Debating rules applied

[OntheDL]

Under 'inspiration' she wrote about the amalgamation of men and beast and this was interpreted by her husband and others like Uriah Smith to include tribes like the Bushmen of Africa, she never corrected them but the church many years later edited out that racist statement.

Bushmen of Africa. Do you have any quote from James or Uriah Smith? Somehow Mrs White takes blames for alot of other people.

 

[sentipente]

Bushmen of Africa. Do you have any quote from James or Uriah Smith? Somehow Mrs White takes blames for alot of other people.

Sometimes we avoid what we wish to avoid.

 

[RND]

Right
However your reliance on Web MD is misplaced, for it cites no peer-reviewed sources, just this disclaimer:

Actually, a number of articles on WebMD site peer-reviwed studies from numerous sources. That's a fact.

No, silly, the answer is to EXAMINE whatever you read on the web, That is common sense, don't you agree?

So, as long as what I read and examine is in agreement with what you believe it's kosher?

Did I somehow lead you astray when I stated, ; "Some, for example______" Are you doing a SDA Samba here?

Relax, an alliterative joke, but nevertheless it is true true you dance around the issue raised in the OP. No one has EVER produced professional-level (peer reviewed ) studies that support what EGW said.

I stated that JAMA is an EXAMPLE. It could be Lancet, or Dietitian Journal asa other examples. No one has EVER produced professional-level (peer reviewed ) studies that support what EGW said. That is the focus of the OP

For example, there have been lots of peer-reviewed studies that have supported EGW claim that pork eating leads to cancer. For example, you have denied that. For example, I chaleege you to do a simple search and review some of these studies.

I checked the site and searched on "pork". Did you?

I found one article about the dangers of HDL under "pork".Look at the MANY sources of saturated fats. I counted 15 and others, but note that pork is listed as one in 15, and that has to do with triglycerides, but NOT CAUSING LEPROSY AND CANCER as EGW said.

Nope.

I did a search on the world wide net web using "pork" and "cancer." You might try the same.

I found ZERO articles about any alleged dangers of eating pork. If there were any real dangers associated with eating pork, is it not likely that WebMD would have an article, since you seem to believe it as having authority?

One exmple I found on WebMD was of an article based on a peer-reviewed study that found that a rise in colon cancer was linked to beef and pork that showed a low-vegetable diet increases the effects. The findings appeared in the Dec. 1, 2002 issue of the journal Cancer.

Just last December the National Research Center for Women & Families published a study that showed a link between breast cancer and red meat and pork ingestion.

If you mistakenly believe that WebMD says that eating pork CAUSES cancer then why are there 3 ad links to pork, and 6 different recipes for pork? Is your trust in WebMD substantiated or faltering now?

I'm not here not comment on the apparent lack of ethics at WebMD. If you'll go back and re-read what I wrote you'd see I was referencing articles that appeared there.

I never claimmed that WebMD was the author of the studies. You do know that right?

It was FOR THE JEWS, BUT NOT FOR ALL PEOPLE. When is the last time you read Acts 10?

So does pig flesh affect Jews differently than that of the general population? Do you have a study that show trichinosis affects Jews differently than non-Jews?

You are aware Peter was in a trance or vision don't you? You are aware that Acts 10 refers to Gentiles as "unclean" right? You do recgonize the moral of the story of Acts 10 right?

Your stating something is not the same as showing proof.

The position of EGW must fail because there is no proof ANYWHERE of that pork-cancer, leprosy scafola link she posited.

Sure there is. Tons of studies.

Laugh away.

I also am an ex smoker, but as I stated, in the science of statistics, causality is when you reach the 95% level or > 2 standard deviations. Your statistics, even at 49% do not reach the degree of causality that EGW posited.. We both know that it is foolish to smoke, for there is surely an INCREASED LIKELIHOOD of cancer, COPD and other things from smoking.

However, has there been any similar warning label on pork chops?

Be serious. Considering the size of the Agri business lobby in Washington you really expect that it is there interest to publicly expose the danger of their products?

There are many more pork eaters than smokers.

It is not logic, rather science of which I speak.

Yeah right. Your level of science seems to think men came from monkeys. How unscientific can that be.

You are trying futilely to defend EGW 's statement on causality of cancer, etc. It is impossible, for there are no studies proving it.

