That's right.Pork, and all unclean meat, is not food!
But people's rebelious attitudes and their lusts will not let them admit it.
Upvote
0
Rich Warren & Joel Osteen preach the Daniel Diet!
- Thread starter TruthWave7
- Start date
- Status
But people's rebelious attitudes and their lusts will not let them admit it.
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,587
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by LysimachusPork, and all unclean meat, is not food!
KJV) Psalms 78:18 And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust.
KJV) 2 Peter 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government.
Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Okay.
But do know that NUMEROUS Christians that I have shown these arguments to were compelled to see I had good reasons. And I'm not talking about SDAs. It was never recorded that Jesus ever once ate unclean meat.
We who subscribe to the positions laid out believe that the expression "all food" is only within in context of all that is considered "food". Unclean, and abominable animals, such as Mice, Rats, Rodents, Pigs, Cat Fish, or any scavengers were not suitable for human consumption, and therefore unclassified as "food".
When Paul said "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused", he was speaking in context of that "which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:3,4).
1. Every creature that was "of God" (reference to those approved by God to eat)
2. Only which God has created to be received with thanksgiving
Paul's entire discussion is only within all that is recognized as "food" by God in the dietary laws.
Verse 3 talks about men "forbidding to marry", which pointed forward to the priesthood and nunnery that was creeping into the Roman Church---these practiced "ascetic" practices, which included abstaining from ALL meats, and sometimes went on only bread and water.
Such meats were safe in these times. They were not exposed to the toxic-pollutions we are exposed to today. Clean meat today is FILLED with toxins---far more toxins than vegetables, even though vegetables too are getting hit. But we can only do our best.
Numerous Hollywood Stars are Vegan. Did you know that? Yeah, you should be a Vegan GQ Chris, it would make you cool!
Being Vegan is IN! Yeah man, yeahh!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,851
- 7,970
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No, the incident which prompted this teaching was that the Pharisees noticed that the disciples hadn't washed their hands before eating and questioned Jesus about it. (Mark 7:1-2) He didn't actually give them an answer, instead he criticised them for observing their own traditions instead of God's laws, and gave them an example of how they misused a law for their own benefit. Jesus said that the Pharisees were nullifying God's law by their own traditions.
That is the end of that incident. The Pharisees asked Jesus why his followers weren't obeying the rules; Jesus challenged the rules. It seems that the Pharisees didn't stick around to argue further - unsurprising as they'd just been challenged and called hypocrits. Look at Matt 15; the dissciples said that the Pharisees had been offended by what Jesus had said.
Jesus doesn't refer to the incident again but calls the crowd to him and teaches them about clean and unclean things.
The incident with the unwashed hands led to the teaching about the things that cause a person to be unclean. Just as in John's Gospel, the feeding of the 5000 led to Jesus' teaching about the bread of life; the healing of the man born blind led to Jesus' words about spiritual blindness; Lazaras' death led to teaching about the resurrection and Jesus as the giver of resurrection life.
But you've just been explaining to me about how this was not a God given rule but part of the Pharisees own traditions; the oral law.
Jesus says that nothing outside a man can make him unclean,
the disciples don't understand and ask him what he means and Jesus says, "don't you understand?" and goes onto explain about food entering the stomach only then leaving the body again. Sounds simple enough to me.
Well Jesus came to fulfil the law NOT abolish it, so your question makes no sense.
And so does mine. It was Mark who added the comment "in saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean'."
If he was not including unclean food in that staement, then he was saying "in saying this, Jesus declared all ceremonially clean food, 'clean'." He woulkd not have needed to tell them that Jesus was declaring clean food to be clean - it was obvious; it wasn't in question. He said, ALL FOODS, and God permitted that verse to remain in his Gospel.
(To be continued)
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
That is not the end of the incident. You are making that up.
But it is still within the same vein. And Matthew 15:17-20 is proof of this fact. In fact, the Disciples came to Jesus privately and told Him that the Pharisees were "offended", then Jesus went on to explain to the Disciples.
The very last words of Jesus concerning the entire controversy to the Disciples was "but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."
That was his closing statement!
