Atheist, not trolling

[BobRyan]

Christianity accepts both Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles were never forbidden from eating pork, bacon, shellfish, etc.

In Isaiah 66 anyone who eats mice or any detestible thing or who worships an idol is said to be destroyed by God at the end of the World.

(No restriction - Jew or Gentile).

In Genesis 6 - 8 long before any Jew exists - there is the distinction between clean and unclean animals.

Acts 10 long after the resurrection of Christ - Christians still observe the Bible command against eating rats, cats, mice and bats etc.

Under the Christian model "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul were SO" is an approved and blessed way to determine correct doctrine. Acts 17:11

The reason we don't go around eating rats is nothing to do with the Bible, .

In the case of Christians that do pay attention to those texts above - it has everything to do with following God's Word.

"what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

But as you point out - that is of little concern to others who choose not to deal with that part of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christianity accepts both Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles were never forbidden from eating pork, bacon, shellfish, etc.

In Isaiah 66 anyone who eats mice or any detestible thing or who worships an idol is said to be destroyed by God at the end of the World.

(No restriction - Jew or Gentile).

In Genesis 6 - 8 long before any Jew exists - there is the distinction between clean and unclean animals.

Acts 10 long after the resurrection of Christ - Christians still observe the Bible command against eating rats, cats, mice and bats etc.

Under the Christian model "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul were SO" is an approved and blessed way to determine correct doctrine. Acts 17:11

THe prohibition against eating pork was, as most of the laws of this sort given to the Israelites were, about Israel being separate from the cultural norms of the surrounding pagan societies. I

Not actually correct.

As pointed out above - the distinction existed long before there was an Israelite.

And if one takes the time to actually read Leviticus 11 you find that it says that unclean animals are not food and neither are clean animals if they die of disease.

The idea that the rats and bats and even diseased clean animals are all "food for Christians" is totally foreign to scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sketcher]

In Isaiah 66 anyone who eats mice or any detestible thing or who worships an idol is said to be destroyed by God at the end of the World.

(No restriction - Jew or Gentile).

Nope. Remember, he is speaking to a Jewish audience, and an unfaithful Jewish audience at that.

In Genesis 6 - 8 long before any Jew exists - there is the distinction between clean and unclean animals.

For sacrifices, not eating.

Acts 10 long after the resurrection of Christ - Christians still observe the Bible command against eating rats, cats, mice and bats etc.

But there's no evidence in that passage that the Gentiles at Cornelius's house, who received the Holy Spirit, kept kosher.

 

[BobRyan]

Turns out both OT and NT agree that worshiping idols is not a good thing - Jew or not. See 1Cor 8 -- it is worshiping demons. So "no" that is not a restriction that is just for Jews.

And it also turns out that neither the NT saints nor the OT Jews were supposed to eat mice - as Peter affirms in Acts 10 "No Lord for I have never eaten anything unclean" Acts 10. In the story of Acts 10 Peter "goes along with the three gentiles" instead of "eating three mice".

And Peter retells that same story 3 times - not once holding up a rat sandwich to make his point about eating cats and rats (as if that is some kind of gospel) known to his fellow NT saints.

here again - I am only stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Genesis 6 - 8 long before any Jew exists - there is the distinction between clean and unclean animals.

Acts 10 long after the resurrection of Christ - Christians still observe the Bible command against eating rats, cats, mice and bats etc.

Under the Christian model "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul were SO" is an approved and blessed way to determine correct doctrine. Acts 17:11

For sacrifices, not eating.

Until you read the text and see in Genesis 6 and 7 that no mention of sacrifice is made at all -- just a distinction between clean and unclean where the clean come in the ark 7 each species, and the unclean come into the ark only 2 for each species. And so "Eat one pig and no more pigs for mankind". "Eat one rat - and no more rats for all of mankind".

Obviously they could not be eating those unclean animals - and yet still have unclean animals alive today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[shijut20]

1

 

[shijut20]

I Corinthians 8:8

"But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat ,and no better if we do"

I don't think so God will judge us on the basis of what food we ate.Correct me if I'm wrong !!!!!

Be blessed

Thanks
shiju

 

[Tnmusicman]

Actually , all the Christians I know say that Jesus is the only way to God,per the Bible in John 14:6. If there is another way that the bible acknowledges I would want to hear about it. I'm honestly inquiring rather than being smarmy.

 

[aiki]

Not actually correct.

As pointed out above - the distinction existed long before there was an Israelite.

Interesting. How exactly does the presence of this distinction before Israel's inception defeat what I said about the laws being aimed at establishing Israel's separateness?

Selah.

 

[BobRyan]

The Clean unclean meat distinction was not dedicated to "Israel be separate from gentiles" as we see in Genesis 6 and 7 where in fact there is no Israel - and in those chapters no animal sacrifices.

And on the ark - any unclean animal (Kitten, puppy, rat, bat, pig) "eaten" would end the species entirely.

And as we see in Isaiah 66 - at the end of the World it is the rat-eaters, the idol worshipers etc that are subjected to the fire of judgment.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Actually , all the Christians I know say that Jesus is the only way to God,per the Bible in John 14:6. .

That is true - and Jesus authored the OT and NT through the Holy Spirit according to Peter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LoriPinkAngel]

For those who do not feel that the bible is infallible, if you are willing, would you please tell me how you decide what in the bible is the true teachings of jesus. I understand that this is a personal process but I would like to understand as best I can. A variety of answers would be ideal.

