A Biblical overview of dietary morals

One of the smaller controversies of the modern day is dietary morality. While most people don't put too much thought into their diet, there are some people for whom passions run high. Is it really ethical to eat meat, or is a vegetarian lifestyle more appropriate? Is speciesism comparable to racism, or do we genuinely have dominion over the beasts? How much should we consider our environmental impact when we determine the kinds of farms we create? Whatever your view is, the fact that you have opened this article suggests you have at least a casual interest in it. More often than not, I find passions tend to run high whenever this issue is discussed.

Because of these high passions, it is likely almost everyone who reads this article will find something that isn't to their taste. It is helpful, therefore, to first point out, as I shall shortly expound upon, that the Bible explicitly condemns the petty squabbles that typically arise from this issue (Romans 14:1-4). I also have an added emotional advantage, given that I was once a vegetarian, yet for health reasons, had to give it up. This means I have been both mocked for refusing meat, and harshly judged for eating it. With all of this in mind, while some may be upset by what I have to say, anyone who reads this article should be aware that none of it comes from a place of judgment. I seek to address this issue fairly, objectively, and, most importantly, Biblically. With that in mind, let's get into it.

Types of diet

Before looking too deep at the Biblical view, it's important to explain the various dietary preferences and practices that exist in our world. That way, we can see how the Biblical view may interact with these.

Vegan - Veganism is one of the most restrictive dietary preferences, and certainly the most restrictive of any that can be considered "mainstream". Vegans avoid all animal products, including milk, eggs, and even honey. Veganism varies among its practitioners. For example, fruitarianism, a subset of veganism, further restricts the diet to only fruits, occasionally including seeds and nuts. On top of dietary restrictions, vegans may even debate further use of animals, such as the acceptability of keeping pets. Veganism is typically motivated by a strong ethical stance against animal exploitation, as well as the environmental impact of livestock farming.

Vegetarian - While not as restrictive as veganism, vegetarianism is the abstinence from meat, but not necessarily to the exclusion of using other animal products. Honey, dairy, and eggs, are still considered acceptable, with the typical reasoning being that the animal can live a healthy, happy life, and does not need to die to produce these kinds of food. Although it is impossible to generalise (as with all of these diets), vegetarians may also limit this preference to food, whereas there is a higher likelihood a vegan will oppose anything requiring animal slaughter, such as leather clothing.

Pescatarian - Pescatarians limit their meat intake to fish, avoiding other meat like chicken or beef. Most of the time, this tends to be out of either health or environmental concerns. However, it can also be a transitionary diet for aspiring vegetarians.

Entomophagy - Entomophagy is not considered a distinct diet in and of itself, and is often more supplementary to other dietary practices. In short, it is the consumption of insect-based food. Much like the previously addressed diets, this may have environmental motivations, but it is also a common cultural phenomenon. There are even certain extremists who will utilise this fact for manipulation purposes, claiming it is somehow "racist" to be disgusted with insect-based food.

Religious - Various religions and sects present dietary restrictions. For example, Halal (Islamic) and Kosher (Jewish) diets regulate what is permissible, and what is not, as well as potentially requiring certain rituals in preparation or consumption. Other religions may not have specific restrictions, but may mandate vegan or vegetarian diets. There is often overlap with secular motivations, such as the ethical treatment of animals, or the environmental impact.

Omnivory - Unlike more specific dietary practices, omnivory is the absence of dietary restrictions. This is the most common approach, especially in the Western world. Unlike other such restrictions, which are typically motivated by ethical concerns, most omnivores tend to prioritise personal convenience and cultural norms over ethical or environmental concerns. However, when pressed or challenged, they may become more actively involved in the discussion. Interestingly, as we will see later, this is when the ambiguity becomes apparent.

Although neither extensive, nor exhaustive, the above is a short list of common dietary practices, and a general look at the motivations one might hold for them. Of course, as there are more than 8 billion people in the world, this is extremely generalised, and you will find individuals differ in their approach. I, for example, had neither ethical, nor practical concerns about meat when I was a vegetarian. But it would be impossible and impractical to try to cover every possible view.

The created order

As shown in the header image, your beliefs about the natural order of things are likely to shape your beliefs about dietary morality. An omnivore might argue, for various reasons, that we are designed for the omnivorous diet, however literally they may take the word "designed". By contrast, advocates of a more vegetarian lifestyle might argue, as "Guilt Free" appears to, that we are perhaps more suited to a meat-free lifestyle, and that this is the ethical way to go.