Yes there are. Tons.

Even if there was an "increased likelihood" of cancer, etc from eating pork, then there would be a warning label on it, and WebMD would neither have links nor recipes for pork on their website.

Small Freudian admission?

Colon Cancer Rise Linked to Beef, Pork
Low-Vegetable Diet Increases Effects

Does Red Meat Cause Breast Cancer?

Consumers ignore cancer risks of eating red meat - refers to a WCRF mega-study

Meaty Diet May Raise Pancreatic Cancer Risk

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I did a search on the world wide net web using "pork" and "cancer." You might try the same.

I think that research technique says it all. I would however say that if you entered "pork" and "sex" (625,000) you get more matches the "pork" and "cancer" (522,000) So apparently using these new research techniques eating pork leads to more sex. I am afraid to continue this research as I may find that pork also leads to more congress people and that is scary.

 

[RND]

I think that research technique says it all.

I don't consider searching the WWW "research." Do you

I would however say that if you entered "pork" and "sex" (625,000) you get more matches the "pork" and "cancer" (522,000) So apparently using these new research techniques eating pork leads to more sex.

Only in your world.

I am afraid to continue this research as I may find that pork also leads to more congress people and that is scary.

Well, small minded people seem to get small minded results.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well, small minded people seem to get small minded results.

I could not agree more!

 

[RND]

I could not agree more!

I know.

 

[JohnT]

Actually, a number of articles on WebMD site peer-reviwed studies from numerous sources. That's a fact.

Until you establish it as fact, by supplying proof, your statement is merely personal opinion

So, as long as what I read and examine is in agreement with what you believe it's kosher?

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. You made the point, you supply the proof, or fail in the argument

For example, there have been lots of peer-reviewed studies that have supported EGW claim that pork eating leads to cancer. For example, you have denied that. For example, I chaleege you to do a simple search and review some of these studies.

NAME ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY. You make the assertion, you MUST supply the proof. Otherwise, logically speaking ,your claim is balderdash

I did a search on the world wide net web using "pork" and "cancer." You might try the same

.

I went to the site you deemed authoritative, and told you the results

One example I found on WebMD was of an article based on a peer-reviewed study that found that a rise in colon cancer was linked to beef and pork that showed a low-vegetable diet increases the effects. The findings appeared in the Dec. 1, 2002 issue of the journal Cancer.

Just last December the National Research Center for Women & Families published a study that showed a link between breast cancer and red meat and pork ingestion.

My comment on that is below, but know this IT IS A WEB SITE, not the same as a peer reviewed study

I'm not here not comment on the apparent lack of ethics at WebMD. If you'll go back and re-read what I wrote you'd see I was referencing articles that appeared there.

I never claimmed that WebMD was the author of the studies. You do know that right?

Because they advertise pork products and suppply recipes for pork, they are therefore unethical???

That is a preposterous allegation!

So does pig flesh affect Jews differently than that of the general population? Do you have a study that show trichinosis affects Jews differently than non-Jews?

You are aware Peter was in a trance or vision don't you? You are aware that Acts 10 refers to Gentiles as "unclean" right? You do recgonize the moral of the story of Acts 10 right

?

God told Peter THREE TIMES to "kill and eat unclean animals" Can't get much clearer than that. the very words of God, recorded by a scientist, Luke the physician.

Sure there is. Tons of studies.

You FAILED to cite any legitimate one. You made the claim, it is up to you to supply proof. That is a rule of debate, too many people forget that rule around the blogs .

Be serious. Considering the size of the Agri business lobby in Washington you really expect that it is there interest to publicly expose the danger of their products?

Yeah, the same argument was made about the tobacco industry.

I have yet to see a warning label on a pack of pork chops as there is on cigarettes.

There are many more pork eaters than smokers.

You have statistics to back that up? Otherwise, it is mere opinion

Yeah right. Your level of science seems to think men came from monkeys. How unscientific can that be.

Not within the bounds of this forum

Name calling is not a substitute for dialog.


Colon Cancer Rise Linked to Beef, Pork
Low-Vegetable Diet Increases Effects

Researchers concluded that diet and a family history of colorectal cancer were the primary risk factors for the disease in the Chinese population. After accounting for all other risk factors, a high intake of red meat -- including beef and pork -- doubled the risk of colorectal cancer. No rise was seen for those reporting increased consumption of other meats or seafood. Eating vegetables was associated with a reduction in risk....