Verse 21 goes on to say that Jesus departed to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
There is not one mention of "unclean" animals. According to the Pharisees, all food is unclean when eaten with unwashed hands, even the clean meats. Jesus declared all food clean, regardless of whether the hands were ceremonially washed or not. The pharisees considered this a spiritual defilement. The subject was nothing to do with health. All food in question was concerning lawful foods and animal meats.
The Disciples still had some superstition in them, thinking that such food eaten with unwashen hands could defile them spiritually. Therefore, Jesus set the record straight and clarified it for them. Christ's conclusion in Matthew 15:20 is extremely clear--it was the "conclusion" of the entire subject at hand. The subject is spiritual defilement, not health. And clearly, when Jesus says "whatever enters the mouth", he automatically speaking in context of ALL THAT IS GOOD to eat.
Otherwise, if you stretch what Jesus is saying to its furthest logical conclusion, one could say that it is not defiling to take some cyanide. But that would be committing suicide. Do you think Jesus was really saying it is okay to put toxic chemicals in your body? Rodents? Rats? Stingrays? Jellyfish? Poisonous snakes? Poisonous berries? Seriously now.
I remember my father once remarked upon this. He said "It's SO illogical how people reason about this. Obviously Jesus is not saying you can put anything into your mouth! The context has to do with the clean foods in question! Are we to imagine Christ was implying we could eat poison and expect it to not kill us?" It's true. The presumption is enormous.
These are definitely words of wisdom that came from his mouth. We would do well to heed the counsels on this matter Strong is Him, and not rely on our own private interpretation. Time is too short.
So no law was abolished? Last time I checked, Ephesians 2:15 and 2 Corinthians 3:13 do teach that there was a law that as "abolished". Obviously, then, your meaning of "fulfill" must mean the same as "abolished", since you believe all the law was one and the same. But scriptures teach that Christ came to fulfill the law and that we must do and teach them, and that "till heaven and earth pass" not one jot or tittle would pass from the law. But then Ephesians 2:14 tells us the "commandments contained in ordinances" was "abolished" and that the "handwriting of ordinances" was "blotted out".
This is why I believe that if we are to be consistent, we must understand that clearly the Law which Christ came to fulfill and would not pass away, yet told everyone to do and teach, cannot be the same as that which was abolished at the cross in Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14. Impossible. One was abolished one was not. The Bible clearly teaches that there was a law that was ABOLISHED.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,851
- 7,970
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Well I'm sorry but it isn't; it's assumption.
"Everyone would have known that ....." . How would they have known? Jesus had already amazed them with his teaching, (Mark 1:27), challenged their theology by forgiving sins, which only God could do, (Mark 2:7), challenged their social rules, by eating with tax collectors and sinners, (Mark 2:13-17), touched a dead body, (Mark 5:40), which was forbidden by their law, healed diseases, calmed a fierce storm and walked on water. He had chosen fishermen and a tax collector to be his disciples, not Pharisees and lawyers, whom he criticised and stood up to. He had been in trouble with them for daring to heal on the Sabbath.
Everything about Jesus' life and teaching was revolutionary - people were either amazed by him and followed him, or oppsed him and tried to trip him up. His teaching here was revolutionary too. He said "NOTHING", what did he mean that nothing could make them unclean when they had food laws and a list of unclean foods? That's probably why the disciples questioned him about it - I would have done too, if he was challenged a cherished practice which I believed had come from God.
We can't KNOW what they would have thought; we weren't there. But given everything they knew about Jesus and the things he had already taught and done, it's not unlikely that they would have taken it at face value and come to the same conclusion as Mark did - that he was declaring all foods to be clean. If the legalists and Pharisees had heard him say that they probably would have thought that he was enticing people to break the food laws and been even more angry with him.
You didn't read my post carefully enough; I said the Gentiles who read Mark's Gospel. He probably wrote it in Rome as he was there with Paul near the end of his life, and also with Peter at one point. Maybe it was written for the young church in Rome, i.e Gentiles.
Yes, Jesus was talking to the crowd and the disciples, (we are not told that the Pharisees are still around at that point), but when Gentiles read the recorded words, "in saying this Jesus declared all foods 'clean'", several years later, what would they have understood by them? It's quite possible that they actually believed that they meant what they said - that Mark, guided and prompted not only by the Holy Spirit but by Peter who had heard Jesus say those things, was saying that Jesus declared that all foods were clean.
