Why I Don't Eat Meat

I have a few reasons for being a "strict vegetarian", meaning that I don't eat any animal products. First, as I've described above, is my health needs. Diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are serious enough to change a person's diet!

Those were the alerts I got from my doctor in August of 2007.
I read Dr. Barnard's book, accepted the sound logic of the diet advice (no animal products or oil, and low glycemic index foods) and three months later my diabetes was cured and my other numbers were on the happy decline.

So why not quit the diet and reintroduce meats, etc? Well, first of all I have brought back some oil (extra virgin olive oil, or EVOO), Promise Light Buttery Spread with Flax Oil, and occasional - occasional cheese. But I'll not go back to meat. For one thing, animal products are the only source of cholesterol. No animals = no cholesterol overload. Period.

In my research about my health, I began looking into reports of contamination in the meat industry. What I found is so disturbing that I cannot stomach the thought of eating a dead cow, chicken, or pig, much less the animal itself. Our meat processing industry is so very much removed from what it was just 100 years ago that the stuff in the meat market is poison to a human body. Literally. Pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and other "additives" turn a good piece of steak into a cesspool of poisons. I can't afford to do that to me any more.

Then there's the issue of eating animals at all. WAIT. Stay with me here. Yes, the Bible tells how to kill and eat certain kinds of animals. But the Bible also tells how to properly handle divorce, slavery, and warfare, none of which were in God's original plan for us. When you look back to God's original design, you see that He engineered us for a plant-based diet. Look at the original story:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Not until after the flood, from 1 to 3 thousand years later, did God allow for animal eating. Yes, He allowed it. No, it is not a sin. BUT it is contrary to His original plan. And contrary to our bodies' needs. In the early Christian church, one way Christians were singled out in society was that they were vegans. They honored God's creation by not taking life for their own carnal desires. (They thought like this: If I gave my grandson a puppy out of love for him so he could enjoy playing with it, and found out later that he killed it and ate it, I wouldn't stop loving him, but I sure would be disappointed. And I'd be careful about what gifts I would give him later on!) It wasn't until after the middle of the first Christian century, when they Roman church began adopting so many worldly traditions into itself, that blood and flesh consumption became accepted into Christian society.

So, health, common sense, and respect for God's carefully designed animals are reasons I don't eat the pets God gave me. It's not my place to condemn you for what you choose to put into your body or your children's bodies - unless you're a dear one to me. Then I'll try to help you see the danger. And offer alternatives.

I Just Don't Understand Carnivores!

Honestly! I just can't follow some people's thinking.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a class with some friends discussing health. We had just watched a video about how important it is to guard your physical health for various reasons, including our spiritual responsibility to care for God's creation (our bodies). I and another member talked about our experiences with vegan/vegetarianism and how it had improved our health both generally and in specific areas such as blood pressure, choesterol, diabetes, energy, etc.

All agreed that this was a wise move and that taking care of ourselves is vital. They all took in the info and seemed to digest it. Discussion then moved on to our next meeting and the question was asked, so what shall we eat next time?
(Now, remember, this was mere moments after the aforementioned health discussion.)
One member chimed in: "Oh! Let's have hamburgers! I'll break out the grill!"
Choruses of agreement and sounds of hunger (groans, mmmmmms, etc) followed.

I looked at my wife and we both just shook our heads in amazement and consternation.

What is it that causes normally clear-thinking, rational, mature adults to act so ... blindly? Are they not able to withstand their blood lust, or their addiction to flesh, or their hunger for grease ... or what??? These are not bad people, Jo Donna pointed out later on the way home. In 'most all other areas they exhibit good judgment and logical reasoning skills. So how come when it comes to a clear way to both improve their health and deal more rationally with the creation of the God they all serve, they can't see past their unwise choices?

None of these folks would consider smoking because they are too smart to tempt lung cancer with tobacco. They are not heavy drinkers who risk liver disease and other physical dangers. They are monogamous in their marriages, loyal in their faith and politics, and conscientious in their community responsibilities. So why - why - why are they unable to consider for even 10 minutes giving up the ofttimes-proven-unhealthy habit of eating dead animals, especially poisonous dead animals as are found in pieces in the local markets?

I'm working on a theory that there is more behind this than many would suspect. Consider this: eating animals serves two obvious purposes: first, it is a continuous method of torture and destruction of God's carefully designed, beloved animals; second, it is a slow-but-sure method of destroying God's jewel of His creation, mankind, both physically and spiritually through the continued practice of animalistic killing plus the consumption of fear-hormone-infected animal flesh and blood.