Scripture paints a very different picture of the created order, giving us direct (though limited) insight into the origins of our world, our species, and our dietary habits. In standard canonical order, the Bible opens with the words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), which is followed by a brief overview of each of the 6 days He took to do so. Genesis 1 ends by telling us "And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (v29-31).

From this, we see that humans - and indeed, all living creatures - were originally vegetarians. This includes creatures we currently perceive to be obligate carnivores, such as the big cat seen in the far left circle in the header image.

Outside the Christian faith, this view is often scoffed at. Our culture, sadly, is heavily saturated in Evolutionary dogma. Thus, Creationism as a whole is often mocked in similar ways to the flat Earth myth. But more specifically, the idea that carnivores could ever be herbivorous is seen as being particularly laughable.

But this assumption is easily disproven by two facts. The first is that although carnivores are clearly well-suited to that lifestyle, there are many similar creatures that are quite happy as herbivores. Examples include the fruit bat, the panda, the kinkajou, and the palm nut vulture, all of which are typically herbivorous, yet are suitably built to be carnivores.

A more surprising, and less well-known fact is that even carnivores occasionally revert to their pre-Fall diet. A young lioness called Little Tyke is a fascinating example. Born in 1946, Little Tyke never consumed so much as a drop of blood, which I mean quite literally. Her owners were advised to add blood to her milk to give her a taste for it, but as soon as a single drop was added, she refused to drink it. Instead, she lived her whole life on a diet of cooked grain, raw eggs. and milk. It was also reported that she would spend a lot of time eating grass, too. Despite this, by 4 years of age she weighed an amazing 352 lbs, whereas a full grown lioness usually weighs around 280 lbs. If a lioness in the 1940s could live a healthy vegetarian life, it does not seem a stretch that the archetypal big cat did so in the world God called "very good".

The fallen order

But if everything was originally created "very good", and plants were food for everything, what went wrong? The answer, in a word, is sin. In a few more words, over the course of creation, God made a garden, called "Eden", where He placed the first human couple. There, they were given a very simple command: "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17).

Genesis 3 describes the breaking of this command, which caused God to curse Adam, Eve, Satan, livestock, and the very ground itself (Genesis 3:14-19). Describing this event, Paul tells us "...through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin..." (Romans 5:12). Of course, the primary focus here is on human death, rather than the overall effect on creation. However, the overall effect on creation, while it is more of a background discussion, is clearly seen. For example, in Genesis 3:14, we read "So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life." In order to be cursed more than all cattle and beast of the field, the cattle and beasts of the field need to be cursed too.

Over time, the effects of this curse became more and more evident. Man's sin increased, with the very first murder occurring in the very next generation (incidentally, in the next chapter). When we get to chapter 6, we read "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:5-8).

The shift here is subtle, yet noticeable. God's primary frustration here is with man, whose thoughts are only evil continually. His heart was grieved by our ways. Yet, He then shifts His anger towards the beasts and the birds, "...for I am sorry that I have made them." Included within His thought of His regret is the animals.

(Click here to skip the side note.)

---

Side note on God's omniscience

This verse often causes other questions pertaining to God's omniscience. Why is He "sorry" that He has made the creation, as though He was somehow unaware of how it would fall? There are similar discussions around the fact that God asks questions, such as "Where are you?", and "Where is Abel?"

The specific answer to God's regret of creation is that it is more about His immediate grief in the moment than His lack of foresight. This can be, and in Scripture frequently is, compared to labor pains. When a woman conceives a child, she likely foresees the labor pains, and when she experiences them, may regret the pregnancy. Comedy shows displaying a birth may even include jokes like "you're not coming near me with that thing again!", and similar expressions about how the mother has no desire to go through this a second time. Ultimately, this is not evidence that God did not know how creation would turn out, but rather, evidence that God has very strong emotions, and expresses them in this case.

---

The concept continues, telling us "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." (Genesis 6:11-12). This is more explicit than God's initial plan to eradicate man, beast, and bird. It's no longer "man is wicked", with his regret for having created the animals as an afterthought, but that all flesh upon the Earth had corrupted its way, and the Earth was filled with violence.

