GOOD HEALTH | AdventAI

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Aug 29, 1878

GOOD HEALTH.

Proper Diet for Man.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

MANY objections to the exclusive use of vegetable food have been proposed, but most of them are without either logical or practical force, and are only urged in the vain attempt to reconcile unnatural and perverted habits with physiological laws. We will examine some of them without particular reference to consecutive arrangement.

1. Does not the Bible sanction meat eating? So says the Christian objector who honestly and sincerely believes that the Scriptures not only countenance but command the use of animal food. Our space is here too limited to allow us to go into all the details of the Scripture argument; but we will call attention to two points which should be sufficient to satisfy the objector: 1. Meat used in the way in which the Bible directs, and as the Jews now use it, as already described, would be comparatively harmless. 2. Abundant evidence can be produced to show that in his dealings with mankind Providence has permitted, and even regulated by laws, many things which he neither directed nor sanctioned. Instances of this kind are so familiar that specification is unnecessary.

2. But, admitting that meat is stimulating, is not a certain amount of stimulus needed, at least, by certain temperaments?

Stimulation is invariably the result of poisoning. Poisoning is a violation of the laws of nature. The habitual use of any stimulant, then, must be physical sin, leaving out the question of morality. Who will contend that a certain amount of physical transgression is necessary for some temperaments any more than that a certain amount of immorality would be beneficial to certain individuals. If God has so constituted people that they find it necessary to transgress some of the physical laws of their being by using stimulus, or in any other way, is it not equally probable that he has made it true that the highest and most perfect development of some persons can only be attained by a moderate indulgence in vice—stealing a little occasionally, lying or cheating now and then? The absurdity of the objection reveals its falsity.

3. Is not flesh necessary to the inhabitants of cold climates to prevent them from freezing? and when sailors go North are they not obliged to make use of a large proportion of animal fat to keep them warm?

This objection is easily answered, for it is not founded on facts. It is not disputed that the Esquimaux and similar tribes eat large quantities of animal food, but science demonstrates in the clearest manner that this is wholly unnecessary, so far as the maintenance of life is concerned. According to Dr. Edward Smith, F. R. S., one pound of beef steak, when eaten, will produce only one-third as much heat as a pound of rice, oatmeal, or wheat flour. And a pound of either of these grains will produce more than one-half as much heat as a pound of pure fat—whale oil or bear's oil. It is certainly true, then, that the vegetable kingdom furnishes heat-producing elements in sufficient quantity to supply all of the wants of man in this direction. If the northern barbarians cannot obtain a sufficient quantity of vegetable food to sustain life, they would doubtless find it much for their health to remove to some milder climate.

4. If we don't eat meat, what shall be done with all of our domestic animals, our oxen? our sheep? our hogs? and, the Frenchman would add, our broken-down horses?

What shall we do with them? Anything but devour them. Do with our horses what we have always done with them until the fastidious (?) Frenchman conceived the idea of eating the faithful animal after he had outlived his usefulness. Do with our cows and oxen just what we do with horses, and just what the people of other countries do with them. As long as biting frosts and chilling winds exist, we can find something to do with the sheep without dining upon him. And as for the hog, we will let him attend to his natural and quite important business as scavenger. If he gets so numerous as to overrun us, and self preservation becomes necessary, we can use him to lubricate our machinery, light our halls, and for several other useful purposes. Certainly, there is no necessity for eating him to get him out of the way!

5. Has not the long use of animal food by the human family made such changes in their dietetic relations that flesh is now better adapted to their wants than vegetable food, although not originally designed for their sustenance?

In answering this objection, we will call attention to the two following considerations: 1. Such a change as the objection supposes is quite improbable. The laws of man's nature are not the uncertain products of circumstances, they are great, immutable principles founded in his nature and organization. They are not mere arbitrary, empirical rules, instituted by some superior, governing being simply for man's annoyance. They are laws which exist as a necessary consequence of man's existence, being co-existent with him. How, then, can circumstances change them? How can the whims of perverted taste subvert them? Will any amount of sinning change one "jot or tittle" of the moral law? Never; for that perfect code is founded in man's moral nature. Equally unchangeable are physical laws; for they are founded in man's physical nature. 2. But a change of this kind has never taken place. It could only take place by a corresponding change in the structure of the human system; for as we have already seen those animals which use animal food possess different alimentary organs from those which use vegetable. Had man become carnivorous by long use of animal food, we should find him with teeth, and other organs of alimentation, like those of carnivorous animals, which we have already seen is not true. Then we must conclude that so far as a constitutional change in favor of a flesh diet is concerned, its occurrence is not only improbable, but is untrue in fact.

6. But the change from a flesh diet to an exclusively vegetable one is so difficult; is not this an evidence in favor of animal food?

Instead of being an evidence in favor of the use of flesh, this objection furnishes one of the strongest arguments against its use; just as the tobacco-user's craving for the filthy weed, and the drunkard's longing for the fiery draught, the opium-eater's frenzy for his narcotic drug, are the most indubitable evidences of their pernicious character.