The most important part of that teaching anyway is what DOES defile a person - impure thought, behaviours and so on. This has been widely overlooked in this debate about whether a piece of meat can make someone unclean.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,851
- 7,970
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I am not "making that up". I have been reading from Mark chapter 7 - the Pharisees are not mentioned again, the handwashing is not mentioned again and Jesus begins to talk about things which do, or don't, make someone unclean, rather than Jewish laws and rituals and the behaviour of the Pharisees.
As Mark doesn't mention the incident again, I was concluding that it was over - the change of subject gave me the clue. I may be wrong in that conclusion, and you might understand it differently from Matthew's account, but please don't accuse me of making it up.
And you once complained that I repeated myself too much.
I take the Bible, its teaching and the interpretation of Scripture very seriously; I just don't agree with your position on this.
I do agree that we need to agree to differ, but just consider the following;
1) There is NO command from Jesus to his disciples to teach any future Gentile disciples to obey the Jewish food laws. It would have been no trouble at all to say a few words on the subject or issue a command, just to make it crystal clear that all Gentiles knew the position.
2) Ditto the early church, yet Paul, once a staunch Pharisee, said that he was fully comnvinced that "no food is unclean in itself".
3) Eating pork has been only been said, in this thread, to be a sin because it is diseased, impure and kills the body or digestive system. Some people have eaten pork for years and lived a long life - which would suggest that either they have proved this teaching to be wrong or that they have never sinned.
4) Pork has also been described as "not a food", but it obviously is. I have eaten it for 50 years - bacon, pork chops, gammon, ham, sausages. roast pork.
No one eats pork raw, and people wouldn't be allowed to sell it if it was diseased and made you ill. The refrigeration and sterilisation techniques we have now days are undoubtedly better than the ones they had then.5) Abstaining from pork doesn't save anyone. It can't guarantee a long life and it certainly doesn't save you spiritually. If someone has heard the Gospel, repented of their sins, believed in and accepted the Lord Jesus as their Saviour and received the Holy Spirit, they are saved, born again and have eternal life. Eating pork cannot subtract from this; abstaining cannot add to it.
Jesus saves, no one and nothing else.
So what difference does it make? Time is short, yes. Too short to argue about diet when we should be living for the Lord and teaching others to know him. How we stand on the issue of pork is not important compared with that.
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Yes, it is an assumption. But it is a good assumption. There are bad assumptions, and there are good assumptions. When you are visiting some residents and ask them for a drink of water, you have every right to assume that the water they are giving you is good drinking water, not polluted. That is a good assumption. We have ever right to conclude that a good assumption would be that the food in question is concerning all that is recognized as food within Jewish theocracy.
Extensive studies have been conducted on this, and it has been shown that all the Gentiles fell under the Jewish customs of dietary habbits. There were Jewish Synagogues spread rampant throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy.
Touched a dead body? So I suppose the Jews were unable to pick up their own dead on a field after battle? I'd like to see where in the Old Testament this was a rule, and under what circumstances. I do know that after the Jews returned to Jerusalem after the 70 year captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews introduced a large list of rules that were never given to them by Moses. Perhaps these were the traditions that Jesus was going against?
Jesus never once put the law of Moses down. In many places, he uplifted it, and asked "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" (John 7:19)
Was this a "tradition"? Or was it a law that Jesus was uplifting? Obviously these "traditions" of the Jews were OUTSIDE the Law of Moses. At the same time, Jesus was preparing His hearers so that they might understand the true spiritual meaning of all the Jewish rites that the Lord had instituted through Moses. He was showing how all these would find fulfillment in Him, and how they would soon be abolished.
It was the death of Christ that "abolished" all the ceremonial ordinances. Therefore, to claim that Jesus was declaring all abominable animals as "clean" BEFORE the death of Christ is OUT OF STEP with the principles of the covenants.
Yes, nothing would include cyanide poison, or even rocks. How about cows with Mad Cow Disease? All this includes "NOTHING". I have already showed how "nothing" is in context of "everything the Jews put in their mouths".
Had the Disciples, including Peter, understood Jesus' words in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 to mean that they could now eat ALL unclean meats, why did Peter in Acts 11:8 after the Lord gave him a vision with unclean beasts in a sheet respond and state: "Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth!"
