a blatant self-contradiction at every level. It is no longer even the case that Christians have the moral high ground, so that they can appeal to prospective converts to join their ranks as a social club for do-gooders. This is not because Christianity only appeals to those who wish to live morally, but because it is extremely unappealing—even downright despicable and deplorable—to the same. If someone of a moral disposition happens to join the cult, it is in spite of this fact, perhaps with the understanding that although the standard of righteousness is the Messiah, no Christian will ever even so much as presume to want to live up to it, but the convert will not be actively suppressed in his desire to do good, so long as he stays within the prescribed bounds, beyond which he will inevitably be ostracized, as all before him have been.

Consider that Richard Dawkins, the world’s foremost pundit of atheism, has publicly expressed a desire that everyone would be vegetarian.23 While this may just amount to grounds for criticism as a hypocrite (as of the date of this press release, he was not a vegetarian himself, but said “I would like to be,” as though there was something preventing him), the same is far truer of non-vegetarian Christians who publicly profess a desire to see God’s will accomplished and then do everything they can to prevent the same. Even with the low standard of Dawkins’ hypocrisy, the religion which he espouses and represents still manages to wrest the moral high ground from Christianity. So if a morally-inclined person is giving consideration to which of the two religions is more suited to his personal preferences based on its moral virtues alone, then atheism will be seen as preferable to Christianity. Indeed, that is how it is seen by many people who do not realize that modern, mainstream Christianity is not representative of the Bible, or of a biblical world view.

Consider again that Bill Clinton, infamous for his unfettered gluttony and carnism while he was US President, as well as his sexual escapades in the White House, his pathological lying even under Congressional investigation, and his warmongering policies, including more troop deployments than every other US President before him put together (except for Roosevelt during World War Two) and the bombing of civilian residential areas in Serbia and elsewhere—became a vegan in 2009. This man, who is infamous on numerous accounts of depraved morality, and for evidently having no sense of accountability, is an extreme sociopath, and cares about the welfare of nonhuman animals even less than he does of humans. This decision was made purely out of self-interest, upon the recommendations of his doctors (the very best that money can buy) after operations to prevent his imminent death from heart disease caused him to take his health seriously. Now he campaigns to save lives by creating nutrition awareness in schools, to the shame of all the “pro-life” meat-eating Christians who voted against him for moral reasons.24

Children need enough food, the right kind of food, to grow and develop their bodies and their brains. When I had all these heart problems, I realized that all of this was totally unexamined. Bill Clinton25

 

 

 

If it is not sad enough that a man like Bill Clinton can be shown to get into the kingdom of heaven ahead of most Christians (and to be fair, he will not get there just from adopting a plant-based diet without actually becoming a vegan, which is something quite different), those among the mainstream Christian clergy that have been setting the precedent in recent years have also been some of the most notoriously morally-depraved, similar to the likes of Dawkins and Clinton. The openly-racist “reverend” Al Sharpton is one: as of October 2013, Sharpton said he had lost 167 pounds since adopting a mostly plant-based diet, consisting mainly of bread, with a salad and a banana for lunch, in 2009. Note well, Christians: the transformation was so dramatic that he had to put down speculations that he had undergone gastric bypass surgery, claiming that it was “all mental,” that he wanted to prove to himself that food did not have power over him.26

 

 

 

 

Likewise, Christian mega-church minister Rick Warren, who is the same age as Sharpton, as well as the author of Purpose Driven Life and Purpose Driven Church, which sit at the heart of the controversial “prosperity theology” canon, says he was looking at his congregation while delivering a sermon and thought, “Man, we’re all fat. … I’m fat, too. I’m a terrible example.” This led him to encourage his 15,000-member congregation to cut back on meat. Following the “Daniel Plan” diet, his congregation lost 17 pounds per member the first time around, though Warren himself had to do it a second time because much of the excess bodyfat returned once he resumed his carnism. We give Warren credit for at least learning what the lesson is that he needs to learn, albeit that he made no less egocentric an inference as that which Clinton’s ailing health afforded him: “God made my body. It is a gift. I’m supposed to take good care of it.”27

Unfortunately, Warren’s concession does not amount to repentance—only a publicity stunt to feign “devotion to God” in order to help him sell another book and make a few more millions—and he says you do not even have to be a vegetarian to follow it, which is a rather striking contradiction of the name he has given to it. Still, incompetence at applying the mandates of all Scripture aside, at least Warren was able to infer that the prophet Daniel’s decision to keep to his vegetarian diet in the face of certain death (more on this later) serves as a good example for Christians to imitate, if only for 40 days. As meager as that is, it is still 40 days of less to account for on Judgment Day; this effectively puts him somewhere behind Clinton and Sharpton, but ahead of most other Christians in the kingdom of heaven line. If he or they hope to advance, we suggest that after reading the present book and learning that it is not his weight that makes him a terrible example, but his proclivity to sin in general, Warren should set the example to his congregation and all other mainstream Christians by repenting, which means not sinning anymore, including going on a permanent, strictly vegetarian diet, and calling it the Bible Plan.

While it is still a treasure trove of wisdom, as Warren and a few of his flock have apparently recently discovered, we certainly do not need the Bible to inform us about science, except perhaps to correct a few mistaken assumptions about our history which are obviously unscientific anyway. Limiting ourselves to the kinds of extremely antiquated euphemisms for natural phenomena which we find in Scripture destroys the possibility of it serving any practical benefit to us in that regard. Furthermore, the Bible was intended by its authors to be used this way for our benefit, not to be callously discarded in the name of religious dogmas that contradict it. Overcoming this same blind submission to evil authorities right here in this world, in this life, so that we can establish the kingdom of heaven on Earth, is exactly what Yahshuah said he came into this world to facilitate.

For this is good and acceptable before Elohim [‘the Mighty,’ God] our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one Elohim, and one Mediator between Elohim and men, the Man Messiah יהושע, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be witnessed in its own seasons. 1 Timothy 2:3-6

Are we contending that veganism is the true gospel of Christ, to be testified in due time? Certainly not, though that is also certainly a major part of it; the true gospel of Christ is compassion, and there is no one in this world more in need of compassion than the billions of animals presently suffering and dying at the hands of wicked men. The main point here is that it is God who is our lord and savior, as the very name of Yahshuah explicitly indicates, and not Jesus or any other person. So, at the very least, we make a mockery of God, and of Yahshuah, and of the entire message of the Bible, if we pretend like we are “saved” by accepting Jesus into our hearts (whatever that means) or the Eucharist into our mouths, but continue to go on sinning without even making an effort to desist. This is what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, for the “Holy Spirit” (or Spirit of Set-apartness) is far more rightly defined as the spirit of veganism than as its antithesis, the spirit of Antichrist, or ecumenical Christianity.

This should not come as a surprise. If the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ and the spirit of truth, then the spirit of Antichrist must, by definition, be its opposite, the spirit of falsehood which imposes itself over the spirit of truth. (We will see this plainly when it comes to the discussion of the atonement doctrine of mainstream Christianity and how it has so grievously destroyed both the letter and the spirit of the Law.) The gospel which Christ himself singularly and consistently commanded his disciples to preach was the “remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven,” yet this gospel is expressly forbidden from being discussed in every church, because it contradicts the gospel of the churches, which is blind obedience to their authority, particularly when it comes to their capacity to forgive sins in the name of Christ and of God, which is the basis of the sacrificial system, and of the mental enslavement of billions of Christians, and therefore of their own ignorance, sin and spiritual death.

I marvel that you are so readily turning away from Him who called you in the favour of Messiah, to a different ‘Good News,’ which is not another, only there are some who are troubling you and wishing to pervert the Good News of Messiah. However, even if we, or a messenger out of heaven, bring a ‘Good News’ to you beside what we announced to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone brings a ‘Good News’ to you beside what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or Elohim? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I should not be a servant of Messiah. Galatians 1:6-10

Blind devotion to the Church’s lies can only result in laziness rather than zeal, apathy rather than empathy, apostasy rather than perseverance, immorality rather than piety, and servitude rather than freedom. These are the things which the Bible condemns, over and over again. They are also the things which the Church condones, and why we are encouraged to sit in a pew and be brainwashed before we drop our tithe into the plate, instead of bringing any message to the public other than the tired dogma that we are all sinners and that Jesus died for our sins. It really ought to be taken for granted that the wolves in sheep’s clothing that we have been warned about are the ones benefitting from this imposture, rather than the ones who have nothing to gain personally from detracting from it, yet somehow Christians have been convinced that the more you resemble Christ in word and deed, the more damnable you are, while the better dressed (the more fake) and more affluent (the less humble) you are, and the more you tolerate a multitude of worldly vices while having nothing useful to say in regards to Scripture, the more God is pleased with you.