The National Cancer Institute's Arthur Schatzkin, PhD, who is an expert on the role of foods in cancer, tells WebMD that the evidence linking red meat consumption to colorectal cancer is strong but not conclusive. The consumption of processed meats has also been linked to colorectal cancer. Schatzkin is chief of the Nutritional Epidemiology Branch of the NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetic

Last time I checked, RISK is a different word than CAUSES

BTW that is a summary of a peer reviewed study. To verify you need to see the entire document, or do you trust the source because you agree with it?

Does Red Meat Cause Breast Cancer?

Again, another SUMMARY of a peer reviewed study

A study of more than 90,000 nurses, led by a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, was published in a respected medical journal in November, 2006. When the women entered the study in 1989, they were between 25 and 42 years old. The women reported their own food habits to the researchers in 1991, 1993, and 1995. Their health was evaluated from 1991 through 2003....

For most people, the most reassuring aspect of the study results is that even the women with the lowest risk of breast cancer were eating up to 5 portions of red meat every week. This suggests that even if eating red meat does contribute to breast cancer risk, it is probably safe to eat red meat on a regular basis - just not everyday. On the other hand, it is important keep in mind that a portion of any food is generally considered about the size of a fist. Larger portions, such as a large steak, probably would count as two portions – or more!

Perhaps most important to remember: this is just one study. More research is needed to determine if pork or any kind of red meat really does increase the risk of breast cancer, and if so, whether the risk is caused by meat itself, only certain kinds of meat, or the way the meat is processed or cooked.

Again your alleged proofs do not make the pork-cancer connection

Consumers ignore cancer risks of eating red meat - refers to a
WCRF mega-study

This is a newspaper article by two reporters, Emily Dugan and Charlotte Browne

Does not pass as a peer reviewed study

Meaty Diet May Raise Pancreatic Cancer Risk[/quote]

This IS a peer reviewed study, but the word MAY is not the same as CAUSES. Since this is by subscription only, it does not count, for no one can provide the article.

Hey that was fun! You struck out four times, and have not proved your thesis

Therefore anyone believing that eating pork CAUSES cancer believes something that can not proved.

 

[AndrewK788]

Therefore anyone believing that eating pork CAUSES cancer believes something that can not proved.

Such as believing in God? Can you prove his existence?

 

[JohnT]

Such as believing in God? Can you prove his existence?

Non sequitur

 

[RND]

Until you establish it as fact, by supplying proof, your statement is merely personal opinion

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. You made the point, you supply the proof, or fail in the argument


NAME ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY. You make the assertion, you MUST supply the proof. Otherwise, logically speaking ,your claim is balderdash

I did.
I did.
See below.

I went to the site you deemed authoritative, and told you the results

My comment on that is below, but know this IT IS A WEB SITE, not the same as a peer reviewed study

Because they advertise pork products and suppply recipes for pork, they are therefore unethical???

That is a preposterous allegation!

I didn't referenve the site, just the article on the site.

WebMD is a web site with articles that reference peer-reviewed studies.

Hypocritical more likely. Maybe.

?

God told Peter THREE TIMES to "kill and eat unclean animals" Can't get much clearer than that. the very words of God, recorded by a scientist, Luke the physician.

Act 10:10
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Act 10:11
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:


The vision Peter saw was an attempt (a veru good one at that) to show previously very snooty and aloof Peter that all of God's people, whether Jew or Gentile, are to be considered the same.

It's fairly obvious that God was not giving permission to eat anything he wanted. If that was the case, cannabalism would be kosher. It is not.

You FAILED to cite any legitimate one. You made the claim, it is up to you to supply proof. That is a rule of debate, too many people forget that rule around the blogs .

No, you failed to read the studies I posted.

Yeah, the same argument was made about the tobacco industry.

I have yet to see a warning label on a pack of pork chops as there is on cigarettes.

Are you grown-up enough to realize that you don't need a warning label on pototo chips, candy and liquor to know that too much is bad or hazardous?

Seriously. A six pack a beer doesn't come with a warning label either. Doesn't mean that too much is bad for you or impairs the operation of motor function.