Do you not think that by now, a good time after Christ had ascended to heaven, would have remembered Jesus' words that "all these abominable beasts were now declared clean"? Obviously no, for this vision he was receiving was the first time he heard such an outlandish notion. But Peter later discovered the meaning of the vision--that is, that the unclean beasts in the sheet represented men (Acts 10:28; 11:11-15).
I am a Gentile, and I am not reading it that way. Reading the entire context is clear to me: The issue revolves the spiritual defilement of all food when eaten with ceremonially unwashed hands. Jesus was hitting on a "tradition" of the Jews. He was not targeting the Law of Moses which was still in effect up till Christ's death. Christ's death abolished all the ceremonial rites and services.
It is wrong to state that whatever we put into our mouth will not affect our spiritual perceptions and our spiritual judgment. If we were to take Christ's words as you are interpreting them, we would be allowed to drink as much alcohol as we wanted, and get drunk. All toxic foods benumb the spiritual perceptions and hamper are mental faculties.
When you put substances in your mouth that cause disease, you becloud your mind, and you hamper your ability to make right judgments.
Please, quit defending animals that are declared abominable and making them food. There is no such sanction in God's Holy Writ.
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Alrighty sounds good. But I would argue that it does not matter if the Pharisees are not mentioned again. It doesn't matter if Mark doesn't mention the incident again. I do not believe there is any sound exegesis to indicate that the subject "shifted". A cursory reading reveals it was on the same vein of thought, especially in light of Jesus' conclusion in Matthew 15:20.
I'm on a mission, and that is for us Christians to come into harmony on every single point according to 1 Corinthians 1:10. I will do whatever it takes for us to come into harmony with one another. The prayer of Christ in John 17 will be fullfilled. One of us are wrong, and one of us are going to have to submit to the other, eventually.
So just remember, a house divided amongst itself cannot stand. I will exert every effort to persuade you to my convictions on this matter, and that is my God given duty. You may disagree, but you may also be very wrong. And we all must be open to the fact that we are very wrong. And we need to humble ourselves and change if we have been proven to be in error. I honestly believe that I have proven you wrong. You are free to disagree of course.
There is also no command from Jesus to his disciples to teach that the Levitical Laws of clean and unclean animals has been abrogated. The digestive system of a Gentile is no different from a Jew. It is just as toxic to a Gentile as it is to a Jew. We also have "unclean" birds listed in Revelation 18:2. If Jesus' announcement meant that all "unclean animals" are now "clean" in how you are interpreting it, then John in Revelation could not mention these birds as being "unclean", because Jesus already had declared them "clean" before that!
Do you get the picture?
Food. Not unclean animals. Never once in the Levitical Laws were any of the unclean animals mentioned in the list called "food". You are referring to Romans 14:14, which is an allusion to 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, which is in context of foods or animal meats offered to idols. The issue, once again, was spiritual defilement as a result of eating food or animal meat offered to idols.
This is wrong. You cannot go by "some people". There are some who are drunks their whole life and die at a late age. There are some who are gluttons their whole life and die at a late age. But what do the statistics show on an overall scale? The picture is very different.
I am a vegetarian. If I were to eat a new vegetable that I've never eaten before, I would be just fine. But, if I were to eat some pork for the first time, you bet I would throw up and vomit everywhere. It is a shock to the digestive system, and very toxic. That is exactly what happened to me. Growing up vegetarian, our family ordered some Chinese food. My stomach was feeling very sick and I did not know why. I threw up in the mall on the floor. We discovered there was meat in the stir fry that I ate.
In order to eat Pork and not get sick, your body has to be extremely toxic. Many of these people that die at an old age are very toxic in their bodies. They may live to a late age, but they could have lived much much longer and even felt better had they abstained. They were depending on their strong constitutions to carry them.
Nonetheless, it was still an abuse to their bodies that God has given them.
4) Pork has also been described as "not a food", but it obviously is. I have eaten it for 50 years - bacon, pork chops, gammon, ham, sausages. roast pork.
And as a Christian, I believe the right thing for you to do is give them up. All of it. Isaiah 66:15-17 is very clear on this matter concerning the future new covenant age when the Lord will come with fire.