The Church is not God’s representative on Earth, in any sense. We have just seen that 1 Timothy 2:5 declares that there is one God, and one mediator between God and men: the man Yahshuah, the Christ. If the Bible is to be taken seriously at all, then it must be recognized that he is the one anointed by God to speak on his behalf, and to wield all authority in heaven and earth in his name. To lay claim to his position in any capacity, and to be regarded as such in the minds of your followers, is to be the Antichrist. Protestant Christians would do well to remember that every one of the Reformers that they revere regarded either the Papacy or the Catholic Church itself as the veritable Antichrist, with no doubt whatsoever, and that they were not at all coy about denouncing it as such. From this position of understanding, it is only a small step to realize that the Whore’s many bastards are equally apostate, especially in the United States, where there is extensive legal documentation to formalize the agreement.28

Simply put, the Church is a corporate fiction comprised of individual humans, who, as with any other for-profit corporation or government, only get to their positions of power by acting on selfish, destructive impulses. Far from being merely fallible, the Church is inclined to sin and err, as it is far more interested in its own preservation than with anything that God may or may not have to say about anything. This is the case with every church and with every issue, not just the one we will be examining. The differences between the collective goals and personal ambitions of the board of a major pharmaceutical or agricultural firm and those of the Roman Curia are so minute that we can expect exactly the same policy decisions being enacted by either, given identical circumstances.

In the course of preparing this book, we have considered many details and many points of view, both secular and religious, including those of the Church, both past and present. They all converge on one point of fact—that the establishment is deliberately killing us and destroying the planet we live on, with all its ecosystems, in the full knowledge that it has chosen the path of evil. For the Church to even remain silent when it has awarded itself the responsibility of shepherding us all in every decision we make and in every belief we hold, is to commit billions of accounts of murder against our species alone. It is not as if no one in the Church’s hierarchy (regardless of which Church) has any idea that killing is a sin, or that eating meat causes disease and death. In fact, this is common knowledge among the world’s billion vegetarians, as well as among the world’s academic and medical professionals, and the politicians who write the laws.

Consider the real-life response to our comment relating to homeopathic treatments for cancer patients. Our comment was, “This is not a lack of information … It’s a lack of determination to point people in the right direction.” The response, from a person who works in the medical profession, was as follows: “That pretty much sums up the entirety of the medical field. It has become geared at making people feel good about doing what they do instead of telling them what they need to do to actually be healthy.”

Likewise, a physician we consulted in order to make sure we had our facts straight regarding the information in the next chapter, answered our question, “Is there something wrong with this reasoning?” with the following: I wouldn’t say that there is something wrong with this reasoning because this is exactly what the medical community needs—more thoughtful investigative work, less acceptance of status quo. The medical community as a whole is very stubborn and much like the rest of the world, they rely on ‘authority’ to pave the parameters for belief and conclusions; if we clinicians were not so repressed in this regard, we’d have a completely different world offering better advice/therapy, providing, in my opinion, a healthier way of life. Further, medical/scientific studies may be politically motivated and are usually funded via government grants anyway, which is why, on that same token, we will never see studies of how the USDA/FDA-approved foods are actually quite dangerous for human consumption.

This is exactly why the Church refuses to provide spiritual nourishment, such as would have the kingdom of heaven established on Earth in a fortnight. The status quo which the Church is so interested in preserving is the fallen state of Man—the perpetuation of the “original sin” of the Garden of Eden (of which we will have much to say). It cannot imagine a world without itself any more than Big Pharma can imagine a world without the diseases it creates, for to put an end to disease and death is to put an end to itself. We all know that the only thing that every investor, executive or board member of any given corporation cares about is the company’s bottom line: the $$$—that all kinds of evil stem from this bottom line. Why should the Church be regarded as an exception to this rule, especially given its horrendous track record, and all the warnings of Scripture?

But those wishing to be rich fall into trial and a snare, and into many foolish and injurious lusts which plunge men in ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some, by longing for it, have strayed from the belief, and pierced themselves through with many pains. 1 Timothy 6:9-10

In short, the Church cannot imagine a world without sin, and has done everything in its power to convince the world that it is impossible for any of us to be sinless, while it itself is infallible (even though it is comprised of men), when in fact it is exactly what is preventing the ideal, sinless world from becoming a reality. Again, this is a human trait, not a religious one; we cannot state emphatically enough that our experience with people in general is that they are extremely prejudiced and defensive when it comes to information about what they put in their mouths. It seems that, almost across the board, people are far more likely to choose death than to change, even when their excuses from nutritional misconceptions have been systematically debunked. So although the hedonism of the atheist and the hedonism of the Christian stem from the same source, the wanton disregard for their own spiritual and physical health is even more apparent when the Christians bring God into the picture, motivated by religious opinion and zeal, which they think trumps any rational or ethical argument that can be levied against them. In their hands, the Bible is used to destroy the truth, not to preserve it, and this is essentially the basis both for the misinterpretations of the themes contained in it, and for the discrepancies between their beliefs about what is actually contained in it, and the wording of the text itself (i.e. the mistranslations).

The hedonism and complacency behind the pious veneer of Christianity that are so plainly evident in regards to how Christians approach the question of vegetarians are evidence enough of its Satanic influence. What the prophets and apostles considered paramount, to the point that they spoke of little else, has been trivialized by the average Christian, to the point that he literally cannot comprehend the entire message of the Gospel. Scripture makes no great appeal to the way things are to be in the future, though it at times makes bold and accurate prophetic predictions, so we are mostly left to our own devices to determine what it actually means to live by faith. What it does tell us is how stringent the demands which God has placed on us are—hence the importance of obedience first and knowledge later. Viewed in the light of natural consequence, the premeditated disobedience of the average Christian explains why, though the kingdom of heaven was declared “in your midst” nearly two millennia ago, we are even further from realizing it now than we were back then. Nor are the Christians any closer to making their way into it than even the common masses—hence our comments about Dawkins and Clinton, etc.—because they have formally rejected the whole of the Law in favor of a few sound bytes which they think justify such rejection, contrary to the words of the very man who spoke them.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.” Matthew 5:17-20

In the end, what matters is not what we believe, but what we do. For that, and only that, is the measure of righteousness, by which we will be judged, and either pass or fail this test of worthiness for citizenship in a better world than the evil one we were all born into. A faith based on beliefs but not on deeds is a house built on shifting sand. If we fail to act on them, then our beliefs amount to nothing but mere superstition, and serve as the basis of nothing but hypocrisy and summary condemnation. It is true that the Bible says that all have sinned, but this is meant as a warning and an admonition, not as an immutable metaphysical axiom: Unless and until we repent, our sins will first cause us to perish; then they will cause us to be punished.

And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and the grave gave up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Revelation 20:13

It is self-apparent that the Bible’s utility for instructing us in morality lies in its position on moral uprightness, as opposed to the moral relativism of the pseudo-Christian hedonists. For if we, as Christians, are no better than the rest of the world, though we are following the instructions we have been given, then what good are they? However, the failure of Christians to meet the criteria for entry into the kingdom of heaven is not because they have not been instructed, but because they have refused to pay heed.

The way of the wrong one
Is an abomination to יהוה,
But He loves him who pursues righteousness.
Discipline is grievous to him who forsakes the way;
He who hates reproof dies.
Proverbs 15:9-10

Blessed is the man who shall not walk in the counsel of the wrong,
And shall not stand in the path of sinners,
And shall not sit in the seat of scoffers,
But his delight is in the Torah of יהוה,
And he meditates in His Torah day and night.
For he shall be as a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That yields its fruit in its season,
And whose leaf does not wither,
And whatever he does prospers.
The wrong are not so,
But are like the chaff which the wind blows away.
Therefore the wrong shall not rise in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For יהוה knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the wrong comes to naught.
Psalm 1

Praise Yah!
Blessed is the man,
Who fears יהוה,
Who has greatly delighted in His commands.
Mighty in the earth shall be his seed,
The generation of the straight ones shall be blessed.
Wealth and riches are in his house,
And his righteousness is standing forever.
Light has risen in the darkness to the straight ones,
Those showing favour,
The compassionate,
And the righteous.
Psalm 112:1-4

He who pursues righteousness and kindness
Finds life, righteousness and esteem.
Proverbs 21:21

“‘And יהוה commanded us to do all these laws, to fear יהוה our Elohim, for our good always, to keep us alive, as it is today. And it is righteousness for us when we guard to do all this command before יהוה our Elohim, as He has commanded us.’” Deuteronomy 6:24-25

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

Therefore, as chosen ones of Elohim, set-apart and beloved, put on compassion, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, and forgiving each other if anyone has a complaint against another, indeed, as Messiah forgave you so also should you. But above all these put on love, which is a bond of the perfection. Colossians 3:12-14

If you are thinking at this point that what you are reading is a polemic against mainstream Christianity, then know that that is partly true. More to the point, it is a defense of the true gospel of Christ and an exhortation, according to the exhortations of the same gospel, for Christians to stop sinning. No one ever said (in the Bible) that this is done easily or effortlessly, and we have the religious establishment to blame for this. Throughout history, the Church has identified heretics, with the intent of killing them or otherwise driving them into submission, principally by discerning their views on the question of the consumption of animal flesh. It is no coincidence that most of the fringe groups that have been identified as heretical have been vegetarian, because they generally based their lifestyles on the scriptural ideal, typically in explicit defiance of ecumenical mandates.