What's the common factor? Attacking the Creator.
Now, who is hell-bent on attacking the Creator? The devil.
And, who would most delight in tricking one of God's beloved creatures into torturing and destroying others of God's design?
See where I'm going?

In the beginning, God designed a beautiful home where all His creation could live in peace together. Adam was placed in direct responsibility for the animals. His first job was to care for them and the garden. In Genesis 1:29 we were directed to eat plants, nuts, and seeds, which were designed to fill all our nutritional and pleasurable requirements. Enter satan and the deception and fall from grace.
We lost the garden, and a few generations later we were turned loose on the animals.

I honestly believe, my friends and brothers sisters, that this lust which is upon so many of us, including God's elect, is a trick and trap of God's enemy onto us, God's beloved. As long as the enemy can keep us dulled with blood lust and our bodies poisoned with animal flesh, he can flaunt our brutish and bratish behavior in God's face.

How much it must grieve our loving Creator and Father when he witnesses the wholesale torture and murder of gentle animals who He designed for His own and our pleasure. Jesus said that the Father is aware of a sparrow's fall - what must it do to Him when a beautiful cow, an intelligent and clever pig, or a trusting and frightened chicken is ripped to death just so we - God's other creation - can suck down their blood and gulp down their flesh. How it must break God's heart!

I wonder, can God even bear to look down into a slaughterhouse? Can God, in all His power and strength, stand to hear the screams of terror and pain? What does He think of us, His children, when we carelessly and blithely rip His gentle pets to shreds for our blood lust?

What will we have to answer for when we stand before our Father?

The Bible talks about animals in Heaven, around the throne. Will we carry our selfish lusts into His presence and think how we'd like to rip a leg off one of the oxen near Him? God forbid it! But what will we think? Based on recent observations, I guess we'll just laugh it off and say to Heavenly God, "Aw, Who cares if You made them, anyway? They're just stupid animals; just meat for my belly!"

143 MILLION more reasons

Last month, the USDA grudgingly ordered another beef recall. This time it was 143 MILLION pounds of beef packaged and shipped up to a year and a half earlier. Much of this tainted meat was served to our children.
Think about this:
* Mad cow disease lies dormant for up to ten years before symptoms of brain disease begin to show.
* E-coli poisoning is much preferable, since it manifests immediately.
* Animal born diseases sicken and kill thousands each year.
* Factory-style animal slaughter houses (which produce the vast majority of the meat you eat and feed your family) are rife with cases of blatant abuse, misuse, and mishandling.
* Animals that are killed in terror release massive amounts of negative hormones, including natural antibodies and adrenaline into their systems, which are passed along to those who eat that meat.
* The excessive demand for meat to eat contributes hugely to pollution of water, land, and air, increasing the damage done to you and your family.
* According to the US Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes...
* That same acre of land, when used to grow cattle feed, can produce less than 165 pounds of edible cow flesh.
* Every second, one football field of rainforest is destroyed in order to produce 257 hamburgers. Rainforests are vital to life on earth - they regulate the global climate and the water cycle, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and provide humans with medicines, food, and much more.
* Two-thirds of Central America’s rainforests have been destroyed, in part to raise cattle whose meat, typically found in hamburgers and processed meat, is exported to profit the US food industry.
* Over 4 million acres of cropland are lost to erosion in the US every year due to plundering farmlands to fatten animals for slaughter.

Eating meat just doesn't make any sense at all. The only honest reason to eat meat is "I just want to." And when that is balanced against all the negatives, it pretty much amounts to selfish gluttony.
You are too smart to keep eating meat. And you're too caring to keep feeding it to your family.
Just say no. Your body will thank you, your family will thank you, and you can feel good about yourself.

Bobby - just too darned smart to eat meat.

More news about that HUGE meat recall

What they didn't tell you about recent meat recall

By Stephen J. Hedges

Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON — The largest meat recall in U.S. history was bound to reverberate throughout the food-manufacturing world. So far, four major food manufacturers — ConAgra, General Mills, Heinz and Nestlé — have acknowledged that meat involved in the 143 million-pound recall, announced Feb. 17, was used in some of their products.

So why haven't those products been recalled?

They have been — very quietly.

Nestlé, General Mills, Heinz and ConAgra each acknowledged to news organizations that they have recalled products containing beef from the meatpacking company Hallmark/Westland.

