Defective Arguments in The Four Soul Killers

John A. Johnson, Ph. D.

The Four Soul Killers, a Gnostic Orthodox tract published by St. George Press, argues that spiritual development is hindered by eating animal flesh and ingesting tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. Let me make clear at the outset that I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this pamphlet. I personally prefer a vegetarian to a meat diet because (a) I find killing animals repulsive; (b) I believe a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat diet; and (c) I tend to believe (but am not totally convinced) that meat-eating adversely affects spiritual development. The thesis of this paper is not one of anti-vegetarianism. Rather, the thesis is (a) vegetarianism has no strong biblical support, and (b) the Soul Killers author has taken his passages of biblical support for vegetarianism seriously out of context.

Let me also make clear at the outset that in actual practice, I do eat meat (almost exclusively chicken and fish). This is because I find it extremely difficult to avoid meat when my family, friends, and institutional food services do not support a purely vegetarian diet. Furthermore, while I do not smoke or use drugs, I do drink moderately. Thus, my critique of The Four Soul Killers might be construed as a justification or rationalization of my own behavior. Perhaps this is true. Even if this is so, that has nothing to do with the merits of the logical and empirical arguments presented in this paper.

My misgivings about The Four Soul Killers concern principally the scholarship supporting the doctrines espoused in the tract. Specifically, when I began reading the biblical quotations used to decry killing animals and eating meat, I found that most of these quotations were yanked violently out of context to suit the author's purpose. Furthermore, the author appears to read selectively, purposely ignoring portions of the Bible that allow for meat eating. Finally, the author seems to have a certain double-mindedness about the sanctity of the animals he wishes to avoid killing, and this leads to confusion about some of his arguments.

If the author has quoted material out of context because he read carelessly or if he was blinded by self-deception brought on by religious fervor, I can (somewhat reluctantly) forgive the practice. It seems to me, however, that the author is quite literate, intelligent, and purposeful in his intent to convince the reader of his arguments, and his misquoting was deliberate. If he has indeed intentionally taken biblical passages out of context to add authority to the doctrine he espouses, he insults the intelligent reader and artfully misleads the less discerning reader. I am troubled by such practices, for they may cause offended intelligent readers to reject the doctrine of the soul-killers (even though the doctrine doesn't need biblical support to be valid) and may cause the less discerning reader to accept the doctrine for the wrong reasons ("it's in the Bible--it must be true").

But these strong accusations and concerns are relevant only to the degree that the essential premise of this paper--that many biblical quotations are taken out of context--is true. Let us examine several instances of what I believe to be distortions of interpretation brought on by out-of-context quoting.

The author says (page) 4 concerning Isaiah 66:3 ("He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man") that there is "No need for 'interpretation.' It is quite clear: To kill a cow is homicide in God's eyes." I disagree. Sacredness of cows and sanctity of life, first of all, are traditional aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism, not the Judaic-Christian tradition. The Old Testament, in contrast, is replete with examples of the slaughter of cattle, lambs, etc. in ritual sacrifice. Furthermore, oxen were sentenced to death by stoning if they gored a person to death (unless the owner was at fault, in which case both ox and owner were to be put to death)--see Exodus 21: 28-36.

Let me quote all of verse three of the Isaiah passage (and, like the author, I will be using the New King James version unless otherwise noted): "He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog's neck; he who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine's blood; he who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol." Upon reading verse three in its entirety, (and even more so if one reads verses 1-4) one sees immediately that the verse is not about the equivalence of killing cows and human beings, but about the necessity of a properly worshipful attitude. Sacrifices made with an impious attitude--even grain offerings--are as worthless as offering up swine's blood.

"Even more to the point," continues the author on page four, [is St. Paul's statement]: '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 or drink wine … .' (Rom. 14:20, 21)." This seems to be a clear injunction against meat-eating and wine-drinking when taken out of context. But when one reads all of Romans 14, verses 1-23, one finds that the message is of liberty and love (in fact, those are the two titles in my NKJ version).

The message of liberty is that different people have different beliefs in how to best honor God, and that God hears and accepts their intent. We have no right to judge the specific worship practices of others. "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. [Taken out of context, this passage could be construed as an anti-vegetarian comment!] 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. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way" (Romans 14: 2-6,13).

The message of love is that we should not allow minor things like dietary practices to affect the bonds of love that bind us to one another. "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 food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14: 15-17). Love, peace, joy, and harmony are more important than diet. Now it becomes clear that verse 21 (which the author chops with an ellipsis) refers not primarily to an injunction against meat and wine specifically, but against dietary practices that offend your brothers: " It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything [my emphasis] by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak."