We realize that not every group of monastic vegetarians in history has had theologically sound doctrines, such as that they could be considered veritably Christian, and that not every member of such a group has been sinless. That is not the point we are trying to make. What we are advocating is not “Gnosticism” or some “alternative lifestyle” or religious viewpoint which might be vaguely associated with some ancient heresy in order to be casually dismissed. This common allegation actually serves to show that the average Christian is still invested in identifying heretics according to the vegetarianism rule, which means they literally go out of their way to persecute those who would live according to God’s commandments, which the Church has no interest in. (And they are indeed God’s commandments, as we will see.) What we are advocating is true Christianity, based on its true gospel (the remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven) and the spirit of its text, which, as we have said, is compassion, the basis of the ideology of nonviolence, which is inclusive of ethical vegetarianism.

Of course, the text as we have received it does not reflect its own spirit as well as we would like, and this needs to be addressed in nauseating detail in order to rebut objections from Christians on the prowl for loopholes in the Law. We know that to suggest that the present incarnation of the Bible is inadequate is to transgress the Christians’ long-established, deeply entrenched and zealously guarded beliefs, and to automatically classify oneself as wrong on principle, if not altogether damnable, in their minds. That is, to suggest that the inerrant, supremely authoritative, miraculously transmitted Word of God is anything other than the Word of God as we know it is to automatically warrant outright dismissal. So before we can move on, the common view that all manuscripts and translations of the Bible everywhere at all times have been supernaturally protected from error (which is the only conceivable way it could have remained unadulterated to any extent) must be sternly rebuked not just for its rank superstition, but ultimately for its role in elevating the doctrines of devils promulgated by the Church to the level of God’s Word, which is blasphemy on multiple levels.

A reasonable person who has not even read the Bible cover to cover (as most Christians have not, though few will admit it without having been pressed) has to at least consider the possibility that the standard Christian assertion of the Bible’s infallibility is not beyond scrutiny. It is understandable that the typical Christian would never want to question the infallibility of Scripture, because it is far more comfortable to believe that everything one needs to know about the past, present and future can be found in one book, without having to do so much as even think things through for oneself. When even the Bible becomes something that has to be examined critically, and most people are not willing or able to think for themselves in other areas, but only willing to half-heartedly accept the commands of an authority figure, whether that figure be a person standing before them or a collection of writings, such people will automatically reject any suggestion of this possibility as heretical and demonic for no better reason than to protect and preserve their fragile and entrenched world view.

On the other hand, those who seek the truth must consider the possibility that the Bible has been tampered with, because their aim, ultimately, is not to obey the commands of some worldly authority, nor even of Scripture, but to obey the commands of God alone. Indeed, the only reason that a truth seeker would even put so much faith and stock in the mandates of Scripture is that they are seen to be a faithful transmission of God’s commands, as revealed by one’s conscience. In this sense, Scripture serves as a good anchor and object of study for delineating between the dictates of conscience, and those whims we experience as the result of emotional states and societal programming. Nevertheless, neglecting to rigorously examine the supposition of its supreme authority and infallibility is a deadly trap to which one must not fall prey, lest he discover that in his fervent obedience to Scripture, he has inadvertently set his heart on disobedience to God, if only due to his misunderstanding or misapplication of Scripture. God himself, through Scripture, has set the precedent for us by telling us how we ought to go about testing it, which entails both spiritual discernment and logical analysis (critique).

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, prove them all. Hold fast what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21

When a Christian summons enough courage to consider the possibility that the Bible as it has come down to us is not inerrant (in the sense that it is free from tampering), as has typically been assumed, he finds the evidence in favor of this proposition overwhelming. Scripture itself supports this point of view, for if it were true that God has resolved to prevent Scripture from being manipulated for evil reasons, then it would not contain warnings to the contrary. It is illogical to suppose that if it were not even possible, we would still be told to look out for it—and we have indeed been told as much.

For I witness to everyone hearing the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, Elohim shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Elohim shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the set-apart city, which are written in this Book. Revelation 22:18-19

So perhaps it is time we started taking the warnings seriously, and discerning which parts needs to be examined critically. Furthermore, one can hardly believe that God has purposed to protect Scripture against alteration and falsification when we are so unwilling to remain vigilant, to the extent that his own name has been replaced with deliberate references to his nemesis Baal in nearly 7000 places in the Old Testament. This fact alone suffices to disavow any notion of God having cast some magical spell upon the pages of the Bible. If he had, there would not be so many different modern translations of it, complete with varying interpretations of the ancient manuscripts, many of which themselves contain highly significant differences from one another. Clearly, even the translators have altered the original meanings to fit their particular biases, and no one will dispute this, though they may be so naïve as to present their translation, or the establishment which has produced it, as the one and only infallible authority—if not in principle, then in practice.

More important to the question at hand is whether God would allow changes to be made to the original text of the Bible which would lead people to come to invalid conclusions about proper doctrines and ethics. As frightening as the possibility may sound to Christians who are insecure enough in their beliefs to argue otherwise, this has been proved overwhelmingly to be true. One merely needs to research textual variants in the New Testament to discover just how widespread the practice of doctoring Scripture has been, and how grave a threat it poses to the integrity of Scripture. At some point, it must be acknowledged that casual dismissal of this fact constitutes the defense not of Scripture, but of the preconceived bias which aims at detracting from it—establishing relatively new doctrines in the place of holy writ, while simultaneously pretending and usurping its authority—for this is exactly what changes to the text are designed to do, wherever the culprits could have simply devised their own writings instead of butchering and adapting what was already there.

Textual variants are critical for understanding how early Christianity was subverted, and one cannot therefore discern the truth without giving some attention to the matter, but virtually all attention has been diverted away from this important subject by heavily-biased Christians and atheists arguing over whether or not these variants demonstrate that the entire New Testament is a worthless fraud. While it is estimated that there are upwards of nearly a half million textual variants, Christian apologists are right in asserting that the vast majority of these are entirely unimportant. What they will not admit, and what gets lost in the debate with atheists who are already convinced that Christianity is bunk and who merely want to seize upon a controversial and shocking subject in order to reinforce their own preconceived beliefs, is that the minority of textual variants which are important, are so precisely because they affect matters of doctrine.

For example, it is well known that the best documented of the heated debates that transpired within early Christianity revolve around the nature of Christ: whether or not he was/is divine. These arguments did not at all lie outside the purview of the scribes who were responsible for copying the text of the New Testament. So a plethora of textual variants suffice as empirical proof (the “smoking gun”) of the deliberate alterations that these early scribes made to the texts they were copying in order to support their doctrinal beliefs, or to remove support from the doctrines they opposed by eliminating material evidence. It also stands to reason, therefore, that if we do consider the Bible to be the Word of God, then these men and the people who commissioned them to change it are the very same as those whom the scriptures have warned us about.

“For false messiahs and false prophets shall arise, and they shall show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones. See, I have forewarned you.” Matthew 24:24-25

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

“But beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are savage wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? So every good tree yields good fruit, but a rotten tree yields wicked fruit. A good tree is unable to yield wicked fruit, and a rotten tree to yield good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruits you shall know them.” Matthew 7:15-20

So despite Christian protestations to the contrary, God did not write the Bible himself, and has never promised to protect its text from tampering, but has actually warned us about it.29 Surely some readers will be tempted to casually dismiss this claim, perhaps anticipating that it constitutes a convenient crutch to be employed whenever and wherever Scripture seems to contradict the primary thesis of this book. Actually, we welcome such skepticism, as the balance of Scripture and its historical context testify to the validity of our assertions, and it is either the reader’s ignorance or his misunderstanding of these two things that have led to the conviction that our thesis cannot possibly be true. Only in certain cases, as exceptions, have we even returned to the argument that a particular reading is the result of tampering, and even then, the evidence in support of this claim has sufficiently relieved us of the burden of proof. We have not put such arguments together hastily, or in any way which would be considered unsatisfactory to a reasonable mind.

Moreover, while the application of these arguments to our particular subject matter is relatively novel, all but the most naïve/superstitious and indoctrinated of biblical scholars are on record as testifying to the existence and importance of the alterations made to Scripture. This is not an allegation or a statement of presumption, but a formal charge which has already been proved and widely accepted. We quote from a few notable scholars, whose names should be familiar to other Bible scholars, to make the point and show that it is not our own inference, especially in regards to the willful intent to demolish the integrity of Scripture by its redactors. Their motivation and the circumstances surrounding these redactions—both of which are necessary for us to establish in order to render a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt—will be apparent later on.