Those products include two versions of Nestlé's Hot Pocket sandwiches, Heinz's Boston Market lasagna with meat sauce, General Mills' Progresso Italian Wedding Soup and a variety of meat products from ConAgra, ranging from Slim Jim snacks to Hunt's Manwich Original Sloppy Joe Sauce.

The companies stressed that the use of Hallmark/Westland meat was limited, and that they notified retailers and told them to pull those products.

But none had taken the usual step of notifying consumers through news releases and warnings on Web sites.

Why the secrecy? In part because the recall is indirect; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) urged Hallmark/Westland to contact food producers that use its meat and urge them to pull their products. But the USDA did not contact food producers.

The food manufacturers said they are under no obligation to notify consumers.

The Hallmark/Westland recall is considered a Class II recall under U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, which means there is a remote risk of adverse human-health effects.

But food-safety advocates said ordinary shoppers have been forgotten.

"It's better to fess up and be open and honest with your consumers," said Bill Marler, a lawyer who often sues companies on behalf of food-poisoning victims. "It makes consumers more comfortable with your product, not less comfortable."

SEE THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004276452_meat12.html

New MAD COW threat - COW HEADS!!!!

Elkhorn Valley Packing LLC, in Kansas, is recalling over 400,000 pounds of frozen beef which have the threat of infecting consumers with the dreaded and fatal "mad cow disease." In fact, what's causing the fear is a shipment of cattle heads!

In the first place, who eats a cow's head? I thought we were confining ourselves to their rumps and guts for delicate dining! But apparently someone is eating a lot of cow heads. The problem comes in when folks try to eat not only the head proper (or improper, I guess) but when they also try to chow down on the offending cow's TONSILS! ('scuse me while I gag just a little bit). Seems the tonsils, which are disease barriers in us as well as cows, grab and contain dangerous diseases, such as BSE (that's Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease, which is a chronic, degenerative disorder affecting the central nervous system of cattle and carnivores who feast on cow flesh). So, the USDA is making them recall the cow heads in question.

So, what is the bottom line here? About the only sure way to avoid a slow, agonizing, expensive death by mad cow disease is to DON'T EAT MEAT! Good grief! how hard is this? Not only will eating cows' heads (and rumps and guts) give you this horrendous disease, but it is nutritionally damaging to your body. (see articles at the bottom of this blog)

If you absolutely MUST eat a dead cow (or pig or chicken, etc), you should have the package of "beef" examined by a reputable representative of the Centers for Disease Control. Just take or mail the flesh to the nearest office of the CDC and in a few months you'll know whether or not it will kill you sooner or later!

(Matthew 10:29)

Two new deaths from MAD COW disease

Reuters News Service is reporting right now (9:00 am Monday 4/7/08) that two people have died in Spain from mad cow disease!

Reasons to give up meat just keep piling up!

Read below for super non-animal recipes. You don't HAVE to eat animals. There is a whole world of alternatives out there. God designed us to operate best on the diet He advised in Genesis 1:29 And God said, "Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food." He designed the animals for His and our pets. It is unnecessary, anti-nutritious, and just plain rude to eat God's pets. We were given dominion over them, yes. But that means we're supposed to be taking care of them, not eating them. When God had finished carefully creating every delicate aspect of each kind of animal, then put us in charge of taking care of them, then assigned us our food sources, the Bible says that He looked over all He had made, saw it was good, and blessed the whole set up.

Take care of God's pets. Eat what He designed you to eat. Meat is loaded with cholesterol, saturated fats, and enzymes which are contraindicated for your body's nutritional needs. Just do what comes naturally - eat everything else except animals. You'll feel better and live longer for it.

BC

Do Animals Have Souls?

SOURCE: http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

'Only humans matter: they have souls. Animals don't.' This has been said, millions of times. People often use it as a mantra, not because they are necessarily helping to alleviate human suffering, but to justify their lack of concern and compassion for the suffering of animals. Of course humans matter - but so do animals: and animals have souls too.

Catholic teaching has never actually denied this, following St Thomas Aquinas in this as in most things, although it has not yet developed a fully positive understanding of the place of animals within the order of salvation. This is a subject being grasped by some of the best theologians of our time, as they realise that this lack of understanding results in an untypically muddled response from the Catholic Church over an important contemporary issue - that of animal welfare.