Earlier I suggested that Isaiah 66:3 tells us that right attitude, rather than specific ritual, is the key to worshiping in a way acceptable to God. Let's look at Romans 14:20 again: "All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense [my emphasis]." The type of food eaten is not the issue here because "all things are pure;" the issue is, rather, our offensive or non-offensive attitude. Romans 14: 14 says the same thing: "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." This passage suggests that the manner in which food affects our consciousness depends upon our attitude as we prepare the food and eat it. This thought is echoed many times throughout the New Testament.

One echo can be found in I Corinthians 10: 25-27. This passage repeats the message of Romans 14:21, that we should maintain harmony with our brothers by not imposing our dietary practices on them: "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for 'The earth is the Lord's and all its fullness.' If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake."

The author of the Soul Killers makes two claims about this passage. First, he states that "meat" is an archaic, general term for "food-in-general" (broma in Greek] from the old King James linguistics, and that the New King James version translates broma into food and the Greek kreas [flesh] into meat. In reality, the term "meat" appears in the new King James and is not found in the old King James; verse 25 from the old version reads "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake:".

The author's second claim is that this passage from Corinthians is primarily about eating food which had been offered in pagan temples, not about flesh-eating. I agree. Paul admonishes the reader: "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (verse 14); "Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (verse 18); "But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons" (verses 20-21).

Although fleeing from idolatry is the primary message of I Corinthians 14-33, the secondary messages are still valid. First, one is to keep harmony and peace by eating "whatever is set before you" (be it vegetables or meat) by your brother. The New International Version, in its version of the Corinthian passage, uses the same wording found in Romans 14: 13, "Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God" (NIV I Corinthians 10: 32). [Apparently, the only food one should refuse would be food offered to pagan deities. We are to refuse dinner invitations extended by demon worshipers.]

The other secondary message is the reiteration of Romans 14: 14, that food is neither clean nor unclean, i.e., its vibrations do not affect us directly, but, rather, our attitude determines the food's effects. "But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 30-31). This message is repeated in I Timothy 4-5: "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."

The idea that all of God's creatures are holy and sanctified is found again in the story of Peter's vision (Acts 10: 9-16). In his vision, Peter sees a great sheet containing animals being lowered from the sky, and hears voice saying, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." Peter refuses, saying he has never eaten anything common or unclean, and the voice says, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." The Soul Killer author explains on pages 7-8 of his tract that the vision is entirely symbolic, and refers to God's wish that Peter not avoid Gentiles as though they were unclean. He further states that God's command to eat the animals in the vision is analogous to God's testing Abraham by asking him to kill Isaac, but that God did not really expect murder, only obedience.

Such a double-interpretation of Peter's vision is confusing. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, thereby passing God's test. Peter refused to eat three times (as he denied Christ three times). Does this mean he failed to pass God's test? No, because it has nothing to do with a test; the vision is indeed a symbolic command not to treat Gentiles as unclean, and dragging in Abraham and Isaac is misleading. The remainder of Acts 10 and Acts 11 describe Peter's compliance with the symbolic command in the vision.

Whereas the author of the Soul Killers insists upon a symbolic interpretation of Peter’s vision, he insists upon a literal interpretation of creation and flood myths in Genesis. Therefore he suggests that before “The Fall” God had the earth bring forth plant life (“fruits” and “green herbs”) for the purpose of nourishing all animal life. We are to believe that lions and wolves subsisted entirely upon a diet of fruits and grass. Only after The Fall did today's carnivores begin eating meat.

The flood myth is also apparently to be taken literally. A great flood actually covered the earth, but Noah saved all species by taking a male and female of each, type on his ark until the waters receded. Because of the scarcity of plant food after the flood, Noah is allowed to eat “every moving thing” (from the Greek herpeton, literally reptile). The Soul Killer author makes a number of inconsistent statements about literal and figurative interpretation here. The Flood story itself is to be taken literally. “Every living thing” is not to be taken literally, but in reference to the Greek derivative. Yet we are not to take herpeton literally either; the author insists that it does not mean reptile, but crustaceans. The key to his understanding is the commandment, “You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Genesis (9: 4). If a creature’s life fluid was clear, Noah could eat it; if red (indicating greater evolution), he could not eat it. Therefore, herpeton must be translated as crustacean.

These arguments, which flip-flop between literalism and figurative interpretation, present such a quagmire that I have more difficulty criticizing them than Br’er Rabbit had with the Tar Baby. The first point I would like to make is that a literal reading of the Genesis myths is facile to any educated person with even a rudimentary grasp of psychology, anthropology, and comparative literature. Second, literal interpretation of the Genesis story leads one to certain views (e.g., that wolves and lions ate plants at one time; that human beings are a special creation; that all animals--save a pair from each species--were wiped out in a world-wide deluge) that are absurd and contradictory from the viewpoint of modern biology.