You have statistics to back that up? Otherwise, it is mere opinion

Yes, there are approximately 18-20 million smokers remaining in the country. Per captia consumption of swine in this country is approximately 62.8 pounds per year. If there were less than 18-20 million pork eaters in the country that number would be higher.

US pork consumption in 2005 was 19.1 billion pounds. Do the math.

Not within the bounds of this forum

Name calling is not a substitute for dialog.

I didn't call you any names.

Colon Cancer Rise Linked to Beef, Pork
Low-Vegetable Diet Increases Effects

Last time I checked, RISK is a different word than CAUSES

Nov. 15, 2002 -- A new study serves as good evidence that a western diet can more than double the risk of colon cancer. Researchers found that an increasingly western diet has led to a dramatic rise in colorectal cancer in Singapore. Rates of the cancer have doubled in the past three decades, largely because residents eat more red meat and fewer vegetables than in the past.

The highlighted sentance doesn't seem to imply much in it's statement.

BTW that is a summary of a peer reviewed study. To verify you need to see the entire document, or do you trust the source because you agree with it?

Are you admitting now that there are peer-reviewed studies that indicate the corelation between meat consumption and cancer?

Does Red Meat Cause Breast Cancer?

Again, another SUMMARY of a peer reviewed study

Right you are, but then that was the point of posting them.

Again your alleged proofs do not make the pork-cancer connection

Consumers ignore cancer risks of eating red meat - refers to a
WCRF mega-study

This is a newspaper article by two reporters, Emily Dugan and Charlotte Browne

Does not pass as a peer reviewed study

Again, right you are!

But then again they article refers to the same type of peer-reviewed studies regarding meat/cancer connection which was the point in posting the links to merely let you know of the existence of something you said doesn't exist.

Meaty Diet May Raise Pancreatic Cancer Risk

This IS a peer reviewed study, but the word MAY is not the same as CAUSES. Since this is by subscription only, it does not count, for no one can provide the article.

Hey that was fun! You struck out four times, and have not proved your thesis

Therefore anyone believing that eating pork CAUSES cancer believes something that can not proved.[/QUOTE]

Yes, again another "peer-reviewed" study regarding the meat/cancer connection that you said was non-existent. I would say your admission that such studies exist, after your rather silly and childish connention that they were no such animals is satisfaction enough.

The fact that I only referenced 4 out of hundreds of such studies should indicate to you the seriousness of what a diet that involved the heavy consumption of meat can lead to.

The fact that cancer rates have climbed exponentially in the 20th Century in relation to the increased consumption of red meat in the world should also cause an inquiring mind to seek out more truth not ridicule those who are willing to present it.

You proved nothing other than just how hard-headed and non-sensical you truly are, friend!

 

[JohnT]

You proved nothing other than just how hard-headed and non-sensical (sic) you truly are, friend!

It is you, not me who errs, and here is why. You fail to understand the high level of proof that is required for something to be caused. Your answers indicate that you may have not taken either an undergraduate or graduate level course in statistics. That is not a put down, but it does indicate that further explanation is necessary on my part.

Statistics is a mathematical science that measures data using squared numbers that finds the relationships of one set of data to another. The formulas used are complex-one problem I solved took one hour, and about 20 steps, so it goes far beyond the simple mean, mode and averages that we learned in high school.

In order to get the standard deviation from the normal, we have to find the mean of the means, or average of the averages. If you take a normal distribution (bell curve) and plot its average, roughly 34% on either side of the mean, then roughly 68% if all samples will be within one standard deviation, positively or negatively. The second deviation in normal distribution makes a cut off point at 95%, leaving a 5% “tail” on either end of the bell curve.

Since we are concerned with a positive, that is the causal relationship of pork and cancer, we can ignore the negative side, and look for a correlation between what is observed, and what is expected. What is expected is that under normal circumstances.50% of the people in the study are positive, 50% not.

When you add the word “risk” to the data analysis, you are attempting to analyze the amount of volatility or flux in the data The greater the risk, the greater the probability or likelihood of an event happening. However, and this is significant, since there are no actual degrees of probability or likelihood of the pork-cancer connection happening, hence you have a null hypothesis, that the true result of pork eaters getting cancer is not proven.

What you seem to assume is that the nebulous term “increased risk” translates into the alternative hypothesis, that there is a causal link between the two events.