The first thing to unravel from the various strands of tradition is the meaning of the word 'soul'. It is not really helpful to talk of people or animals 'having' souls - as you might 'have' a wristwatch or brown eyes or curly hair. Body and soul are not simply two factors existing alongside or in each other, but form an indivisible whole. A person, or an animal, is wholly body and wholly soul and both are at all times the whole being. In other words we do not only 'have' a body, or 'have' a soul - we are both body and soul. The Hebrew language does not talk of the two as separate entities, as we shall see in the Scriptures. Pagan Greek and Roman philosophers, whose thinking played such a leading role in influencing Christian theologians through the ages, did make the separation between spirit and matter, placing reason and soul in the higher, spiritual sphere, and according body and matter a much lower status. We shall see how this came to effect the way in which animals, and the rest of the nonhuman creation, came to be viewed.

Living souls

In the beginning of our Scriptures, we see God creating 'every living creature' (Genesis 1:21, 24). The Hebrew words (transliterated) are 'chay' (living) and 'nephesh' (soul). 'Nephesh' is mentioned over 400 times in the Old Testament signifying soul. The words 'chay nephesh' are used from chapter one, verse 20, when the waters are filled with living creatures. The close translation from Hebrew is: 'And God said: Let the waters swarm [with] the swarmers [having] a soul of life …' and in the next verse: 'And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, [having] a living soul …' (The words in square brackets are not used in Hebrew, but are understood.) In verse 30, God provides food - purely vegetarian - to every living thing, in which, the Hebrew adds, '[is] a living soul'. There is a definite separation here between 'every green plant', which of course are living things, and every creature possessed of a 'living soul'. In chapter two, the second, and older Creation account, the first human being was created from dust, then God 'blew into his nostrils [the] breath of life and man became a living soul', a 'chay nephesh'. Here we have the real sense of 'nephesh', or soul, as a being animated by the breath of life. This reminds us of the glorious invocation of psalm 150, where 'everything that breathes' is to praise the Lord.

Pope John Paul II: 'animals possess a soul'

When Pope John Paul II declared in a public audience in 1990 that 'also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren' some people must have thought this was a new teaching, unaware of the Holy Father's scholarly familiarity with the authentic Hebrew texts. When he went on to state that all animals are 'fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect' and that they are 'as near to God as men are', animal lovers in the audience were ecstatic! The Pope mentions the special relationship of mankind with God as being created in His image and likeness. 'However,' he goes on 'other texts state that animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. In this respect, man, created by the hand of God, is identical with all other living creatures. And so in Psalm 104 there is no distinction between man and beasts when it reads, addressing God: " … Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The existence therefore,' the Holy Father reminds us, 'of all living creatures depends on the living spirit/breath of God that not only creates but also sustains and renews the face of the earth.'

This discourse caused a stir around the world, and was especially encouraging to Catholic animal welfare groups which had begun to despair that anything 'animal friendly' would ever be heard in Rome. The then professor of theology and dogma at the University of Urbino, Carlo Molari, called it 'very important and significant. It is a "sign of the times" because it demonstrates the Church's desire and deep concern to clarify present confused thinking and attitudes towards the animal kingdom. There should be no need, but the Pontiff, in reiterating that animals came into being because of the direct action of the "breath" of God, wanted to say that also these creatures, as well as man, are possessed of the divine spark of life and that living quality that is the soul. And are therefore not inferior beings or only of a purely material reality.'

The image of God

In the ten years that have passed, not a great deal has changed in church-goers' understanding of the souls of animals. Could that be because so little is ever taught or preached or prayed about them and their undoubted suffering at human hands? More is known about mankind being 'made in the image of God' and about having 'dominion' over the natural world. That is too often used as justification for treating the world as one great natural resource for human benefit, and all the other creatures in it as designed for mankind alone.

But what did 'image' really mean? Statues, or images, were and are used to represent kings and rulers. Think of the number of statues of Queen Victoria there are scattered around the former Empire. Human beings are living statues, living representatives - in much the same way as ambassadors represent the head of state of the country they come from. We human beings are to represent the rule of God in the created world, using delegated powers to see that the world continues to function and flourish in the way the Creator intended. To be shepherd-kings, not 'as those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them', but as 'slave of all' (Mark 10: 42-45). St Francis came close to this model in treating all other created beings as 'brothers and sisters', rather than as most people do today, as disposable things whose only value is in their usefulness to us.

We have elevated the human being beyond all other creatures until he has even taken the place of God. Secular rationalism would do away with the concept of soul altogether. The French philosopher, Descartes (1596-1650), divided the human person into the 'thinking part' res cogitans and the body res extensa. He saw the body as a machine, which had to be governed by the self-awareness of human rational thought. He dropped the word for soul 'anima' and replaced it with the word for mind 'mens' What animals lacked, so he said, was the human rational thought, therefore their status was purely that of machines - and machines cannot feel. The screams emitted by tortured animals were no more, he said, than the squeaking of mechanical parts and of no consequence. That attitude to some extent still exists, even though scientists are now discovering that even relatively simple life forms are capable of feeling pain and stress.

