Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Meat is the "edible flesh of animals, especially mammals". Biblically, fish is not meat.
On the one hand, fish are animals. So, one is not totally off base to regard fish as meat.
But, as you indicated an interest in a religious take on the question, the Bible is fairly clear in distinguishing between the creatures which man is allowed to eat. I won't get into the laws which govern which animals are permissible to eat and which are not. Most Christians dismiss these dietary laws which observant Jews adhere to.
But, the Bible talks about these in at least one place. Leviticus 11 concerns itself with dietary laws. These laws are organized into 3 separate categories:
Creatures you may eat from among all the land animals
Creatures you may eat of all that live in the water
Creatures you may not (and implicitly may) eat of birds
Creatures you may not eat of winged swarming things
Meat in the Bible is used in the context of "land animals" (behemot in Hebrew). These are mutually exclusive with respect to sea creatures, including fish (with fins and scales).
So, if we use the Bible as our guide (which not all of us will choose to do), fish is not meat.
Now, the really interesting question comes in the treatment of poultry, e.g., chicken. If chicken are birds, then, they too are not meat, per se. For an observant Jew, this has huge implications, as the rabbis of old ruled that meat may not be consumed with milk--i.e., meat and dairy cannot be cooked or eaten together. This causes major challenges for Jews, as much good cuisine contains both. However, if chickens are birds, then Biblically, they also are not considered meat.
But, of course, wouldn't you know, the rabbis, trying not to have confusing laws, ruled that chicken is considered meat. So, chicken kebabs in a yogurt sauce...mmmm-mm-m...becomes highly problematic to an observant Jew.
Winged swarming things.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Cause some people are idiots. they probably dont consider seafood and such meat because they're not from land.
4 years ago Report Abuse 25 people rated this as good
Asker's Rating: Asker's Comment: LOL
Yes. The flesh of a fish is a protein and is meat.
The whole debate is due to the literal definition of meat. You can use a general definition from a dictionary, the criteria used for the food pyramid, a religious definition, or a scientific assessment. The reason a debate even exists is because people use different definitions.
Some within the Catholic religion follow a latin translation for definition. This specifically excludes fish, seafood, and insects from the definition. Other translate the definition of "meat" into "RED MEAT".
There is no right or wrong. That fish flesh is protein is not arguable, fish is higher in proteins than red meat.
is peanut butter meat?
meat and wine - suits you fine
what about a cheeseburger
that imagine being that waters that am lucky enough to go down the overflow bit instead of down the grubby plughole. that must be a nice adventure.