Currently, biology tends to classify creatures according to their diet. Tigers are considered carnivores, because they prey on other animals. Deer are considered herbivores, because they have a plant based diet. But imagine a world in which herbivores also ate meat. What if deer ate fish? What if cows ate birds? What if even snails ate the fallen carcasses of other animals? This short list describes our reality. Rather than being mere hypotheticals, all of these behaviors, while rare, have been observed.

While these behaviors are not the norm, and are often driven by harsh conditions, this tells us that in our fallen world, just as "carnivore" is not so absolute as to prevent a lioness from living off eggs and grain, so also is "herbivore" not so absolute as to be unshakeable. The truth is, any organism can be an omnivore.

But it's obviously not suitable for all of them. Aside from the fact any ecosystem consisting entirely of carnivores would collapse very quickly, it's obvious certain creatures are more suited to carnivorous lifestyles than others. Thus, what likely happened is that, following the Fall, the originally herbivorous creatures began displaying the same carnivorous tendencies we occasionally see in modern herbivores. Then, because they were so well-suited to it due to their design, it gradually developed into their standard practice.

This brings us back to the original claim in the header image about being "designed" to eat meat. "Guilt Free" appears to argue that carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores are designed that way, based on their teeth, and suggests humans more closely resemble the herbivores. But as we have discussed in detail, nothing is truly designed to eat meat. It's just that after the Fall, certain creatures, possessing certain features, became good at it.

The post-flood order

So is this what happened with us? Were we originally given plants, but over time in a fallen world, we just became good carnivores due to certain features? If so, that wouldn't be a great comment on dietary morality. Both appeal to nature and appeal to tradition are widely recognised fallacies. Thus, just because humans can be, and historically have been good carnivores does not mean we should be. Ultimately, in the created order, we were given the plants as food. The question then becomes were we ever given the animals?

In fact, we were. As He promised to do, God destroyed the Earth with a flood, sparing only Noah, his 7 family members, and two of each kind (7 of some) which Noah preserved on the divinely commissioned ark. Following this flood, God made a new covenant with Noah and his descendants, which is all of us: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Genesis 9:3-4).

This means even though we were initially created herbivorous, history progressed, and ultimately, God gave us explicit permission to eat the animals over which we were given dominion. The only remaining prohibition at this point is the blood.

Covenantal caveats

As we looked at earlier on, there are actually religious dietary restrictions beyond simply "...you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.". Obviously, a ministry called Bible Brain isn't going to give any credit to false religions, like Islam. But Christianity is a Jewish faith. We worship the Jewish God, live by the Jewish texts, written by the Jewish prophets, and have even been saved by the Jewish Messiah, as His Jewish Apostles taught us. So obviously, I can't simply dismiss the Kosher diet. But because of my faith, I can't fully embrace it either.

The reason for this is similar to the reason Noah could eat what Adam could not. History progressed. However, it progressed in a way that did not always encompass the entire human race. A few generations after the flood, three important men were born. Abraham, Abraham's son Isaac, and Isaac's son, Jacob (later known as Israel). Starting with Abraham, God made a covenant, which included various special commands. A covenant is a very specific agreement. You might think of it as like a rental agreement. Some rental agreements prohibit owning, or at least living with, certain pets. However, to be bound to this rule, you must actually sign such an agreement. Anyone who does not sign it is exempt from its terms. Even the landlord can own a dog, and permit other tenants of his properties to do the same, if he so desires.

The Law is effectively a rental agreement God signed with "The House of Israel". It is grounded in Genesis, and outlined in Exodus - Deuteronomy. This does include the Kosher diet, to which the Jews, and indeed anyone else living in Israel at the time, were bound. Because modern Jews, with the exception of Messianic Jews, reject Jesus, they believe they are still bound to the Old Covenant, and therefore continue to practice the diet found in the Torah.

The New Covenant, established by the death of Christ, did not carry the Kosher diet with it. Even before His crucifixion, Jesus explained that food is not, in and of itself, unclean. "When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!” When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”" (Mark 7:14-23).

Here, Jesus, with His divine wisdom, tells us that defilement is not a matter of dietary practice, but inner character. The thoughts we have are where the problem lies. To that end, we are under a New Covenant. This New Covenant still retains certain rules. The obvious example is the rule on murder. Prior to the Mosaic Covenant, murder was wrong. Cain was held accountable for murdering Abel, and following the flood, God required capital punishment for murdering a human being. In the Mosaic covenant, "you shall not murder" is the 6th of the famous 10 commandments, and there are various rules for how to deal with a murderer in the Torah. In the New Covenant, murder is still wrong, there should still be legal consequences for it, and ultimately, God will judge a murderer.