In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener30

It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener31

The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings. Caspar René Gregory32

It was the religious establishment in Rome which was chiefly responsible for the alterations, though the “heretics” which greatly influenced the Church (especially Cerdo, Valentinus and Marcion) were also doing it, perhaps even before the Romans picked up the habit, which they presumably got from them. Regardless of who inspired whom, these men were not considered heretics while they were doing it, but were actually some of the most powerful and influential men in the Church, having only been renounced later because they lost influence to a different political faction. Moreover, the Arians, the Church’s perennial scapegoats, did not treat the scriptures with the same contempt, so it should be fairly easy to discern whether the Arian doctrines were more in conformity with Scripture than were those of the Church.

First, it is quite erroneous to assert … that the text of the gospels bear no trace of having been altered anywhere for dogmatic or doctrinal reasons … The interpolated texts have been regularly appealed to for centuries and centuries in defence of the very doctrines in behalf of which they were inserted. Secondly, it is useless, as a rule, to look for these old texts in manuscripts, for the Church has exercised too vigilant a censorship for them to survive. Caspar René Gregory33

We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures … by Athanasius, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolations and corruption made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians. William Whiston34

The history of the construction of the Gospel accounts known to Christendom since the 2nd century is too complicated to lie within the scope of this treatise. However, considering both how controversial it is to even suggest that the Gospels have been tampered with and how critical it is to establish this point in order to explain just why modern Christianity is so antagonistic towards the paradigm of its namesake, this subject is dealt with exhaustively in our companion book Satan’s Synoptics: How the Church Desecrated the Gospel of Matthew. We encourage any Christian who dreads even considering the possibility that God’s Word has been altered syllogistically as well as typographically, much less that these acts have been perpetrated in order to establish the foundation of the Christian religion, to read this companion book before proceeding with the present study. Even those who are not thoroughly invested in the belief that mainstream Christianity is a faithful transmission of Yahshuah’s teachings would do well to study Satan’s Synoptics in order to appreciate just what lengths the enemies of Christ have gone to so as to prevent his teachings from spreading.

What all of the preceding demonstrates is that while the revelation of mysteries and metaphysical truths has always been the handiwork of an exceedingly small number of individuals, the creation of religions as personality cults focused on worshipping such individuals while ignoring their teachings has always been the work of an oligarchy purposing to materially benefit from such revelations, robbing the masses of the power that would otherwise be derived from understanding and applying them. Only carefully inculcated and doctrinally insulated naivety convinces Christians that their religion is any different than any others in this regard. It does not take a genius to realize that Christianity as it exists today was founded not by its namesake, nor by his designated successors, but by a religious elite which put its own wrappings on the paradigm espoused by Christ so as to benefit itself in perpetuity, which could only even be accomplished by subverting said paradigm. This should not be so surprising: religions have always been controlled by an elite class for the purpose of benefiting themselves, and only in rare cases has this class simultaneously wielded its power to benefit, rather than subjugate, those entrusted to its care.

Far from being silent on this matter, after the general criticism of eating flesh, this is the second-most oft-repeated criticism in the prophetic (the main) portion of the Bible. So often we see that the sheep have gone astray, but it is usually in the context of a rant against the shepherds. A good example of this and how it pertains to the main subject of meat-eating (associated here with idolatry) is Isaiah 3:12, where “women” symbolizes ‘emotions’ (and those prone to them, particularly of the male gender), and “children” stands for ‘idols’ (and those who lack the intellect to realize that they ought not to worship them).

“My people! Youths exert pressure on them, and women rule over them. O My people! Your leaders lead you astray, and swallow the way of your paths.” Isaiah 3:12

How it works is like this: People become emotional over something, and they think that means “the Holy Spirit” has told them something. They then give themselves over to their emotions, so that they are ruled by them. The children, which is to say, the things which they produce, having become “one flesh” with their emotions, become those things which bind them to their emotional states, and which become the objects and means of their oppression. In terms of the incident which the Bible records as having taken place in the Garden of Eden, the woman (the desire) was cursed with the will to rule over the man (the reality), but being instead ruled by him, because the serpent (representing her disobedience) had become her head. In the same way, and using the same language, the offspring of the adulterous union, Cain, was cursed with having sin crouching at his door, desiring to rule over him—and Cain himself was the curse and the oppressor, as he first brought shame to his mother, and then murdered her own son.

Much of the Bible is written this way, with multiple meanings for any given passage, upon which many inferences can easily be made, and some, though intended, not so easily. We might infer from the passage in Isaiah that that which comes from you is that which keeps you captive, the implication being that in order to be free, we must give it up. The child is the idea, the theology, the religious doctrine that Man has created. Men create these doctrines and ideologies, and feed them, care for them, and watch them grow like children, and then become slaves to them. Thus, their children are their oppressors.

The woman represents religion, and the seduction of ideas which seem pleasing at first glance, but are inwardly wrought with confusion and bring trouble. She also represents the heart of Man and the desire in mankind. If the desire of a man’s heart rules over him, such as the cravings for a certain kind of food, then it is not God who rules over him. By forming certain doctrines or theologies in order to have the desire of his heart (which is ultimately himself), he creates, with the ruling woman, the children who oppress him—the abominations that lead us to shame and destruction. We often use the word “temptation” to describe any proclivity to sin, but this does not convey the concept well, as it implies that the will to sin is external, and that we are being courted or cajoled, when in fact it is simply an indication of the desire to be rebellious. This is how the words “women,” “fornication” and “children” are used, for example, in the Book of Enoch, especially Chapter 10.

So with the understanding that the purpose of most religions is not to communicate truth or to facilitate mankind’s spiritual freedom and enlightenment, but rather to construct a system of beliefs that will be acceptable to as many people as possible, in order that it may be used to control them, it ought to be apparent that vegetarianism could never have been tolerated by the creators of Christianity as we now know it. To this day, vegetarianism is still considered a form of asceticism (extreme self-denial), and this viewpoint would have been even more fervent some 2000 years ago, considering that people back then did not have all the diversions that we do to keep themselves busy. Their idea of a good time was splurging on “good” food (i.e. meat—there was not a whole lot to choose from in the Roman world, and they did not have freezers and ocean freighters to haul cargo from distant locations), as well as going to orgies, gyms, bath houses, and various forms of entertainment at amphitheaters and arenas. This was about all the urban citizenry could look forward to, and it was only even open to the urban citizenry, which constituted many times less of the overall population than today’s urban citizenry does. In all cases, Roman interests were especially for expensive tastes, regardless of whether or not expensive meant good or more expensive meant better; for some reason, everybody wants to be different (the reason being that to possess something rare is to show one’s power to acquire it). Really, those things are actually all boring, like watching TV without the opportunity to change the channel, and even the more honest among them had no trouble admitting as much, so all they really had as a luxury was a hot meal and a hot bath with decent conversation, which necessarily meant being in the company of someone at a social level greater than or equal to one’s own—hence the orgies and elaborate banquets for the rich (the patricians), and the marketplace meetings for the poor (the plebeians), both of which centered around the regular consumption of dead animals, as we will see.

As the Empire essentially existed to support the acquisition of more and more luxuries by the Roman patricians, the further one got from Rome, the less expectation there was of such extravagances. This also meant that if you were a Roman patrician way out in the provinces who was able to entertain your guests the way they would expect if you were in Rome, your name would find its way all the way back to the capital. Ultimately that is what every patrician wanted, and the goal of providing such entertainment; rich provincials who pandered to the Romans (in Judea, this would be the group known as the Herodians) were always trying to acquire their favor by adopting their customs, and this had an enormous influence on the local cultures—a process called Romanization. Judea and Egypt were no exceptions, except that Romanization was obviously rejected by the Jews, and even more so by the Christians in Judea and, to a lesser extent, in Alexandria. The ascetic ideal, whether explicitly vegetarian or not, and whether explicitly Christian or not, was one of the main factors in that.

As part of his constant efforts to win approval in Rome, the Judean king Herod built one of the greatest circuses in the entire Roman world in Jerusalem, but it did not last long because the Judean population was too fickle and too entrenched in its own culture to latch onto Roman diversions. If he had tried to build an arena (which would have been less expensive for him) to pit slaves against each other, just so he could entertain his Roman friends, then it would have been unlikely that his dynasty would have lasted beyond his death. Revolts were common in ancient Palestine, but what were uncommon were revolts not led by priests, which is to say, for anything other than overtly religious and political reasons. The mob never would have allowed the violence of the arena even in Jerusalem, but whatever violence the priests prescribed—whether against animals in general, or against specific political authorities which did not favor or were not favored by the priests—was accepted, because the priests were seen as the moral authority, having long since usurped that position from the prophets.