The Age of Reason was typified by Descartes and by Kant, who wrote that 'So far as animals are concerned we have no direct moral duties; animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.' For them might have been written those chapters in Job in which God asks: 'Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?' (chapters 38 and 39). However, they had been influenced more by Aristotle and the Stoics than by Scripture. These ancients held that animals, while possessing 'animal souls' (as distinct from 'vegetable souls') lacked reason, and demonstrated their lack of reason by lack of speech. They were not to know of the complex communication abilities of many of the primates, dolphins, whales, etc. What is worse is that they considered that lack of speech gives us the right to exploit them! Stoics also thought that animals cannot learn by experience - but then, they never watched 'One Man and his Dog'!

What is definitive in Christian understanding of animals in the order of salvation, is that, with the incarnation of Christ, with God taking flesh, there is a new connection between all that shares the matter of flesh, of bodies: as the Holy Father said, a 'solidarity' between us and our brothers and sisters, the other 'living souls', the animals.

Dangerous MILK

Important news for everyone who drinks milk. PLEASE READ THIS.
Soy, almond, or rice milk are great tasting alternatives with none of the hormone threats of cow's milk. Protect your kids!
This is from the Prevent Cancer website (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm)

BC
-------------------------

Why is American Milk Banned in Europe?

* American dairy milk is genetically-modified unless it’s labeled “NO rBGH”
* Genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in milk increases cancer risks.

American dairy farmers inject rBGH to dairy cows to increase milk production.

European nations and Canada have banned rBGH to protect citizens from IGF-1 hazards.

Monsanto Co., the manufacturer of rBGH, has influenced U. S. product safety laws permitting the sale of unlabeled rBGH milk. (Monsanto would lose billions of dollars if rBGH were banned in America.)

Q. Is there any milk not contaminated with rBGH and IGF-1?
A. Yes. Milk that is clearly labeled “NO rBGH” is free of rBGH and does not contain excess levels of IGF-1.

Q. What about cheeses?
A. American-made cheeses are contaminated with rBGH and excess levels of IGF-1 unless they’re labeled “NO rBGH”. Imported European cheeses are safe since Europe has banned rBGH.

IGF-1 and Milk: Q&A

Q. What is IGF-1?
A. Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1)is a normal growth factor. Excess levels have been increasingly linked by modern research to human cancer development and growth.

Q. How does IGF-1 get into milk?
A. In 1994, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). According to rBGH manufacturers, injections of rBGH causes cows to produce up to 20 percent more milk. The growth hormone also stimulates the liver to increase IGF-1 levels in the milk of those cows. Recently, Eli Lilly & Co., a manufacturer of rBGH, reported a ten-fold increase in IGF-1 levels in milk of cows receiving the hormone. IGF-1 is the same in humans and cows, and is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact, the pasteurization process actually increases IGF-1 levels in milk.

Q. How does rBGH milk containing IGF-1, affect, humans?
A. After the rBGH milk is consumed, IGF-1 is not destroyed by human digestion. Instead, IGF-1 is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall. Additional research has shown that it can be absorbed into the bloodstream where it can effect other hormones.

Q. Is IGF-1 likely to increase the risk of specific kinds of cancer?
A. It is highly likely that IGF-1 promotes transformation of normal breast cells to breast cancers. In addition, IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to distant organs. (Increased levels of IGF-1 have similarly been associated with colon and prostate cancers.) The prenatal and infant breast is particularly susceptible to hormonal influences. Such imprinting by IGF-1 may increase future breast cancer risks, and may also increase the sensitivity of the breast to subsequent unrelated risks such as mammography and the carcinogenic and estrogen-like effects of pesticide residues in food, particularly in pre-menopausal women.

Q. Are cows adversely affected by elevated IGF-1 levels?
A. Cows injected with rBGH show heavy localization of IGF-1 in breast (udder) epithelial cells. This does not occur in untreated cows. Cows are also affected in other ways by rBGH, through increased rates of mastitis, an udder infection. Industry data show up to an 80 percent incidence of mastitis in hormone-treated cattle, resulting in the contamination of milk with significant levels of pus. Mastitis requires the use of antibiotics to treat, which leaves residues to pass on through the milk for human consumption.