Several passages in the Bible appear to mention meat eating, and many Christians use them to sustain the idea that meat eating is supported in the Bible. Is it true?
Nice research done. Other major scriptures also do not promote or justify meat eating, it is just misinterpretation which slowly becomes the norm and gets supported by the money making beneficiaries. Thank you.
Thank you for this post and your research. I have always argued this with some members of my Christian family. I choose to not eat meat and to follow a Sattvik diet however, Iβm also like a Buddhist and I will take what is given to me, especially when I am in dire need ποΈβ¨π«Άπ½β¨
Growing up in the movement I observed that primarily no intoxication and no illicit sex were the rules that people trying to lead a devotee lifestyle struggled with the most. No meat eating was easy to follow for devotees as we have prasadam and the obvious suffering towards animals and the understanding of karma. However I have been recently saddened learning that quite a few devotees have started justifying eating meat. It seems humans have a blood lust that is hard to overcome, and easy to justify.
In the later 1960s, there was a situation when German brahmacaris who were traveling and distributing books complained of the lack of bread, which for them was almost essential. There was no way to cook bread on the road, so they asked Prabhupada if they could buy it at bakeries. They expected some time, place and circumstance answer, but Prabhupada insisted they must eat only prasadam, suggesting they could bring puris or biscuits, that could last several days. He considered this an essential principle, even for book distributors. I see in other passages Prabhupada always insisting on this point of eating only prasadam. I believe the only exception was in the case of a devotee who went to jail.
I believe this is the essential point there. When devotees start eating outside without consideration, The standards usually go down quickly. Suddenly garlic and onion become acceptable, then eggs, then gelatin and cochinillas, and eventually even meat starts looking acceptable somehow. I see that this is usually the point where things go downhill.
Wonderful! I am grateful for your work and those citations. Of course in Kali Yuga most people will hear the message they want, rather than what is good for them.
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful write-up. You make several compelling points that really highlight the importance of textual fidelity and linguistic history.
A few highlights that stood out:
Linguistic Precision: Pointing out how early English used "meat" to mean food in general (and matching that with the original Greek terms like broma and trophe) clears up a common misunderstanding around biblical terminology.
Preservation Warning: The parallel you draw between historical scriptural shifts and the current responsibility to preserve ΕrΔ«la PrabhupΔdaβs original teachings is a powerful warning. It underscores how small textual shifts over generations can accumulate into fundamental changes in practice.
Nuanced View on Change: Your distinction between positive evolution (applying teachings more deeply) and negative compromise (modifying the texts themselves) provides a very constructive framework for looking at movement growth.
Itβs a great reminder of how vital it is to protect foundational texts so future generations have an accurate benchmark to return to.
Hare Krishna
Nice research done. Other major scriptures also do not promote or justify meat eating, it is just misinterpretation which slowly becomes the norm and gets supported by the money making beneficiaries. Thank you.
Thank you for this post and your research. I have always argued this with some members of my Christian family. I choose to not eat meat and to follow a Sattvik diet however, Iβm also like a Buddhist and I will take what is given to me, especially when I am in dire need ποΈβ¨π«Άπ½β¨
Growing up in the movement I observed that primarily no intoxication and no illicit sex were the rules that people trying to lead a devotee lifestyle struggled with the most. No meat eating was easy to follow for devotees as we have prasadam and the obvious suffering towards animals and the understanding of karma. However I have been recently saddened learning that quite a few devotees have started justifying eating meat. It seems humans have a blood lust that is hard to overcome, and easy to justify.
In the later 1960s, there was a situation when German brahmacaris who were traveling and distributing books complained of the lack of bread, which for them was almost essential. There was no way to cook bread on the road, so they asked Prabhupada if they could buy it at bakeries. They expected some time, place and circumstance answer, but Prabhupada insisted they must eat only prasadam, suggesting they could bring puris or biscuits, that could last several days. He considered this an essential principle, even for book distributors. I see in other passages Prabhupada always insisting on this point of eating only prasadam. I believe the only exception was in the case of a devotee who went to jail.
I believe this is the essential point there. When devotees start eating outside without consideration, The standards usually go down quickly. Suddenly garlic and onion become acceptable, then eggs, then gelatin and cochinillas, and eventually even meat starts looking acceptable somehow. I see that this is usually the point where things go downhill.
Wonderful! I am grateful for your work and those citations. Of course in Kali Yuga most people will hear the message they want, rather than what is good for them.
Hare Krishna,
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful write-up. You make several compelling points that really highlight the importance of textual fidelity and linguistic history.
A few highlights that stood out:
Linguistic Precision: Pointing out how early English used "meat" to mean food in general (and matching that with the original Greek terms like broma and trophe) clears up a common misunderstanding around biblical terminology.
Preservation Warning: The parallel you draw between historical scriptural shifts and the current responsibility to preserve ΕrΔ«la PrabhupΔdaβs original teachings is a powerful warning. It underscores how small textual shifts over generations can accumulate into fundamental changes in practice.
Nuanced View on Change: Your distinction between positive evolution (applying teachings more deeply) and negative compromise (modifying the texts themselves) provides a very constructive framework for looking at movement growth.
Itβs a great reminder of how vital it is to protect foundational texts so future generations have an accurate benchmark to return to.