Faith and conscience

Food restrictions, by contrast, are not retained in the New Covenant. Unlike objective morals, dietary morality shifted dramatically throughout history. We began our existence as vegetarians. We were permitted to eat meat after the flood. Certain foods were restricted for the Jews in Israel, but not put in place elsewhere. But what is the command under the New Covenant?

The key text for dealing with this issue is Romans 14, which begins by telling us "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him." (v1-3).

This is only the beginning, but it immediately justifies every possible diet. It calls the issue of dietary preference a "doubtful thing", distinguishing it from actual moral issues, like murder. We know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15), but we do not know whether eternal life abides in a man based on his dietary preferences.

What's more intriguing is that Romans 14 equates dietary preference with the strength of faith. He who is weak in faith eats only vegetables. This is not a condemnation of veganism in and of itself, but if this is the only lifestyle your own conscience can handle, you are said to be "weak in faith". But an omnivore is commanded to receive you regardless. If your brother is a vegan, your brother is a vegan. So what are you to treat him as? A brother.

I have always found it interesting that while the logical extension is that he who believes he may eat all things is strong in faith, this is not the language Scripture uses. While it is speculative, I do wonder if this is because it extends further than just food. There are other things Scripture does not explicitly condemn, and may even explicitly permit, under the New Covenant, yet an omnivore may still be weak in faith in this regard. Paul similarly speaks against this kind of man made regulation when he writes "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:16-23).

Perhaps, therefore, the "weaker brother" is singled out for this one area in which he is weak, limiting himself to veganism, whereas an omnivore is not automatically granted the compliment of "strong in faith", because in some areas, he may be the weaker brother.

But perhaps there is another reason one might not be "strong in faith". I contend there are two, the first of which being the strength it takes to abstain. Scripture is replete with warnings against using liberty as opportunity for the flesh (Galatians 5:13), and that not all permissible things are beneficial (1 Corinthians 6:23). In fact, we are warned that the things over which we have liberty may well become our masters (1 Corinthians 6:12). Thus, we are commanded to beware, lest we who think we stand fall (1 Corinthians 10:12). Thus, the weaker brother has an ironic advantage. As a powerful warrior has a higher chance of dying in a battle in which a weaker man will never fight, so also do "stronger" brethren have a higher chance of falling into temptation which the weaker brethren will avoid like the plague.

Love and culture

But I would contend the other reason Liberty and strength are not as explicitly linked is because true strength is seen in the ability to forego one's liberties. The Christian faith has two great commandments: "...“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”" (Matthew 22:37-40).

This is why love is such a common theme throughout the Bible, especially in the New Testament. In fact, love is such a key concept in Scripture that it is said to be greater than hope, or even faith (1 Corinthians 13:13). This is because faith and hope are dependent upon the absence of something yet to come, and so when these things come, hope and faith cease. Love, by contrast, is inherent to the Eternal God, and so will endure throughout eternity.

With the importance of love in mind, let's return to Romans 14. Starting at verse 14, we read "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.

Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."

From this, we see that liberty is a very personal, and more importantly self-oriented thing. We are supposed to reserve our liberties for ourselves, for our own joy. By contrast, love is supposed to flow outwards towards others. Others who may not share our faith. Others who may even be tempted towards sin if we do not hold them within due consideration. Paul even goes so far as to say "...if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (1 Corinthians 8:13). That is to say listen, I might believe I have the liberty to eat this thing. But what if in doing so, I offend someone else? Well, in this case, love dictates personal sacrifice. I want to eat this thing, my brother would be offended if I ate this thing, I will not eat this thing.

The extended context of 1 Corinthians 8:13 further clarifies that this is not as simple as "the fellow in the pews next to me is a vegetarian, so I'll wait until I get home for my bacon sandwich". As it's a short chapter, let's read it all.

"Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

From this, we actually see that deference is expected for more than just those weak in faith. It is actually expected for those weak in theology. As Christians, one of the most basic truths we understand is that there is one God. There isn't some grand council of gods in Heaven, there isn't some mountain where a bunch of gods dwell, and no matter how many idols men forge or carve, not a single one of them will ever possess the power or authority of God Himself.