Even so, sacrificing pigs and bulls to all kinds of strange gods (as the Romans and those who pandered to them did) never went over well with the mob in Palestine, mostly on account of the fact that there were always prophets in the desert preaching against it, and try as they may, the Synagogue of Satan (that is, the Pharisees, and the kings of Israel and Judah) were never able to get rid of them. A man who is content enough with nothing that he makes the desert his home (mind you, this was before air conditioning and other modern comforts) is rather difficult to silence or track down if he chooses to remain incognito, and when no one wants to lay a finger on him or turn him in for fear of divine punishment. Always there were two moral authorities, and ultimately everyone knew which one spoke for God. The Gospels (Matthew 21:26; Mark 11:32) tell us explicitly that the Pharisees were afraid to speak against John the Baptist because of the mob; we can only imagine what it would have been like for the common citizen in Judea to be confronted with the visage of John the Baptist, or of Isaiah or Jeremiah, but it must have been terrifying to them, because of what it represents: a man who is afraid of nothing and will stop at nothing to pronounce God’s terrible judgment.

The reason for this is that the determination of a desert-dwelling prophet is extraordinary. Most men are cowards, in the sense that they are entirely selfish in every respect, and always seek to protect what they think are their own interests, so they avoid confrontation—hence the “women” and “children” comments in Isaiah. They therefore cannot imagine living an ascetic lifestyle themselves, nor how they could ever integrate various aspects of a righteous lifestyle into their own lives. Just listen to the common objections that people have to veganism and you will see what this means; usually they entail fear of nutritional deficiencies, ironically, or else they demonstrate a total lack of willpower or personal integrity without any excuse.

The ideas which the public has about prophets stem from the fact that the man who knows that he has no desire to better himself is not as “good” as the one who spends all his time and energy doing exactly that. Thus the more human he is, the less “human” he is seen to be. We might inquire as to how it can be that a man who never cuts his hair or shaves his face can be seen as abnormal, or even—at least implicitly—some sort of threat to society. After all, which is natural for a man: to shave, or not to shave? Yet the prophet represents the way a man was designed to be, so simply looking at him after you have seen your well-groomed image in the mirror is enough to realize that change is possible, if not inevitable. Subconsciously, you envision a world where no one shaves, and realize that a lot of things are going to be different (destroyed) before such a society becomes real, and that very probably amounts to losing at least some of your modern amenities, and certainly your false notions of control and security. Truly, the very image of a prophet strikes fear into the heart of those among men whom the Bible calls “women.”

And so, although he may be more righteous and laudable than any other—the most deferential and least threatening to his neighbors—the man who does live ascetically gets accused by some of being possessed, and insane by others. Retroactively, he will ultimately be revered by those who are able to monopolize on his character and accomplishments as being God’s mouthpiece, and if his identity can be sufficiently scavenged, this is how he will be known to posterity. More often than not this is impossible, as the prophet makes the Church the principle target of his attacks. The religious establishment claims to be God’s mouthpiece, so that does not leave much room for reevaluation in the eyes of people who are foolish enough to actually think of it as such, and the default is to hold the prophet as God’s enemy, as he is necessarily the enemy of God’s enemy, the Church, which tells the mob that its own views are actually God’s, and its own enemies are God’s enemies. So the prophet has no choice; he must either live outside the bounds of the rest of society, where he is easily targeted, or else confront it head-on and pay with his life, which does no one any good, because then his message is silenced.

“Yerushalayim, Yerushalayim, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her! How often I wished to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you would not! See! Your house is left to you laid waste, for I say to you, from now on you shall by no means see Me, until you say, ‘Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה!’” Matthew 23:37-39

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Set-apart Spirit, as your fathers did, you also do. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who before announced the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who received the Torah as it was ordained by messengers, but did not watch over it.” Acts 7:51-53

That there were so many people content with their poverty (rather than seeking worldly things) due to the influence of the prophets and the spread of Christianity is proof that the expensive tastes of the Romans had practically been phased out of the local economies of the places where the Christians had established themselves. When Yahshuah drove the butchers and moneychangers out of the Temple, nobody stopped him. Imagine how quickly the cops would come and put an end to your efforts if you did the same thing at your local bank or supermarket. These people were obviously keen on defending themselves and their financial interests, just as any bank or supermarket would be; it happened because his mob outnumbered theirs. The mob which supported James a generation later was even bigger, and much more heavily invested in the same ascetic ideal, whereas Yahshuah’s was probably more just curious to know more about him and what he was preaching. So threatening to the status quo was this trend of the mob going against the established religious order that it is exactly what led to the Roman invasion of Judea, as we shall see.

The fact that a whole nation could have been on the brink of espousing the vegetarian ethic without even having the support of the established political and religious authorities (and at the time, the religious authority was also the academic authority) demonstrates that it is possible for the common man to have enough sense of right and wrong to threaten a continental Empire. When the typical meat-eater says “I could never be a vegan,” what he really means is “I am too weak to not be a slave to social pressures, and too trapped by mental conditioning and too arrogant to see what the incentive not to be so weak is.” Really, all that needs to change is the social pressure, enough that it becomes unlawful to murder animals, and everyone who is a slave to the rule of law will conform to the new standard as readily as they did the old. This is not merely a hypothetical notion, either, as the main dispute between the prophets and the religious order of ancient Palestine was over the fact that murdering animals was regarded as unlawful by the former and lawful by the latter, but the authority which the mob gave to judge the matter was bitterly divided.

It is true that the application of a strict vegetarian ethic requires a great deal of personal sacrifice (if positive change by giving up one’s disgusting, self-destructive habits, like quitting smoking or throwing out all of one’s child pornography videos, is considered sacrifice). It affects the individual’s daily life and amounts to deep-seated personal change. This is obviously not something to be introduced to a religion which is purposed to spread quickly and easily, and which has a high tolerance for other worldly vices, so much that it even goes so far as to protect pedophile priests from the legal consequences of their abuses, when world opinion is emphatically against it. That is to say that ecumenical (or Catholic) Christianity infused with vegetarianism never could have become nearly as widespread and popular as it has become apart from it, and the way apostolic (vegetarian) Christianity toppled the existing political and religious establishments in Judea, albeit only briefly existing in their stead.

The fact is, vegetarianism is integral to and inseparable from true Christianity as one of its core doctrines. It not only would have survived in this form, had it been allowed to progress, but its negative premise would be as commonplace now as the ambivalence toward other social injustices, such as institutionalized racism and sexism, but for the fact that it was targeted as a threat to the established order, which derives its power, in very large part, from the injustice. In order for vegetarianism to have been espoused by the religious establishment itself, it first would have had to have overthrown it, which it inevitably would have accomplished by appealing to the common man’s own conscience to point out the absurdity of investing moral authority in an organization openly intolerant of morality, to the point of persecuting to death anyone and everyone who espouses it. In other words, the zeal of the vegetarian Christians ultimately would have overtaken the wicked and corrupt Roman system by appealing to the common man’s sense of right and wrong, which is exactly why it was targeted and suppressed, long before it was subverted by Constantine and his ilk by the same means and for the same reason.

This fear of mob conquest was very tangible, like the terror which most Americans remember on the morning of 9/11. By Yahshuah’s time, the Romans had already devoted several centuries to the cause of conquering foreign nations and reshaping the world according to their religiously-motivated whims, but they had never really expected a backlash of the magnitude they experienced in Judea, for which they were totally unprepared. The political turmoil which erupted from the dispute between Christians and Jews over animal slaughter during the reign of Nero shocked and instilled great fear into the heart of the Roman populace, which viewed the events in Palestine as a legitimate threat to their religion and their way of life. On the one hand, the military response was intended to quell civil revolt; on the other, it was clear that the need to eradicate the vegetarian ideology was becoming dire, like a rapidly progressing tumor. Just as the Romans were unprepared for a province-wide revolt, so were the Christians unprepared (both logistically and culturally) for a Roman invasion of this magnitude. As pacifists, they were never going to kill off all the opposition, even given enough time to make their way into every city in the Empire, but as we well know from the nonviolent opposition movements of the 20th century, even pacifists can have an enormous impact on the economy of an empire, which actually works much more to the advantage of any social change movement than any form of violent protest does, and that is obviously what the Romans were most concerned about.

In order to understand the historical context of the Bible, we need to realize that back then, a religion which did not openly advocate animal slaughter was more novel than any idea presented to the public by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., and that which is new and interesting is a threat to that which is established and already experiencing advanced decay, as the Roman religion was. (The decay was so advanced, in fact, that some shrines in Rome were in such disrepair that the Romans had forgotten which gods were even supposed to have been worshiped there.) The Roman religion was just a syncretic, ceremonial form of public worship, incorporating (and therefore representing) ancient religious rites throughout the Roman world, as well as they could manage, given the relocation of cult centers, in their entirety. Most of the religious practice centered around the sacrifice, which meant that every peasant made a natural association between worshiping his god and eating meat, and probably nothing else, except maybe a prayer or genuflection. To threaten the Roman sacrifice, as Yahshuah and his followers did, was therefore to threaten the superstitions of ancient religions in their entirety, throughout the Mediterranean world, and therefore also the power of the established civil authorities, which depended upon the favor of the established religious authorities for the preservation of order.

