Start with part 1…
Having been raised in a church that put a strong emphasis on health, I have retained my interest in a healthy lifestyle to this day. But my opinion on what is healthy has changed dramatically.
Toward my late teens early twenties, I rejected most of what I had been taught up until that point. I called myself an agnostic. I was introduced to chicken and beef by my future wife (an Adventist) and found that I really liked meat.
I realized that what one believes about the origins of man can have a tremendous affect on what you believe is healthy. An intelligent designer would have known exactly what He designed us to eat, so the original plan would have been ideal. On the other hand, an evolved being would have adapted to whatever was available in the environment. I began reasoning out what made sense in each scenario.
My original conclusions were that a designer would have designed foods in sizes and conveniences appropriate to the amounts we should eat. Fruits would have been extremely important since they are both highly convenient and relatively large. Grains, on the other hand, would have been unimportant since they are very small and difficult to harvest in large quantities.
I realized that such logic actually seemed to fit in with the evolutionary angle as well. Early man would have had difficulty harvesting grains and so would have been more likely to eat apples than large quantities of spelt.
The main difference here is that a creator (as far as I could tell) would not have made man to eat meat (i.e. to kill and eat other creatures of his design), while an evolved man would have been very likely to eat meat.
Continue reading in part 3…
Curious to see where you’re headed on this one. From the point where you left it, it would seem that meat eating would come from an evolutionist frame of reference. I trust that’s not where you’re going to leave it, because that would leave out a large part of the Christian community.
I too am curious. When can we expect part 3?