According to the Bible, God intended the entire human race to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Paradise is vegetarian. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon von Isaac, 1030-1105), the famous Jewish Bible commentator, taught that “God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh. Only every green herb shall they all eat together.” Ibn Ezra and other Jewish biblical commentators agree.

According to the Talmud, “Adam and many generations that followed him were strict flesh-abstainers; flesh-foods were rejected as repulsive for human consumption.” Although man was made in God's image and given dominion over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28), these verses do not justify humans killing animals and devouring them, because God immediately proclaims He created the plants for human consumption. (Genesis 1:29)

In a letter to Pope John Paul II, challenging him on the issue of animal experimentation, Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society argued that the word “dominion” is derived from the original Hebrew word “rahe” which refers to compassionate stewardship, instead of power and control. Parents have dominion over their children; they do not have a license to kill, torment or abuse them. The Talmud (Shabbat 119; Sanhedrin 7) interprets “dominion” to mean animals may be used for labor.

Man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and told to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). “And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) Complete and perfect harmony. Everything in the beginning was the way God wanted it. Vegetarianism was part of God's initial plan for the world.

“It appears that the first intention of the Maker was to have men live on a strictly vegetarian diet,” writes Rabbi Simon Glazer, in his 1971 Guide to Judaism. “The very earliest periods of Jewish history are marked with humanitarian conduct towards the lower animal kingdom…It is clearly established that the ancient Hebrews knew, and perhaps were the first among men to know, that animals feel and suffer pain.”

After the Flood, God revised His commandment against flesh-eating. Human beings, since eating of the forbidden fruit, seemed incapable of obedience on this issue. One Jewish writer comments, “Only after man had proven unfit for the high moral standard given at the beginning, was meat made a part of the humans' diet.”

A Jewish legend says Moses was found to be righteous by God through his shepherding. While Moses was tending his sheep of Jethro in the Midian wilderness, a young kid ran away from the flock. Moses ran after it until he found the kid drinking by a pool of water. Moses approached the kid and said, “I did not know that you ran away because you were thirsty; now, you must be tired.” So Moses placed the animal on his shoulders and carried him back to the flock. God said, “Because thou has shown mercy in leading the flock, thou will surely tend My flock, Israel.”

In his essay, “The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews,” Jean Soler finds in the Bible at least two times when an attempt was made to try the Israelites out on a vegetarian diet. During the period of exodus from Egypt, the Hebrews lived entirely on manna. They had large flocks which they brought with them, but never touched.

The Israelites were told that manna “is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.” (Exodus 16:5) For forty years in the desert, the Israelites lived on manna (Nehemiah 9:15,21). The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (16:20) calls manna the food of the angels. Manna is described as a vegetable food, like “coriander seed” (Numbers 11:7), tasting like wafers and honey (Exodus 16:31).

On two separate occasions, however, the men rebelled against Moses because they wanted meat. The meat-hungry Hebrews lamented, “Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots.” God ended this first “experiment in vegetarianism” through the miracle of the quails.

A second “experiment in vegetarianism” is suggested in the Book of Numbers, when the Hebrews lament once again, “O that we had meat to eat.” (Numbers 11:4) God repeated the miracle of the quails, but this time with a vengeance: “And while the flesh was between their teeth, before it was even chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and He struck them down with a great plague.” (Numbers 11:33)

The site where the deaths took place was named “The Graves of Lust.” (Numbers 11:34; Deuteronomy 12:20) The quail meat was called “basar ta’avah,” or “meat of lust.” The Talmud (Chulin 84a) comments that: “The Torah teaches a lesson in moral conduct, that man shall not eat meat unless he has a special craving for it, and shall eat it only occasionally and sparingly.” Here, according to Soler, as in the story of the Flood, “meat is given a negative connotation. It is a concession God makes to man’s imperfection.”

In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain: “Keeping kosher is Judaism's compromise with its ideal vegetarianism. Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food.”

In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices: “When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens.”

Some biblical passages denounce animal sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11,15; Amos 5:21-25). Other passages state that animal sacrifices, not necessarily incurring God's wrath, are unnecessary (I Kings 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:13; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 50:1-14; Psalm 40:6; Proverbs 21:3; Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Sometimes Christians cite Isaiah 1:11, where God says, “I am full of the burnt offerings…” They say the word “full” implies God accepted the sacrifices. However, in Isaiah 43:23-24, God says: “You have not honored Me with your sacrifices…rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities.” This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught and Rabbi Shmuel Golding confirms above, that “the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism.”

Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9). Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5) The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9) Christians are to “Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful.” (Luke 6:36) Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires “mercy and not sacrifice.” (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as “so much garbage”), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals.