The fact that Christianity and vegetarianism went hand in hand, and that the former was effectively adopted by the whole empire (albeit in perverted form) is proof that the latter could have and would have also been adopted, under different (less compromised) conditions. The “Christian” emperors got rid of gladiatorial combat easily enough, and even the sacrificial customs, from which it would have only been a small step to outlawing meat sales. All it would have really taken was a class war in Rome (for which there were already several precedents—the Third Servile War was still fresh in people’s minds, as was the dread of Spartacus) to get rid of the patricians (who were never, ever going to change their ways), with a champion of the common people to lead them, which both Yahshuah and his successor James certainly were and could have been, had either of them decided to go that route. In short, the 2% simply cannot rule the 98% without their permission, and Christianity was demonstrating that all too clearly, its appeal being that the 98% benefit when the 2% serve them instead of exploiting and abusing them. In spite of the crushing defeat of the insurrection in Judea which began during Nero’s reign, the vegetarian ideology which ultimately caused it had spread throughout the Greek-speaking world by then, and it took the Roman religious establishment another century just to come up with an idea of how to fight back.

That being said, the ascetic lifestyle of the ancient Christians obviously is not for everyone, and this is why there was still a 2% to speak of, in spite of the egalitarian ethic and fraternal culture of the Christian communities, where a man’s standing was determined by merit rather than wealth or birth. The point here is that switching over to a vegetarian diet would not have been that big of a deal to most people back then, as evidenced by the fact that it was demanded of all new converts as a basic requirement for admission into the sect, while circumcision and the stricter regulations of the Community Rule were still rigorously applied to the communities within Judea. Either way, the difference is between the righteous and the unrighteous—between saints and sinners. The saints were called the “doers” of the Law; the sinners were called the “auditors,” or hearers.

More will be said about all this later. For now, it is more appropriate to wrap up this introduction by explaining why our focus is on the “Abomination of Desolation,” and what that term actually means. The answer should be obvious enough; nothing else other than animal farming qualifies as that which causes desolation, because nothing else comes near to being as responsible for the negative economic and environmental consequences for which it is. When the sheer numbers of animals that are put to death just to suit Man’s insatiable palette are put into the context of religious or moral values, as in Scripture, it is even more obvious, as God clearly cares more about the lives of these creatures than he does about the bottom line of any rancher or packaging company.

“Abomination of Desolation” comes from Matthew 24:15, in reference to prophecies in Daniel (specifically, 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11), and is, along with its whole context, universally misunderstood by Bible commentaries. Most Christians fail to understand that Daniel’s prophecies pertain exclusively to events leading up to the end of the world, as evidenced by the fact that the whole context of Matthew 24 is a description of the events “at the coming of the Son of Man.” Instead, they infer that the events described in Daniel had already happened within a generation of Yahshuah’s ministry, or a few centuries earlier, during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Bible commentators give detailed accounts of why they think they are right, but none even read the text as it is, much less with the right interpretative bias (the spirit of prophecy), so they are all essentially worthless.

The term ‘abomination’ connotes a certain revulsion (from God’s perspective) which is the precursor of all moral codes, rather than a mere observation between different outcomes of a personal choice. An “abomination” is a thing that causes extreme disgust and hatred.35 Generally speaking, people only regard things that are both uncommon and unnatural as abhorrent or abominable. For example, abortion may be considered abhorrent to some, but it is also common, so an aborted fetus is not an abomination, but a child born with tentacles as limbs would be considered an abomination. An aborted fetus elicits sympathy for the victim; a child with tentacles elicits abhorrence, to the point that it may feel natural even for the parents to want to destroy it.

Right now, a human clone grown in a test tube would be considered an abomination, but after several generations, such clones would be accepted as commonplace and even preferable/superior (due to elimination of genetic defects), and to not abide by convention would make one an “elitist.” Indeed, this word is already being used publicly by those driving genetic modifications to describe their grass-roots opposition.36 Meanwhile, gene patenting is currently being enthusiastically supported by the mainstream media via a famous celebrity (Angelina Jolie), though no consideration is given to the fact that she drinks human blood—that her diet, not her genes, has caused her cancer.

Needless to say, gene patenting will not cure cancer, but it will give some companies very lucrative monopolies on alleged cures, and ownership rights of human DNA, and ultimately on all human abominations, which, if they have their way, will be all human bodies in the future. Put simply, this “overspreading of abominations” is the nail in the coffin to what God is ever going to allow. What is natural is what God intended in the beginning, and God never changes his mind.

An abomination in Scripture is that which, being unnatural, offends God and the prophets whose wills are aligned to his. More often than not, the term is applied to something which is eaten. Sometimes there is ambiguity between food which is unclean, and anything abominable. For Leviticus 7:21, for instance, most of the ancient manuscripts read “any unclean, detestable thing,” rendered “any abominable unclean thing” in the King James Version (KJV), while some of the manuscripts read “any unclean creature that moves along the ground.” Once again, the tampering of the ancient manuscripts is evidence of an interpretative bias based more on specific food tastes than on a general unwillingness to observe the Law. We will see a whole lot of evidence of this later.

The Abomination of Desolation is that which offends God the most, because it “lays waste” to or “makes desolate” his otherwise perfect creation. It is not itself the “Sin of Sins” (i.e., the greatest sin), but the two concepts are directly related, both in terms of how they are used in Scripture and in terms of how the descriptions and their corresponding metaphors apply to the real world. The Abomination existed in Yahshuah’s time, but the Sin of Sins did not. If a cardinal sin (by Canon Law) is one which causes or leads to other sins, then the Abomination of Desolation is the cardinal sin which leads to the Sin of Sins. This means that the Abomination of Desolation is the spirit behind the human pursuits, supernaturally conceived, which are making us more and more disenfranchised from our Creator.

The text of Daniel 9:27 which is referred to in Matthew 24:15 is the key point of the controversy. It refers to the impostor of the Holy Spirit, called Babalon by Aleister Crowley and those who have followed his legacy to manifest it. Note well the differences in the following translations of the underlined text, which is simply כנף or knef (Hebrew 3671 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) in the original Hebrew; the rest is simply inferred. With this knowledge, it should be easy to see how Jews and Christians, in their unapologetic Babylonian apostasy, could have gotten it so wrong. (Knef is literally translated as ‘spirit,’ but is generally used in the Old Testament to signify the Holy Spirit, as its etymology from ancient Egyptian signifies ‘beautiful spirit’ or ‘spirit of perfection.’)

“He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (NIV)

“And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (ESV)

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (KJV)

“And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the protection of abominations there shall be a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.” (DBT)

We do not presume to understand how the translators have derived “on a wing [of the temple]” and the rest from ‘spirit’ or ‘beautiful spirit,’ unless it is just a desperate attempt at subverting the meaning with their manmade Dispensationalist doctrine. After all, who is going to challenge them? Nevertheless, this still shows that they simply cannot be trusted to inform us about matters of divine revelation, as they cannot even translate (convey) it properly without deliberately butchering it—and this is all translations. Cutting through their lies to override their indoctrination takes so much effort that the whole Bible becomes suspect when one tries to read it in his native language and then get to the bottom of its mysteries.

Then again, it is obviously not intended that people who are so openly belligerent to the message as the translators and those indoctrinated by the religious establishment should understand it. Even Daniel, who is told to understand (figure out the meaning of) the message in this context, despaired over the fact that he failed to do so. Matthew 24:15 likewise reads, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” (KJV). If Daniel, who was so clever that he was brought out of his dungeon as a foreign slave and placed in charge of the entire Persian Empire, could not grasp the meaning when he had such a passionate interest in it that he had fasted and prayed in sackcloth and ashes just to be heard, then how can a cursory reading of any extremely poor translation of it provide a firm basis on which to suppose everything else, as the “Christians” have done? If we are to understand the prophecy—and indeed, all prophecy—then we must not only use our brains, but also put more effort and consideration into it than Daniel himself was willing or able to allow, and certainly no less objectivity.

Granted, some things in Scripture are very difficult to understand, and this happens to be one of them. We can just imagine how difficult it would be to translate them without the spirit of prophecy. Even so, the Bible publishers should not be publishing these translations, subjective inferences and all, with the pretense of getting it right when they are so blatantly wrong. If they want to be in the business of selling this book, then they ought to at least consult someone who knows what it says and what the meaning is prior to publication, if not go through the trouble of learning it themselves. Truly, their Bibles are abominations that cause the desolations of widespread ignorance, just as the Abomination itself does. For example, compare the copyrighted New International Version (NIV) translation of the larger context of Daniel 9:23-27 to the one we have provided below it:

“As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision: Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

There is no punctuation in ancient Hebrew, so the first thing we need to understand is that the punctuation we ascribe to it is actually inferred. In fact, there are no vowels, either, so the words themselves are more often than not inferred from the context, and this causes major problems for everyone who does not understand what the text is trying to say. Ultimately most people (especially Bible translators and publishers) simply rely on the Masoretic texts which add vowel placements in order to render inferred meanings to every single word, which gives rise to interpretations of passages like this that are retroactively applied to the original Hebrew texts themselves, because no one wants to challenge the centuries-old rabbinic traditions, even though it is very easy for someone with a working knowledge of Hebrew to show how they have completely destroyed the meaning of virtually every passage in the Tanakh—sometimes intentionally.