I personally compare anything that is doubtful against the character of Christ. Is it loving? Does it serve my fellow humans? Will it help lead others to Christ?

 

[Littleautieboy]

Some Atheist truely want to know god they just dont know yet.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so"

These are non-Christians using accepted Scripture to evaluate and test the teaching of the Apostle Paul. They are approved by the NT saints for doing so - they are not at all sifting through the scriptures tossing anything out that does not fit the teaching the Gospel that Paul is proclaiming. Rather they are testing PAUL's teaching against scripture to see IF Paul is to be believed at all!.

That gives us a "hint" of just how much scripture they were not tossing out the window to accept the Gospel of the NT Apostles.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[et superbum]

Some Atheist truely want to know god they just dont know yet.

Some people truely seek understanding

When the issue of sex education is raised, christians come out to vocally oppose anything except abstinence only programs. Why? To me the results of comprehensive sex education speak for themselves. In fact my class enjoyed a little bit of an anomalous sex education in our eighth grade year. Our normal teacher was accused of sexual harassment by a classmate of mine and served a paid suspension the rest of the year while the investigation went on. My class was taught by a sub with no concern for job security and our education was very frank and open. Our class had ZERO pregnancies at graduation, something not achieved in recent memory or since.

That story maybe anecdotal but many studies support it's lesson.

 

[aiki]

The Clean unclean meat distinction was not dedicated to "Israel be separate from gentiles" as we see in Genesis 6 and 7 where in fact there is no Israel - and in those chapters no animal sacrifices.

I still don't see how the fact that a distinction made between clean and unclean animals in Genesis diminishes or negates the fact that the laws given to Israel - including ones related to diet - were clearly intended to create a separateness between the nation of Israel and the surrounding pagan nations, and to constantly remind the Israelites of their "set apart" status. Why couldn't this earlier distinction in Genesis not be incorporated into the business of making Israel set apart?

And as we see in Isaiah 66 - at the end of the World it is the rat-eaters, the idol worshipers etc that are subjected to the fire of judgment.

It isn't merely the eating of "the swine's flesh, the abomination and the mouse" that is the cause of God's condemnation but the fact that these things were part of the worship of a pagan deity. The eating of the swine's flesh is clearly connected to pagan idol worship in chapter 66. It is not condemned as a separate evil.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

When the issue of sex education is raised, christians come out to vocally oppose anything except abstinence only programs. Why? To me the results of comprehensive sex education speak for themselves. In fact my class enjoyed a little bit of an anomalous sex education in our eighth grade year. Our normal teacher was accused of sexual harassment by a classmate of mine and served a paid suspension the rest of the year while the investigation went on. My class was taught by a sub with no concern for job security and our education was very frank and open. Our class had ZERO pregnancies at graduation, something not achieved in recent memory or since.

That story maybe anecdotal but many studies support it's lesson.

THere was a time, when my parents and their parents were young people, when teenage pregnancy and children born out of wedlock was virtually unheard of. This was long before the advent of "sex education" into public schools. "Frank discussions" were not necessary for the prevention of teenage pregnancy, only a greater commitment to the Judeo-Christian view of sex and marriage.

I should like to see some of these studies of which you speak.

Selah.

 

[et superbum]

THere was a time, when my parents and their parents were young people, when teenage pregnancy and children born out of wedlock was virtually unheard of. This was long before the advent of "sex education" into public schools. "Frank discussions" were not necessary for the prevention of teenage pregnancy, only a greater commitment to the Judeo-Christian view of sex and marriage.

I should like to see some of these studies of which you speak.

Selah.

not allowed to post links yet - type teen pregnancy rates in google, first link is ad skip, second link is pdf skip, click third link.

In this article it states that teen pregnancy rates are the lowest they have been since 1946. My mother and father graduated in 1978, my oldest grandparent graduated in 1948, you have to go back to my great grand parents to find people who experienced a lower birth rate. All my great grandparents are dead, in fact all but one of my grandparents are dead and she graduated in 1953. People who experienced a lower birth rate are now in their mid 80's.

It is my understanding that teen pregnancy rates are related to the proliferation of the automobile. when everyone had a car in the garage it gave teens the freedom to go out and do something stupid.

 

[BobRyan]

Some people truely seek understanding

When the issue of sex education is raised, christians come out to vocally oppose anything except abstinence only programs. Why? To me the results of comprehensive sex education speak for themselves.

Pretty hard to get pregnant on abstinence as it turns out.

As for why Christians support it -- it is that whole "Ten Commandments" thing about not committing adultery (See Exodus 20 in the Old Testament) as well as the"Sermon on the mount" by Christ starting in Matthew 5.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[[serious]]

THere was a time, when my parents and their parents were young people, when teenage pregnancy and children born out of wedlock was virtually unheard of. This was long before the advent of "sex education" into public schools. "Frank discussions" were not necessary for the prevention of teenage pregnancy, only a greater commitment to the Judeo-Christian view of sex and marriage.

I should like to see some of these studies of which you speak.

Selah.

Really? From my discussions with older generations, it was just a difference in the rate of "hey, we need to get married, NOW"

I can't find a good source at the moment, but as far as the figures I've previously see the current generation has first intercourse slightly younger, but first pregnancy is substantially later. Age at first marriage is also later.

EDIT: just found a good source. Trends in premarital sex in the Un... [Public Health Rep. 2007 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI

There doesn't appear to be any noticeable trend in the rates of premarital sex by generation.

In every generation, around 90% of people had premarital sex. The current generation seems right on track with historical averages. No better, no worse.