To see an actual, peer-reviewed study, here is one from the journal, Cancer Research http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/00027C6E.pdf.

The point if all this is to state that while there are some studies saying there is an “increased risk”, there are others saying differently, therefore, studies are inconclusive at best, and therefore there is no cause effect relationship established, as EGW’s statement that “eating pork CAUSES...”

If there was a cause effect relationship of smoking and cancer for example, then every smoker would get lung cancer, something both of us as former smokers need to be concerned about. That has not been established, so no one can say with a degree of certainty that “smoking CAUSES lung cancer”

The hypothesis promulgated by EGW was that eating pork CAUSES cancer" (see OP for reference). Since there is surely no causal relationship between smokers and lung cancer established, and we all know how inherently harmful that is, it therefore impossible to establish the cause-effect relationship that EGW states between pork and cancer.

She also stated that pork CAUSES leprosy and tuberculosis (scrofula)

The eating of pork has produced scrofula, leprosy, and cancerous humors" {RH, June 20, 1899 par. 3}

No mention has been made of those diseases, as being caused by pork consumption, also. therefore, on three out of three things, the words of EGW are not supported by science in the way that she wrote them.

On another note:

Acts 10: 10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice...

Obviously, Peter knew that God told him to EAT UNCLEAN ANIMALS

That is the reason he objected so greatly; God made a paradigm shift. He changed the law. Christ had ascended, and the old Kosher laws were passed.

However, since I do not want to morph the thread yet, I will drop that matter, except to reiterate that the words of EGW are not supported by science in the way that she wrote them.

 

[RND]

It is you, not me who errs, and here is why. You fail to understand the high level of proof that is required for something to be caused. Your answers indicate that you may have not taken either an undergraduate or graduate level course in statistics. That is not a put down, but it does indicate that further explanation is necessary on my part.

Ah, your superiority and smugness are showing again John. Work on it.

Statistics is a mathematical science that measures data using squared numbers that finds the relationships of one set of data to another. The formulas used are complex-one problem I solved took one hour, and about 20 steps, so it goes far beyond the simple mean, mode and averages that we learned in high school.

I have found in my lifetime that those that have to toot their own horn usually have little to toot and as a result have to find a way to make themselves appear "superior" in some fashion of another to inflate their rather fragile self image and ego.

In order to get the standard deviation from the normal, we have to find the mean of the means, or average of the averages. If you take a normal distribution (bell curve) and plot its average, roughly 34% on either side of the mean, then roughly 68% if all samples will be within one standard deviation, positively or negatively. The second deviation in normal distribution makes a cut off point at 95%, leaving a 5% “tail” on either end of the bell curve.

Yes, that's correct.

Since we are concerned with a positive, that is the causal relationship of pork and cancer, we can ignore the negative side, and look for a correlation between what is observed, and what is expected. What is expected is that under normal circumstances.50% of the people in the study are positive, 50% not.

When you add the word “risk” to the data analysis, you are attempting to analyze the amount of volatility or flux in the data The greater the risk, the greater the probability or likelihood of an event happening. However, and this is significant, since there are no actual degrees of probability or likelihood of the pork-cancer connection happening, hence you have a null hypothesis, that the true result of pork eaters getting cancer is not proven.

What you seem to assume is that the nebulous term “increased risk” translates into the alternative hypothesis, that there is a causal link between the two events.

To see an actual, peer-reviewed study, here is one from the journal, Cancer Research http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/00027C6E.pdf.

Actually, as I mentioned before, I just simply linked articles that described the results of "peer-reviewed" studies that you said didn't exist.

Your bloviating is in vain because it is clear that there have been hundreds of studies conducted that have found a correlation between cancer and red meat consumption.

The point if all this is to state that while there are some studies saying there is an “increased risk”, there are others saying differently, therefore, studies are inconclusive at best, and therefore there is no cause effect relationship established, as EGW’s statement that “eating pork CAUSES...”

Some studies have drawn an actual conclusion that red meat consumption leads to cancer.

If there was a cause effect relationship of smoking and cancer for example, then every smoker would get lung cancer, something both of us as former smokers need to be concerned about. That has not been established, so no one can say with a degree of certainty that “smoking CAUSES lung cancer”

Smoking leads to the cause of over 40 different and varied health problems, cancer just being one of them.