In this case, the more important of these two obstacles is the lack of punctuation. The angel’s cryptic message is actually a run-on sentence, and a run-on sentence of anything approaching this length is a rarity in any formal writing in any language, including that of Scripture, so it is not expected and the translators would have to consider it very carefully to realize it, and it is safer for them to just add the punctuation where they think it belongs. However, it is also a mistake in this case; the first part of the sentence only makes sense when it is matched to its last part. That is precisely why it is so difficult to understand and to translate, especially considering that in ancient Hebrew, complete thoughts typically begin with a conjunction (whereas in English, it is improper grammar to begin a sentence this way): the entire text needs to be considered all at once in order for it to make sense. So here is what the actual meaning of the Hebrew words are in the greater context, with other possible literal renderings for the more important words, along with implied articles in parentheses and our notes in brackets:

“At the beginning of your supplications, (the) word went forth, and I came to tell (you) of that (which) you coveted [greatly desired]. Consider in (the) word [use your reason, logic] and understand in (the) sight [use your “vision,” prophetic/prescient awareness]. Seventy shabuim [literally ‘weeks’ or ‘sevens,’ figuratively ‘sabbaths,’ i.e., ‘a long period of rest’: the word for ‘sabbath’ is shabbat, which comes from the same word, meaning ‘day seven’] are set apart on your people and on your city of set-apartness [i.e., your holy city], to detain the transgression and to seal and to finish the sin of sins, and to make (a) shelter of [a refuge from] depravity, and to bring the tzadiq [the righteous one] of eons [or ‘ages,’ i.e. of the cycles/timelines], and to seal up (the) vision and (the) prophecy [or ‘the prophet’], and to consecrate [or ‘anoint’] the set-apart (one) of the set-apart [plural: or ‘holy of holies’]; and you shall know and you shall be intelligent [know and understand], (that) from the going forth of (the) word to return and to build Jerusalem, until (the) anointed (one) governor [the prince-anointed, or messiah-ruler], (there shall be) seven shabuim, and sixty-two shabuim, she [the holy of holies] shall return, and she [the city] is built square and salient, and in (the) constraint of the times [during hardship, upheaval]; and after the sixty-two shabuim he shall be cut off, (the) anointed (one), and not (cut off) to himself [or ‘there is (now) none’], (but) to the city and to the sanctuary (which) he shall ruin, (and to the) people of (the) governor, the one coming; [between the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem] and (the) end of him, in (the) overflowing; and until the end [of the sevens], battle is decided on the desolate (ones); and he has covenant-mastery to many (for) one shabua; one-half (of) the shabua, he shall cause the sacrifice and the (voluntary sacrificial) offering to cease; and over [or against] (the) spirit of abominations, (the) one making desolate [the one laying waste], and [between the going forth of the word shall be seven and sixty-two sevens] until the finishing, and the [feminine tense] decreed end [the determined result] shall be poured on the desolate being.”

Needless to say, given the complexity of this passage, even our translation probably leaves a lot to be desired—never mind the NIV and other versions. One of the most important things to realize here is that there is no mention at all of any “temple,” but that this is inferred. The other most important thing to realize here is that this is speaking of the “end,” i.e. the future, not the time period which historically saw the return of the exiles from Babylon (or rather, the colonization of Palestine by the Persians/Pharisees).

Notice also that the words ‘city’ and ‘sanctuary’ (which are feminine) in verse 26 are conjoined to a masculine verb. What this means is that Daniel’s Prince, commonly asserted to be the Antichrist of the pseudo-Christian eschatology, is not the subject of the ruin, but rather that he and his people are the instigators of it, and the city itself is the subject.37 The translators are blatantly mistaken in associating the building, the destruction, and the desecration of the Temple to the same man (or even institution)—a fact which they well know, as evidenced by the fact that they have invented a second person in order to reconcile the absurdity, and have even resorted to capitalizing one and not the other in the very same context, in order to reinforce the dishonest notion that the text is actually speaking of two different princes with two completely different agendas (the Christ and the Antichrist). By their logic, there is only supposed to be one “Christ” anyway, as they have mistaken “Jesus” for the one and only representation of “the LORD,” and insisted that the title only fits this particular description, though the term actually applies to anyone who has been consecrated, and is applied to several people in the role of a savior-king throughout the Bible.

That Daniel’s Prince is being “cut off” from the Temple means he is being cut out of his position as the true Messiah by the Jews who control the city, a fact which, we are told, incites and initiates the war marking the end of the world as we know it. The theft of the Ark of the Covenant, which enables “covenant-mastery” (that is, the subversion of the Law—the Ark represents the Law, and mastery of the Law means authority to change laws), and the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon (as a deliberate metaphor for the human body), which is the instrument of “the transgression” (animal sacrifice) and “the sin of sins” (animal hybridization), and of “the abomination” (splicing human DNA with non-human DNA to produce chimeras, as well as cloning), will mark the beginning of the war. The Prince, we are told, has been sent to “detain” this “depravity,” not to “finish” it. It is his job to delay the “spirit of abominations,” which is to say, transhumanism, consistently associated with fornication, and with the Whore of Babylon in Scripture.

But worry not if you have not understood any of this. The main point is that the Abomination is the Temple sacrifice, and that the role of the Messiah (or of any messiah) is to detain it. As it pertains to the present book, what we are really talking about here is the wholesale murder and consumption of animals. The overspreading of abominations is the myriad of complications which result from it, such as the lamentations of the prophet Isaiah.

A fool is no longer called noble, nor the scoundrel said to be respectable; for a fool speaks folly, and his heart works wickedness: to practise filthiness, and to speak against יהוה that which misleads, to starve the being of the hungry, and to withhold the drink from the thirsty. And the methods of the scoundrel are evil—he has devised wicked plans to destroy the poor with words of falsehood, even when the needy pleads for right-ruling. But the generous one devises what is generous, and by generous deeds he rises up. Isaiah 32:5-8

At the most fundamental level, the transhumanist policies of the establishment have been effected through the genetic modification of our food sources. However, the gradual mutation of our DNA (i.e., the gradual destruction of our species) has been going on since the beginning of the present age, by way of the consumption of foods our ancestors were never supposed to eat—namely, those in the same kingdom (Animalia, animals). The nature of the scheme to alter our genetic constitution and the insidious reasons for it will become apparent as we continue this inquiry, and many as-yet unexplained mysteries of the Bible will be revealed along the way.

And now I show unto you that light and darkness, day and night, see all your sins. Be not godless in your hearts, and lie not and alter not the words of uprightness, nor charge with lying the words of the Holy Great One, nor take account of your idols; for all your lying and all your godlessness issue not in righteousness but in great sin. And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and pervert the words of righteousness in many ways, and will speak wicked words, and lie, and practice great deceits, and write books concerning their words. But when they write down truthfully all my words in their languages, and do not change or minish ought from my words but write them all down truthfully—all that I first testified concerning them. Then, I know another mystery, that books will be given to the righteous and the wise to become a cause of joy and uprightness and much wisdom. And to them shall the books be given, and they shall believe in them and rejoice over them, and then shall all the righteous who have learnt therefrom all the paths of uprightness be recompensed. 1 Enoch 104:8-13

 

 

 


 

 

1 K.E. Eduljee, “Were Ancient Iranians & Zoroastrians Vegetarian?” Zoroastrian Heritage, 21 Jul 2011, http://zoroastrianheritage.blogspot.com/2011/07/were-ancient-iranians-zoroastrians.html.

2 See health and wellness activist (and self-described Christian) Kathy Freston’s extremely inadequate and inconclusive column “God, Christianity and Meat” in The Huffington Post, for example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/religion-vegetarianism-_b_3874652.html.

3 That humans are herbivores is also demonstrated by how well our blood interacts with chlorophyll. In the 1930s, structural similarities observed between chlorophyll and hemoglobin prompted scientists to speculate that the former might have beneficial effects in cases of anemia. Experiments on rabbits confirmed this hypothesis. Subsequent research extended these findings to humans as well, even adding that administering chlorophyll considerably improves heart function in cases of heart weakness and abnormal blood pressure. The Internet is replete with anecdotal support for chlorophyll’s ability to markedly increase hemoglobin counts, thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the need for blood transfusions. Nevertheless, scientific research into this subject is rarely conducted now, no doubt owing to the fact that donated blood can be sold to hospitals at upwards of $150 per pint. However, injections of chlorophyll have been used to successfully treat pancreatitis, a serious and extremely painful condition in which the pancreas becomes inflamed. By contrast, it is well known that blood transfusions between incompatible human blood types, much less interspecies transfusions, are fatal. While prohibitions against intermingling blood are, in modern times, based solely on scientific findings, Genesis 1:24-25 constitutes a Scriptural warning against such practices.

