Posted on 09/30/2007 5:52:31 PM PDT by Terriergal
“It is clear that Adam told his sons the proper way to make an offering to God. Abel did it the correct way, Cain did not.”
This is exactly how I was taught.
Not that this is a pro-carnivore argument.
It is not a pro-carnivore argument. The offering was made but not eaten.
All of God’s commands have good reasons behind them. Some can be deduced, some can be inferred, and some we don’t know.
Just like I can infer from your comments you are a smart ass. Actually it’s right out there for everyone to see.
I have seen that bible story used as a pro meat eating argument, I was reaffirming that I was not taught, nor do I believe, it is.
I know, I wasn’t saying you were wrong. :)
Just for the record, I'm not the one putting reasons in God's mouth. Bottom line is you have no Scriptural support for your theories on biblical nutrition.
But it was a nice try.
I have a hard time believing that you believe in God.
If you want to see my logic, which is based in what I understand about God from His book, here it is:
God made everything.
God made certain things for us to be food.
At certain points in history, God said to avoid certain things as food. The main reason was because He said so, but modern day science shows that there are positive health benefits to avoiding much of the foods that were ‘off limits’ in the past.
The things that God made for us to be food were to be good for us because God is good.
I never said I have a ‘theory’ on biblical nutrition. I don’t need Scriptural support for it, the only Scriptural support was God saying a long time ago, don’t eat this and that. Today’s man knows that much of what God said not to eat, well, there is scientific evidence to show there are good reasons not to eat these things. And this is exactly what I would expect from God, that there are benefits to listening to Him when He tells us to do something, or not to do something. You may be upset that He didn’t spell out the details “why” not to eat certain things, but as God He doesn’t have to. If we believe what He says and that He’s a good God and looking out for us, we know what He says is good for us even without knowing the details.
You got trust issues, sounds like to me.
hahaha! good one
Why? Because I disagree with you on what seems "obvious"?
Your “logic” is still not supported from the Word of God.
At various times in the Bible God gave sundry commandments for what to eat and what not to eat. These changed over time. There are commandments that were peculiar to Israel as a nation that not longer apply to the people of God under the new covenant (the Church; cf. Acts 10). One of the “food laws” that God gave to Israel was that they could not eat something that had died of itself (i.e., road kill). However, they were perfectly free to give it to their neighbor who was not an Israelite. (See Deut. 14:21). Now, “logic” might tell us that eating “road kill” is not a good idea. But if that were the case, then why would and Israelite give “road kill” to his neighbor whom he is supposed to love (Lev. 19:34)? “Logic” would tell us that we are not to do anything that would harm our neighbor, but God tells them they may do this, defying human logic.
I never said I have a ‘theory’ on biblical nutrition.
Well, you don’t have the Bible to support you, so all you are left with is your theory.
You got trust issues, sounds like to me.
Well, you are not God, thankfully.
I would suggest you examine your presuppositions before you go questioning another’s salvation/spirituality in a public forum. You might find that it is just an excuse for a poor understanding of the Bible and what God really requires of His people.
His reasons were because he set Israel apart as a chosen nation to be his witnesses to the World of him. You might also read Romans to find out just how profitable the works of the law really are.
I have a hard time believing the author of the article believes in God. At least not the God of the Bible.
What this guy is advocating is the Colossian Heresy. "do not eat, do not touch, do not" this and that, from which restrictions we have been liberated by Christ's sacrifice and his fulfillment of all the ceremonial laws of cleanness and uncleanness. The moral law however we are still to follow, and we are empowered to do so by the Holy Spirit. Those who are unsaved, no matter how 'moral' they may appear, still are completely unable to fulfill the moral law either because they lack the Holy Spirit (given by faith in Christ and his Word). So they go back to trying to follow these works of the law to redeem themselves. It's blasphemous and dishonoring of Christ. It's as bad as the Judaizers in Galatians.
Exactly.
I don’t disagree with you, all I am saying is that there was genuine health logic behind God saying ‘don’t eat these things’. And of course there would be, as God seems to know this kind of stuff before man actually figures it out.
Doing things God says to do or not do usually has blessings and benefits on several different levels.
And yes, I know the dietary restrictions are no longer in place for Israel. That still doesn’t take away the fact there are notable health benefits to eating a certain way, and it isn’t surprising that diets that are better for you exclude the things God once said to Israel to avoid. I’m just not surprised by it.
You can say it until you are blue in the face, but it is still just your opinion. The fact is there is nothing in the Bible to support the "healthy eating" theory (and much to undermine it).
notable health benefits
According to man, not according to God. These spiritually-looking “health diets” were created largely by men who misinterpret the Bible and fail to see food (like clothing and appearance) as purely ceremonial aspects of life among God's old covenant people.
It isn’t my opinion that the things that God declared as food for us are also good for us and keep the body healthy. It is a fact. Before the flood people lived hundreds of years. It is not coincidental that various herbs have a variety of health benefits.
And for the record, as you seem to be incredibly antagonistic about this, I didn’t come out in defense of this guy’s diet. In fact I came out and opposed it.
There is no link in Scripture between diet and life expectancy before or after the Flood. That theory is pure conjecture. This is a classic post hoc logical fallacy.
You seem to think it is based on the Bible, but you have yet to produce even a single Scripture passage that links diet and health/longevity. Thus, without explicit Scripture, all you have is you opinion.
And for the record, as you seem to be incredibly antagonistic about this, I didn’t come out in defense of this guy’s diet. In fact I came out and opposed it.
See previous comment.
Yes there were some health benefits to some of the things God had them do (not just eating) but not eating pork and certain seafood and such was pretty much ceremonial. People eat those things now without any health problems. (in moderation obviously)
Before they figured out some of the cleanliness principles scientifically (sanitizing and microorganisms etc) these things would have had some effect of minimizing contact with such pathogens. But you’re right, it’s nowhere in Scripture. It’s all framed in the context of being faithful to God and pure before him, not avoiding disease.
Generally speaking though, obeying God’s commands do have their health benefits/protections. I think that’s a given. But it isn’t good motivation. The paragraph above this one is a better motivation.
When it comes down to it this guy is promoting a form of behavior that is touted as being ‘godly’ — and instead of emphasizing it being of any spiritual value (which it isn’t) he is emphasizing the temporal benefits (which is a faulty motive in Scripture for any action). It plays right into today’s deluded evangelical mindset that ‘follows’ Christ for what benefit he can give you NOW rather than simply because you are profoundly grateful and humbled when you realize he paid the penalty for your utter sinfulness and saved you from eternal separation from him in Hell.
Pork is one of the more dangerous meats to eat. Consider it takes only four hours between what a pig eats and before it becomes body mass. They are garbage eaters and in four hours that stuff is part of them. Cows, on the other hand, eat much better things and it takes a day for food to become body tissue. There are a ton of viruses that live in pork that survive cooking. Combine this with the fact pigs suffer from lots of viruses that easily have adapted to infect and damage or kill people.
Most of the things God said avoid were because of what purpose they served - they were bottom feeders (where dead things go), garbage/scrap eaters, or ate dead animals (like vultures).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.