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. “So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham…be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?” Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on “tsa'ar ba'alei chayim” or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. “Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

“And when he has found it,” Jesus continued, “he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

“I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance…there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God in the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Jerome.

From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian. A partial list includes: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Columba, St. Filipo Neri, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) writes:

“The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

“To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few.”

According to contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast:

“…the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging—to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer.”

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food (”factory farming”), choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens:

“Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?” he asked. “It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention.”

Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church says:

“The Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord,' who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way.”

Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical on the religious Left, says there are more Christian vegetarians than Jewish vegetarians. Yet some people still react to the idea of Christian vegetarianism as though it were an oxymoron.

“Every year,” says Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, “I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so…The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches…

“I derive hope from the Gospel preaching that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world–however the churches may actually behave.”

However, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that the deleterious health effects of poor diet consisting of relatively cheaper, factory-produced foods are found disproportionately among the poor.

And if more Americans begin demanding that they know where the food they eat comes from and how it was produced, more farmers will see the economic benefits of abandoning industrial farming methods. And that will help lower the price gap between foods produced with more wholesome methods and those produced industrially. In the meantime, agriculture's move away from factory methods will accelerate as the costs of fossil fuels and the fertilizers, pesticides, and other so-called “inputs” that are derived from fossil fuels continue to rise and/or begin to become harder to obtain, not to mention increasing transportation costs making long-distance transport of food items less feasible.

We're all going to be paying more for our food in the not-too-distant future; that's inevitable. Some kind of safety net needs to be in place to help those most vulnerable to cope with these increased food costs.

This is great if you are economically well-off and also are sufficiently able-bodied enough so that you can engage in rigorous gardening tasks. But rather blythely telling people of limited or fixed incomes that they should be willing to “pay more” for their food imposes a hardship on them.

Back many years ago, I was of very limited income such that I qualified (and received) food stamps. I simply couldn't afford the stuff available at “organic” shops, so I was stuck going to regular grocery stores and frequently had to buy the really cheap white bread. Nowadays, I have a well-paying, secure job and thus I can buy high-fiber bread (which is what I need to keep things moving down below). However, even at a comfortable, middle-class salary, expenses (particularly for health care — but that's a separate issue) are such that I can't fork out higher prices for organic food.

There have to be different solutions to this dilemma rather than “pay more for food” especially for those who cannot afford to pay more.

But whether we realize it or not, there's also this invisible moral variable: I don't know a single person who would purchase candy, no matter how cheap, if they knew it was stolen from children. We do have a great moral responsibility when we consume. For some, like the family with two daughters depicted in the film, there is no choice. So those who do have the choice — the “privileged” who have the choice of putting dollars into responsible and just food operations — are, in a sense, doubly responsible. Because at the end of the day, our food system is directed by our purchasing habits. It's up to the people to tell them we want better.

What it comes down to, in my humble opinion, is a new purchasing perspective. Might I propose that we add in a moral component to the food purchasing equation? Even further, that we determine what food is worth to us BEFORE we step into the comestible wonderland that is the supermarket?

Some justice issues — like human trafficking or poverty — can seem inaccessible. Hard to know how to help in a meaningful way. What's so encouraging about food issues is that we are constantly streaming our input, our voice, into the system, three times every single day.

Also I had one of my kids who in school years ago had a teacher who paid much attention to this subject , even had historical information thathave been caused by food and the need of it by nations . In a way you can say oil is related , without oil the mass amount of food produced would not be able to be accomplished , in fact oil may be the primary reason for the population growth in a way.

Mick

The only way out of it is for Americans to begin growing their own food or buying it only from people that they know and who aren't using industrial agriculture methods. That means they're willing to pay more for it. But in the long run, we'll all be healthier–and our environment, too.

I happen to be reading Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle right now. Kingsolver takes us on her family's adventure as they tried to live for an entire year on what they grew themselves or bought from people they know. I'm only in the third chapter, but I'd recommend it so far. She touches on some of the same issues that Julie–and this movie–also discuss.

“From the animals that are confined in inhumane cages…”

Ha.

I ask, because IIRC certain vegetables aren't really expensive. Cabbage IIRC is available around $0.40/lb. And the much maligned “burger meals” cost around $5-$6, which IIRC is comparable to a processed salad at the same fast-food joint.

The movie concludes with the reminder that we can each make a difference every time we go to the store. The point isn’t to abandon the food system, or stop buying food, but to simply demand healthier, sustainable food.

Exactly. The federal government has been in league with the food industry for decades to standardize and centralize food production. The government, with the urging of large processors, is bent on regulating and harassing small, local producers out of business in the name of “food safety”. We, the consumers, need to stop supporting this. We need to stop subsidizing this through our tax dollars. If we didn't subsidize corn and soybeans so much that McDonald's cheeseburger wouldn't be cheaper than locally grown and raised healthy food.