But such knowledge isn't transferrable. Just because we understand there is no power in an idol doesn't mean everyone does. But we certainly want them to! So what do we do? Well, we can eat food sacrificed to idols if we see fit. It won't do anything to us. But what will it do to someone who doesn't know what we know? It could cause them to honor an idol. Thus, it is better to surrender our liberties for sake of other people.

I would argue that this goes further still. After all, even those who are not yet saved could be. Now, as this article is written in English, I assume most, if not all of my readers will be from a Western background. So, let me ask you: When you eat a hot dog, do you imagine it is literally a hot dog? Dogs are generally viewed as special animals here in the West. They are friends, not food. But not every culture sees eye to eye here. Some cultures do eat dogs. But we eat things they find offensive. That hot dog is probably a pig, which other cultures find "unclean". It was probably sold in a place that sells beef, yet other cultures see cows as sacred.

Now, imagine someone openly eats dog meat. This may affect your opinion of them, as a Westerner. Objectively, it shouldn't, but realistically, it will. Do you imagine your own dietary practices have any less of an effect on them? But how will this affect your witness? If you try to bring a Muslim to Christ, why would you do so with the smell of your BLT wafting right up their nose? When you witness to a Hindu, will he be more, or less open to the Gospel, if you're literally eating his sacred cow right in front of him? Wouldn't it be wise to forego your liberties for sake of your witness?

The moral implications of faith

Of course, everything I've said in this article depends on one key assumption: The Bible is true. And I'm not going to give any credibility to any other idea. The Bible is true, I believe that as a Christian, I defend that as an apologist, and as long as you've come to Bible Brain, you likely expect nothing else from me. Thus, I'm going to say that the Biblical view of dietary habits is the correct view of dietary habits.

But this does not prevent me from following other views to their logical conclusion. So, the logical conclusion of the Bible is that currently, dietary morality is entirely a matter of personal liberty, being based on your own personal conscience, but with caveats regarding love for others. You may eat what you believe you eat, you may not eat what you do not believe you may eat, but for sake of love, sometimes you should forego even your most cherished liberty.

But let's suppose we don't believe the Bible is true. Ultimately, morality is an inherently religious issue. If you follow the Christian religion, you follow Christian morality, but if you do not believe the Christian religion, you are required to find an alternative moral source. "Guilt Free", the vegetarian in the header image, seems to believe human beings are designed to be vegetarians, or at the very least reject the premise that we are designed to eat meat. But "design" is a loose word these days.

Generally speaking, when we hear "design", we naturally connect it with intelligence. We recognise that scissors, for example, are designed to cut through paper or fabric. But when we say "tigers were designed to eat meat", it's not uncommon to dismiss the Designer. But in dismissing the Designer's intention, what should be is replaced with what is.

Again with scissors, they are designed as cutting tools, but their design also makes them effective murder weapons. If you pretend no one made scissors, you might well decide they are useful for either purpose. Similarly, if you believe life, as we know it, is the end result of billions of years of chance and violence, you have no grounds upon which to claim there is even such a thing as dietary morality, or even morality at all. You can look at human teeth and say they resemble herbivore teeth more than carnivore teeth, but if you believe in Evolution, you cannot rationally condemn the Jeffrey Dahmer diet.

Conclusion

And so we see that ultimately, moral questions depend on moral sources. When we ask "what should humans eat?", the answer does not depend on how sharp our teeth are, or even on what we were designed to eat. Rather, it depends on whether or not a specific moral worldview is true. If there is no moral legislator, then all is permissible, even the most brutal forms of cannibalism.

But if the Bible is true, it gives us a very clear guideline for dietary morals. While love is the ultimate goal, and that may require us to sacrifice our liberties, the fact that we have these liberties is undeniable. We were designed in a world free of death, in which vegetarianism was both the easiest and only option. However, we no longer live in a world free of death, and so we are permitted to utilise this grand inevitability. If our conscience can handle it, we may eat all kinds of meat, even the meat God declared "unclean" under certain covenants, because He declared all foods clean. In fact, ultimately, he declared "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Therefore, let us not hold to doctrines of devils, forbidding certain foods. Let us instead be grateful that the Lord provides for us, even in a fallen world, and even to those who do not yet know Him.

AI usage

AI was used in the following ways to produce this article:

1. Minimising the generalisation of motives in the dietary summaries.