One point in the Soul Killers that clearly demonstrates biological naiveté is the view that some species (those with red as opposed to clear bodily fluids) are “more evolved” than others. This reflects ancient Aristotelian thinking. Modern biologists believe that all thriving species--because they are all adapted to their ecological niches--are equally evolved. To refer to insects and crustaceans as being merely “on the borderline of being true animals” (as the author does) is to argue for a biology hundreds of years out of date.

The author’s suggestion that insects and crustaceans are only “on the borderline of being true animals” hints at a basic disrespect for “lower” life forms. This is seen even more clearly at the top of page three when the author says that “To eat meat is to absorb the mental state of the animal. . . . It is just the same as grafting an animal’s living brain into your brain--a horrible thought!” Why would such a thought be so horrible unless one took a patronizing view of other animals? In this context, this raises some doubts in my mind about the author’s motives for not killing animals. Does he really respect these animals and care about their evolution or is he disgusted by them?

The Soul Killers author cites on pages six and seven two other Old Testament passages (Exodus 16: 3 and Numbers 11: 4-6) to indict meat-eating. In these passages, the children of Israel lose faith in God and complain that they want food. In the first passage, God provides quail and manna, and they eat both. [Question: Why would God provide quail if he doesn’t want His people to eat meat?] In the second passage, they worry about surviving again, and again God provides quail. This time, however, he shows vengefulness by saying, “You shall eat, not one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, but for a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have despised the Lord who is among you, and have wept before him saying, ‘Why did we ever come up out of Egypt?’ (Numbers 11: 19-20). God followed through on His promise, and destroyed the complainers and weak of faith with a plague. I have only one point to make about these passages: Were those people destroyed because they ate meat provided by God, or because they lacked faith?

Is there any evidence in the Old Testament for the prescription of meat-eating? Yes, the Old Testament states clearly that some animals may be eaten and that others are unfit to eat: “These are animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the mountain goat, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. And you may eat every animal with cloven hooves, having the hoof split into two parts, and that chews the cud, among the animals” (Deuteronomy 14: 4-6). Furthermore, “These you may eat of all that are in the waters: you may eat all that have fins and scales” (Deut. 14: 9) and “All clean birds you may eat” (Deut. 14: 11).

What about the New Testament? Here, the author of the Soul Killers quotes from an Aramaic version (exact source uncited) of the Bible: “See that you do not make your minds heavy, by never eating meat or drinking wine” (Luke 21:34). Here it seems he departs from his New King James version to an unspecified (and therefore, untraceable) source because the NKJ version reads, “But take no heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighted down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly.” There is no mention of meat-eating in this version, nor is meat mentioned in the old King James, the New International, nor the Revised Standard Edition. It appears to me that the main point of Luke 21: 34 is temperance and watchfulness, not dietary restrictions. Changing to a different translation (especially an unspecified translation) to condemn meat-eating is intellectually dishonest.

There are other misquotations, out-of-context quotations, and forced interpretations in The Four Soul Killers. For example, the author (p. 11) states that wine is “totally rejected” in the New Testament and that church officials are to abstain totally from wine. But look at I Timothy 3: 8, which says, “Likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money.” Temperance, not complete asceticism, is suggested here. I think I have made my point about abusing biblical quotations, so I will end with one final point about the author’s insistence that different types of food and drink contain different vibratory energies that directly affect our consciousness. He makes this argument on pages 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, and 15 of his tract. What does Jesus himself say about ingesting substances?

Mark 7: 14-19 says, “And when He had called all the multitude to Him, 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!’ And 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?”

In conclusion, I can see no biblical support for the esoteric, magical doctrine that substances (including meat) have inherit vibratory qualities that affect our consciousness. This is not to say that the doctrine of vibratory qualities is false, only that it has no biblical support. To try to conjure up such support is to bend scripture to the breaking point. From what I can tell, the Bible stresses right attitude in worship, love for other people, and temperance. Such temperance would apply not only to eating meat and drinking wine, but also to ingesting carbohydrates that can result in a consciousness-altering “sugar rush.” Sugar and bread can be just as addicting and consciousness-altering as meat.

If St. George’s Press is not more careful in their citation of scripture, they are likely to be accused of the Great Apostasy which some people believe is occurring in our present age (and this would be a shame, for I don’t think that Gnostic Orthodox Christians are apostates): “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” (I Timothy 4: 1-3).