It is sad to see so many people in the world, who are not even Christians, and atheists, way ahead of the Christians. Here they can see the harmful effects of this perfidious and abominable garbage (which includes ALL junk food as well), yet the Christian continues to stick this in their mouth--when here they should be the CHAMPIONS OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS TO MANKIND! But NO...leave it to the New Agers, the Agnostics and the Athiests to promote wellness!!
What a shameful example the Christian world has manifested with their eating habits. Leave it to Beaver, he'll show you.
For those who don't know better, God accepts the hearts of such individuals. But, once the knowledge reaches them, they will go out of their way to please God in all things and preserve their Temples.
No unclean animals were ever brought into the sanctuary. Our bodies now are the Sanctuary. In prophecy, all the Gentile nations were represented as "unclean beasts" according to Daniel 7. Once a Gentile is converted, he is no longer a gentile (technically), but a member of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the Temple, and the Temple is the body of Christ.
Jesus even takes away our pork in this saving process.
We are preparing a people where I live. And we are coming together in unity, and in undescribable bonds of love. The Spirit is really working on the hearts of many. There are confessions, repentance, being subject to one another and receiving correction and giving it in love. We are pressing together. We are striving and praying for the outpouring of the Latter Rain to give the Loud Cry of the Third Angel. This message will sweep the globe.
The discussion about pork is not even a subject among us. Why? That was so LONG AGO. WE are WAYY passed these ABCs. Not even a subject. ALL of us are 100% unanimous in our diet.
Also, when people come into our fellowships, we never once tell them they cannot eat this or that. We simply provide them some of the most delicious vegan meals (a 100 times more delicious with vegan based meats and alternatives), and show them what we do by example. Later, on their own, they feel convicted to start eating healthier, and give up their unclean meats.
Yes, these are petty issues. We cannot move forward until we get over these very basic things that hold us back spiritually.
Desiring to cling to foods that we like which God is asking us to give up will hold us back spiritually, and, if we continue to persist in eating this food, will eventually neutralize all the power of the gospel.
We must be "faithful in the little things". If we are going to be "faithful in the little things", then we can be faithful in the big things when the crises hit.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,851
- 7,970
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
And yet I have lived for 50 years, serving God, making right judgements, (except perhaps the one to continue with this pointless debate!)and eating such foods I know of people who have lived double that.
And it is not a sin, not forbidden by the Lord Jesus, cannot take the place of his saving death on the cross, cannot condemn us to hell, take away our eternal life etc etc.
If I were suddenly to say, "you've convinced me, I believe your interpretation of Mark 7," and stopped eating pork tomorrow, what difference would it make to me?
None. Except that I'd be even more limited in my diet than I am already. I'd still be saved, still have eternal life, still be a child of God, loved by him, still keep going to my church and continue as a Methodist preacher. I wouldn't change what I preach; for one thing I never tell people what to do, for another, this is not the Gospel or a salvation issue and if I tried to make it one and suddenly tell people they had to give up pork to be right with God, I'd most likely be asked to leave the church.
None of the major denominations, as far as I know, teach any different. Maybe they just haven't been told that "any protestant theologian worth his salt" agrees with you - even though no evidence has been given by whoever it was made that claim.
Pork is tasty and is a source of protein, and maybe vitamins too. It is nice and is most certainly food. Of all the million and one things that are abominable to the Lord - lying, murder, rape, exploitation, greed, casuing suffering etc etc- I can't believe that he is offended by a sausage or piece of ham.
You are a vegan so pork IS an abomination to you, and because of your strong beliefs it would be a sin for you to eat it. It's not for me.
There's nothing else to say really. So I think I'll go to bed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
God's Word
Well-Known Member
- Feb 18, 2011
- 1,695
- 263
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
cesty said:
cesty:
I've been on the road for work for a few days, so I'm sorry for the delay in responding.
Anyhow, here are a few quick things to consider:
Swine and dogs were unclean.
Matthew 7:6
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Isaiah 66:3
"He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations."
In both of these examples (and there are many more), certain types of UNCLEAN PEOPLE are likened to unclean beasts. Why, then, wouldn't the reverse be true? In Isaiah's example, RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES, those who were actually offering what was "clean", were likened to that which is "unclean".
A fox was unclean.
Luke 13:31-32
"The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."
Serpents and vipers were unclean.
