Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[Leaf473]

You've greatly misunderstood me.

See if you can understand this:
1.) Marital relations are good, because they are sanctioned by God

2.) Adultery is bad, because it is condemned by God

3.) Fornication is bad, because it is condemned by God

All are sexual relations, but only one is right; some are against the body, but only one is for the body.

Seeing as they are all sex, can you tell me why only one is right and the others are not?

Also, if you would, please explain to me why it would be wrong to eat human flesh, assuming it's served up legally.

Thanks in advance.

Bummer that I misunderstood you.
Of course, understanding requires that both the reader follow the writer and that the writer explain in a way that can be followed.
So yes, let's try again, this time using sex as a subject instead of food.

I think adultery and fornication are bad because they can potentially conceive a child outside of a stable marriage relationship. Thus, they show a lack of love to the future child.

Also, they are usually done with a focus on one's own needs or gratification as opposed to the building up of the other person.

I don't think it is wrong to eat human flesh. The idea is yucky to my brain, but then again eating grasshoppers also sounds yucky.
Of course, you wouldn't want to kill someone just to eat them. That really wouldn't fit with being led by the spirit.

 

[Religiot]

I think I understand. You developed your own unique personal doctrine, philosophy, view (for lack of a better term) and therefore perceive most or all others to be false and incorrect. Which is why there's a lot of friction between you and others on the forum.

What has developed is not my own personal doctrine, but my understanding of the Doctrine of Christ.

--I didn't say don't eat swine: I said God said don't eat swine.

Can't you see the difference.

Truly, it's fraud to say that this doctrine is my own, when it's obvious that I've only espoused God's.

 

[Religiot]

Bummer that I misunderstood you.
Of course, understanding requires that both the reader follow the writer and that the writer explain in a way that can be followed.
So yes, let's try again, this time using sex as a subject instead of food.

I think adultery and fornication are bad because they can potentially conceive a child outside of a stable marriage relationship. Thus, they show a lack of love to the future child.

Also, they are usually done with a focus on one's own needs or gratification as opposed to the building up of the other person.

I don't think it is wrong to eat human flesh. The idea is yucky to my brain, but then again eating grasshoppers also sounds yucky.
Of course, you wouldn't want to kill someone just to eat them. That really wouldn't fit with being led by the spirit.

Therein lies the difference between us, and thus, the constant misunderstanding.

I hold that adultery and fornication, and cannibalism, are wrong, solely because God says so: any further realizations on my part as to why they should be forbidden, are strictly subsequent to the real reason, God's word.

Can you now see, that our differences are irreconcilable?

PS: Thank you for your honesty, it greatly facilitates the conversation: I hope others here will follow your example.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What has developed is not my own personal doctrine, but my understanding of the Doctrine of Christ.

--I didn't say don't eat swine: I said God said don't eat swine.

Can't you see the difference.

Then so much for your obedience to God statement?.....

Truly, it's fraud to say that this doctrine is my own, when it's obvious that I've only espoused God's.

Sure doesn't sound like it. There are denominations that believe that it is necessary to follow both (most)OT and NT commandments whereas Christians believe faith is our priority to God, not obedience because we can never be perfectly obedient.

 

[Freth]

Isn't the carcase of most every creature unhygienic?

Then that would make no sense if you can kill clean animals and touch their carcass. The underlying context is uncleanliness of the animal.

EDIT: I did find a correction for myself though...

carcase: the body of an animal that has been slaughtered for meat (eg at an abattoir)

carcass: the body of an animal that has died from natural causes, including disease or injury.
​

Carcase, not carcass.

 

[Servus]

What has developed is not my own personal doctrine, but my understanding of the Doctrine of Christ.

--I didn't say don't eat swine: I said God said don't eat swine.

Can't you see the difference.

Truly, it's fraud to say that this doctrine is my own, when it's obvious that I've only espoused God's.

I wasn't sure how to phrase it, so that's why I added the disclaimer "for lack of a better term". But it still pretty much amounts to the same thing; your own unique personal understanding.

And no, I didn't really get what you were saying. And it seems most others didn't either. I think maybe it's a situation where what you're saying is perfectly clear to you, but it's not clear to others. So the conversation between you and others gets combattitive.

 

[Religiot]

Sure doesn't sound like it. There are denominations that believe that it is necessary to follow both (most)OT and NT commandments whereas Christians believe faith is our priority to God, not obedience because we can never be perfectly obedient.

Do you not know, that faith alone is dead?

--Moreover, obedience doesn't imply perfection, but denotes effort, and is required for faith: we are commanded to believe and obey the gospel, that is our faith.

 

[Servus]

Then that would make no sense if you can kill clean animals and touch their carcass. The underlying context is uncleanliness of the animal.