4 The level of the gastric pH in humans depends on what is eaten. There is no common diet among humans as there is with other species; therefore, there is no way to give an exact figure. Generally speaking, the harder our bodies have to work to digest the food we consume, the more likely it is that we will develop diseases of the organs and glandular systems in the long-term. How acidic or base something is hardly matters in terms of what it does in the stomach, provided that it does not buffer stomach pH enough to counteract the effects of digestive enzymes and acids, as in the case of milk. However, the stomach serves mainly to break down macromolecules, while the intestines serve to absorb nutrients. So whatever passes into the blood stream from the bowels certainly does matter, and even a slight impact on blood pH from metabolic acids and the presence of animal proteins in the blood stream have far-reaching consequences for the body in the long-term, including but not limited to overproduction of various hormones and the onset of various diseases, as described further on. The point here is to say that carnivores are not as susceptible to these diseases because their immune systems handle pathogens better than ours do.

5 “Stomach,” MicrobeWiki, http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Stomach#Carnivores:_Cats.

6 Ibid., http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Stomach#Herbivores:_Cows.

7 Carnivores have shorter digestive tracts, as we hinted earlier, which enables them to process meat out more quickly, thereby reducing the risk of disease caused by the toxins in flesh, while the acids facilitate digestion. In other words, flesh is still not ideal for carnivores, but their bodies handle it better than we do, as they are not as susceptible to disease, mostly because bacteria cannot survive in the highly acidic environment of a carnivore’s stomach. Were humans to eat raw meat, as carnivores all do, they would quickly realize just how absurd the notion that we are designed to eat meat really is.

8 A.C. Bulhões, et al., “Correlation between lactose absorption and the C/T-13910 and G/A-22018 mutations of the lactase-phlorizin hydrolase (LCT) gene in adult-type hypolactasia,” Brazillian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 40(11), pp. 1441-1446.

“Adult-type hypolactasia is characterized by a fall of lactase activity levels to 5 to 10% of birth levels occurring during childhood and adolescence. The condition affects more than 75% of the population worldwide, with regional frequencies ranging from nearly 5% in northern Europe to more than 90% in some Asian and African countries.”

9 “The Number of Vegetarians in the World,” Raw Food Health, http://www.raw-food-health.net/NumberOfVegetarians.html.

10 Retrieved from http://www.sdada.org/plant.htm. As of the date of this publication this article is no longer available.

11 Gary J. Gates & Frank Newport, “Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT,” Gallup, 18 Oct 2012, http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx.

12 John Davis, World Veganism: Past, Present and Future, International Vegetarian Union, http://www.ivu.org/history/Vegan_History.pdf.

13 John Davis, “Will There Ever Be More Veg*ns?” VegSource, 30 Nov 2011, http://www.vegsource.com/john-davis/will-there-ever-be-more-vegns.html.

14 Free will implies freedom from consequence, that the one making the choice is not bound to choose a certain outcome from among the different options. Only God has this freedom because only God is free from restraint. See The End of Learning for more on this subject.

15 Robert Grillo, “Six Absurdities That Defend Eating Animals as a ‘Choice,’ Free From Harm, 26 Mar 2013, http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/six-absurdities-that-defend-eating-animals-as-a-choice/.

16 Robert Cohen, Milk: The Deadly Poison, Argus, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998, pp. 191-192.

17-18 Menachem Kaminker, “Pigs & Judaism: Deep revulsion, but a promising future,” Chabad, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2376474/jewish/Pigs-Judaism.htm.

19 Menachem Posner, “Why Do Pigs Exist?” Chabad, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1017972/jewish/Why-Do-Pigs-Exist.htm.

20 Genesis 6:3 is interpreted by some (particularly those of the Creation Science persuasion) to mean that there would be 120 years before the extinction of the human race in the Flood. This interpretation fits with the context of Genesis 6, but it also fits with the fact that the natural human lifespan is approximately 120 years. We do not mean to deny the validity of ex nihilo creationists’ argument, but anyone who claims to know for certain which of the two meanings is the correct one, but cannot even grasp the fundamental concept of the Bible’s position on what caused the Flood in the first place, is a liar.

21 Like most other ancient Hebrew words, the meaning of lekhem is too complex to simply equate it with a modern English equivalent. Based on inferences elsewhere, its meaning is apparently something more like ‘vegan food’ or ‘human food,’ especially given the fact that the name of Bethlehem derives from it. Bethlehem is deliberately contrasted in Judges 19, for instance, as a place of refuge and righteousness, against the “disgrace” or “folly” of flesh as food, but only someone with a deep knowledge and understanding of Scripture would even know to look at a context such as this, even supposing he understood the meaning of the parable, and of the words in question. As Bethlehem was the central location of the school of prophets in Judah/Judea, and Jerusalem was the “place of folly” where the slaughtering took place, lekhem is as good a place to start as any for developing such understanding, which must necessarily begin with the realization that the prophets of Bethlehem were strict vegetarians, as the name of the town implies. However, this issue is important enough to merit special attention, so we have treated it elsewhere.

22 Marvin Harris, Cannibals & Kings: Origins of Cultures, William Collins Sons, Glasgow, 1977, p. 132.

While most etymologists agree that the word “barbecue” derives from the Caribbean, it is more common to attribute its origin to either the Taíno or the Timucua peoples. But this ignores the fact that Columbus and other explorers were aware of the Caribs and their barbaric practices in the first decade of the 16th century, that the Taíno were also in contact with the Caribs, and that the Timucua have also been documented as practicing cannibalism.

23 Megan Thompson, “WATCH: Richard Dawkins Wishes Everyone Was Vegetarian,” Ecorazzi, 1 Oct 2013, http://www.ecorazzi.com/2013/10/01/watch-richard-dawkins-wishes-everyone-was-vegetarian/.

24-25 Kevin Fallon, “Krispy Kreme to Vegan: Bill Clinton’s Health Transformation,” http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/bill-clinton-weight-transformation-photos.html#a06dcbf1-3e32-4bf8-8975-4c01386b6be8.

26 Samantha Chang, “Al Sharpton: My 170-pound weight loss was due to vegan diet and daily workouts,” Examiner, 9 Oct 2013, http://www.examiner.com/article/rev-al-sharpton-attributes-167-lb-weight-to-vegan-diet-daily-workouts.

27 Samantha Chang, “Rick Warren: Faith-based vegetarian diet helped my congregation lose 250,000 lbs,” Examiner, 2 Dec 2013, http://www.examiner.com/article/rick-warren-faith-based-vegetarian-diet-helped-my-congregation-lose-250-000-lbs.

28 For a description of how all 501c3 churches in America are legal franchises of the State, see http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/501c3.php.

29 This is not intended to say that Scripture can be broken, contrary to Yahshuah’s declaration in John 10:35, where “broken” has a different connotation than ‘redacted,’ as in ‘twisted’ or ‘bent.’ The difference is between minor typographical changes to the text and major syllogistic changes. The fact that Scripture can be tampered with but cannot be broken is evident in the fact that typographical changes have been made in some places, thus making it inconsistent within itself, because the other places which the editors failed to account for still bear the original image of the reading of the text. So someone who has familiarized himself with the whole of the text should not only be able to see the overall image, but also spot the changes, just like you can easily figure out which pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are out of place, but only if the puzzle is nearly completed. Someone who cannot see the overall picture, on the other hand, may think that the same pieces are in their proper place—especially if it agrees with his indoctrination and he has been told that the redacted statements support that indoctrination. Yet he will still have to address logical contradictions, and this is why Christians often wind up getting embroiled in debates with atheists who point them out; it is not because the text is inconsistent within itself, but because Christians do not know how to reconcile the contradictions, having espoused the views (as premises) which have created them. If they were to take a more honest and objective approach to reading and interpreting the text without these premises, then they would not encounter the same problems, as they would if it had been truly broken and beyond repair.

30 Frederick Henry A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge, 1883, p. 528; retrieved from http://gospel.nazirene.org/.

31 Scrivener, p. 511.

32 Caspar René Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, Scribner, New York, 1907, p. 424; retrieved from http://nazirene.org/corruption.htm.

33 Gregory, p. 112; retrieved from http://www.godglorified.com/F.C.%20Conybeare.htm.

34 Randall D. Hughes, “A Collection of Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19,” God Glorified, 2001, http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm.

35 “Abomination,” Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abomination.

36 Jack Kaskey, “Monsanto Sees ‘Elitism’ in Social Media-Fanned Opposition,” Bloomberg, 15 May 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/monsanto-sees-elitism-in-social-media-fanned-opposition.html.

37 The Prince is not a ‘she,’ so it does not make sense to say that the ruin will come to ‘her.’ The ‘she’ in the context must refer to the city, Jerusalem, unless we allow that it could be talking about the female Messiah mentioned in the end of the context, analogous to the New Jerusalem or even to the Holy Spirit. However, this chosen female is clearly the “bride of Christ,” the remnant of Israel which we call “the Elect,” and in Hebrew, moriyah. So the female ‘anointed’ is understood to be the whole body of believers who have been consecrated as Nazarites. The meaning of this will be clarified later.