Matthew 23:33
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
Matthew 3:7
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"
Wolves were unclean.
Matthew 7:15
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
Once again, that which appears "clean" (sheep) outwardly, is actually "unclean" inwardly (wolves).
These are but a few examples, but they ought to at least cause you to consider that there definitely is something SYMBOLIC about that which was designated to be "unclean". IOW, Peter's vision in which he was commanded BY THE LORD to "rise, kill and eat" that which was "unclean" (go and preach to the "unclean" Gentiles) isn't the only indication of such SYMBOLISM in scripture.
Upvote
0
VolRaider
Regular Member
Okay.
But do know that NUMEROUS Christians that I have shown these arguments to were compelled to see I had good reasons. And I'm not talking about SDAs. It was never recorded that Jesus ever once ate unclean meat.
We who subscribe to the positions laid out believe that the expression "all food" is only within in context of all that is considered "food". Unclean, and abominable animals, such as Mice, Rats, Rodents, Pigs, Cat Fish, or any scavengers were not suitable for human consumption, and therefore unclassified as "food".
When Paul said "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused", he was speaking in context of that "which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:3,4).
1. Every creature that was "of God" (reference to those approved by God to eat)
2. Only which God has created to be received with thanksgiving
Paul's entire discussion is only within all that is recognized as "food" by God in the dietary laws.
Verse 3 talks about men "forbidding to marry", which pointed forward to the priesthood and nunnery that was creeping into the Roman Church---these practiced "ascetic" practices, which included abstaining from ALL meats, and sometimes went on only bread and water.
Such meats were safe in these times. They were not exposed to the toxic-pollutions we are exposed to today. Clean meat today is FILLED with toxins---far more toxins than vegetables, even though vegetables too are getting hit. But we can only do our best.
Numerous Hollywood Stars are Vegan. Did you know that? Yeah, you should be a Vegan GQ Chris, it would make you cool!
Being Vegan is IN! Yeah man, yeahh!
If we are meant to be Vegans, then why did God create us with incisors?
Upvote
0
If we are meant to be Vegans, then why did God create us with incisors?
That is easy, to eat an apple. We don't have incisors like Mountain Lions, that can ripe chunks of flesh off your shoulder with one bite. In contrast, if I bite your shoulder with my incisors, I might puncture your muscles but not have the sharpness, or the length in my incisors, or the power in my jaw, to rip a hunk of meat off your shoulder. That is the BIG difference between omnivores and carnivores.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
good one! I guess it was not a fish Jesus ate, it was a tofu mixture.
I don't know people take osteen seriously, he thinks we can have our best life now, in materialism.
Let me ask you this question: Does Joel Osteen look healthy? What kind of diet and lifestyle does your pastor have?
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Good one truth.
On average, I can say that when I meet vegetarians vs. meat eaters, the vegetarians generally look healthier. I don't say this to brag, but I will be truthful by stating that most people guess me and my family much younger than we are. I'm 33, and 99% of people guess me around 24 or 25. My father is 68, and people think he's 50. My mom is 64, and they guess her like 45.
This is not to say there are meat eaters who look much younger than their age. I've seen those too. But I'm speaking on average, overall, there seems to be a general trend where vegetarians tend to look younger.
On average, I can say that when I meet vegetarians vs. meat eaters, the vegetarians generally look healthier. I don't say this to brag, but I will be truthful by stating that most people guess me and my family much younger than we are. I'm 33, and 99% of people guess me around 24 or 25. My father is 68, and people think he's 50. My mom is 64, and they guess her like 45.
This is not to say there are meat eaters who look much younger than their age. I've seen those too. But I'm speaking on average, overall, there seems to be a general trend where vegetarians tend to look younger.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Osteen has a low body fat ratio, so if your previous pastor who ran Marathons makes Osteen look chunky, your runner Pastor mostly likely has an unhealthy muscles mass ratio, which is often the case with marathon runners. Its an extreme sport, which I view as bad for one's health. Temperance is the thing that they don't understand. Additionally, many runners can be thin on the outside, but fat in their arteries. I often hear of runners being found dead of a heart attack while training for marathons, or 10K running events. When the autopsy was performed their arteries were full of cholesterol plague. Thin on the outside, fat on the inside. So being thin and running a lot of miles doesn't necessarily equal overall good health.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