EDIT: I did find a correction for myself though...

carcase: the body of an animal that has been slaughtered for meat (eg at an abattoir)

carcass: the body of an animal that has died from natural causes, including disease or injury.
​

Carcase, not carcass.

I was thinking in terms of a decaying corpse.

 

[Religiot]

And no, I didn't really get what you were saying. And it seems most others didn't either. I think maybe it's a situation where what you're saying is perfectly clear to you, but it's not clear to others. So the conversation between you and others gets combattitive.

Let me be perfectly clear:

What I'm saying, is solely what God has already said.

Again: I am solely repeating what God has already said.

--I don't know how to say it more clearly than that, without sounding condescending. (This already feels a bit condescending.)

 

[Servus]

Do you not know, that faith alone is dead?

--Moreover, obedience doesn't imply perfection, but denotes effort, and is required for faith: we are commanded to believe and obey the gospel, that is our faith.

I get where you're coming from, but often when obedience is spoken of by someone it's viewed as an absolute and on harsh terms. Which is why it gets objected to, because absolute obedience is impossible. Especially for a new convert. In my personal experience, I've found obedience came more and more naturally over time though the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work. Really I think the effort part for me has been in not resisting the Spirit. "Quench not the Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 5:19.

 

[Servus]

Let me be perfectly clear:

What I'm saying, is solely what God has already said.

Again: I am solely repeating what God has already said.

--I don't know how to say it more clearly than that, without sounding condescending. (This already feels a bit condescending.)

I think if had been that cut and dry, there wouldn't have been pages of contention between you and others in this thread.

 

[Religiot]

I think if had been that cut and dry, there wouldn't have been pages of contention between you and others in this thread.

Therein again, we disagree, and for the same underlying reason:

The Lord only spoke what the Father gave Him to say, yet there are pages of contention between Him and others in the gospels.

Can't you see, that anytime, without exception, that anyone, espouses what God has already said, there will be contention, and lots of it, especially with those who are espousing what man says.

 

[Servus]

Therein again, we disagree, and for the same underlying reason:

The Lord only spoke what the Father gave Him to say, yet there are pages of contention between Him and others in the gospels.

Can't you see, that anytime, without exception, that anyone, espouses what God has already said, there will be contention, and lots of it, especially with those who are espousing what man says.

If you had only been quoting scripture it would have only been a problem for those who disagree with scripture. Instead the contention has been over your version of what God said. They're not disagreeing with scripture or God, they're disagreeing with your interpretation and or how you phrase things and the demeanor they perceive. However, I'm not a counselor and this way too off topic and ad hominem, so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[BobRyan]

What has developed is not my own personal doctrine, but my understanding of the Doctrine of Christ.

--I didn't say don't eat swine: I said God said don't eat swine.

Can't you see the difference.

good point

 

[BobRyan]

I think if had been that cut and dry, there wouldn't have been pages of contention between you and others in this thread.

on almost every doctrine listed in General Theology section -- there are "pages of contention".

Almost every doctrine Christ spoke to the Jewish leaders got pages of contention and push back from them.

Just because a group has the Bible does not mean they will all agree on every doctrine.

 

[Religiot]

If you had only been quoting scripture it would have only been a problem for those who disagree with scripture. Instead the contention has been over your version of what God said. They're not disagreeing with scripture or God, they're disagreeing with your interpretation and or how you phrase things and the demeanor they perceive. However, I'm not a counselor and this way too off topic and ad hominem, so I'm going to leave it at that.

I don't have a private interpretation of scripture; and to disagree with my phraseology and demeanor is purely subjective, and purely ad hominem, and perfectly moot to any argument I've raised.

 

[Servus]

on almost every doctrine listed in General Theology section -- there are "pages of contention".

Almost every doctrine Christ spoke to the Jewish leaders got pages of contention and push back from them.

Just because a group has the Bible does not mean they will all agree on every doctrine.

The kind of contention I'm seeing is the result of a singular view. And also separately in the case with this particular topic, the Adventist view versus just about every other view among Christendom.

 

[BobRyan]

The kind of contention I'm seeing is the result of a singular view. And also separately in the case with this particular topic, the Adventist view versus just about every other view among Christendom.

No one here is quoting Adventist text to establish a doctrinal point of view.

The details are important even when they come from the Bible and do not contradict what an Adventist is saying.

 

[Religiot]

The kind of contention I'm seeing is the result of a singular view.

Yes, God's.

 

[Servus]

No one here is quoting Adventist text to establish a doctrinal point of view.

The details are important even when they come from the Bible and do not contradict what an Adventist is saying.

It's the interpretation of what comes from the Bible that's the issue. Adventists hold some views that are pretty much only held by them among the rest of the Body of Christ, and they back up those views with the Bible.