Not all people that drive drunk get into an accident and kill people. However, to do so involves "greater risk" that one may. Should we ignore this "gearter risk?"

The hypothesis promulgated by EGW was that eating pork CAUSES cancer" (see OP for reference). Since there is surely no causal relationship between smokers and lung cancer established, and we all know how inherently harmful that is, it therefore impossible to establish the cause-effect relationship that EGW states between pork and cancer.

Again, you're joking right?

There have been hundreds (if not thousands) of studies that have linked cigarette smoking as a "cause" of cancer.

She also stated that pork CAUSES leprosy and tuberculosis (scrofula) No mention has been made of those diseases, as being caused by pork consumption, also. therefore, on three out of three things, the words of EGW are not supported by science in the way that she wrote them.

Not yet Einstein.

On another note:

Acts 10: 10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice...

Obviously, Peter knew that God told him to EAT UNCLEAN ANIMALS

That is the reason he objected so greatly; God made a paradigm shift. He changed the law. Christ had ascended, and the old Kosher laws were passed.

However, since I do not want to morph the thread yet, I will drop that matter, except to reiterate that the words of EGW are not supported by science in the way that she wrote them.

You brought the subject of Acts 10 up.

John, you do realize that Peter was in a trance right? And that upon hearing what God was communicating Peter did not suddenly leap of the roof top and start a batch of New England clam chowder and escarcot?

Your first clue should be that in his dream state Peter told God he never ate anything common or unclean. The second was to see just how God was using something hard-headed Peter could relate to for the upcoming meeting with Cornelius that Peter was about to have.

Your last clue should be to understand that there is nothing in the story that relates to Peter going off and eating any unclean animals afterward. None.

Of course, if you think so, that's your business. However, maybe you'd be kind enough to present a disertation on the significance and symbolic meaning of the demons entering into a herd of over 2,000 swine when the were cast out of the Demoniac?

 

[JohnT]

Ah, your superiority and smugness are showing again John. Work on it.

I have found in my lifetime that those that have to toot their own horn usually have little to toot and as a result have to find a way to make themselves appear "superior" in some fashion of another to inflate their rather fragile self image and ego.[/.quote]

PLAYING PSYCHOLOGIST IS PATHETIC!

FYI I was merely trying to explain the level of proof necessary for have a cause-effect relationship. I am also wondering about your ability to comprehend a simple sentence. What is it about this sentence that you do not understand? That is not a put down, but it does indicate that further explanation is necessary on my part.

Pardon me, but I have studied stats. So what? It does not make me superior, for it is a tool that I have. Since you seem not to have that tool, an explanation seemed necessary.



OOPS! I blew it on the cigarette-cancer analogy. I caught it, so I better think of another example





You brought the subject of Acts 10 up.

John, you do realize that Peter was in a trance right? And that upon hearing what God was communicating Peter did not suddenly leap of the roof top and start a batch of New England clam chowder and escarcot?

Your first clue should be that in his dream state Peter told God he never ate anything common or unclean. The second was to see just how God was using something hard-headed Peter could relate to for the upcoming meeting with Cornelius that Peter was about to have.

Your last clue should be to understand that there is nothing in the story that relates to Peter going off and eating any unclean animals afterward. None.

Of course, if you think so, that's your business. However, maybe you'd be kind enough to present a disertation on the significance and symbolic meaning of the demons entering into a herd of over 2,000 swine when the were cast out of the Demoniac?

Why would a factual event be denigrated into a symbolic event?

 

[RND]

Why would a factual event be denigrated into a symbolic event?

Did Peter climb off the roof and begin eating animals or preaching to gentiles?

Which fact do you want to discuss?

 

[Adventtruth]

Did Peter climb off the roof and begin eating animals or preaching to gentiles?

Which fact do you want to discuss?

Hi RND. Just wondering how you understand this passage of scripture?

(Mar 7:14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
(Mar 7:15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
(Mar 7:16) [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.]
(Mar 7:17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
(Mar 7:18) And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
(Mar 7:19) since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mar 7:20) And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
(Mar 7:21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
(Mar 7:22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
(Mar 7:23) All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."


AT

 

[RND]

Hi RND. Just wondering how you understand this passage of scripture?

(Mar 7:14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
(Mar 7:15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
(Mar 7:16) [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.]
(Mar 7:17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
(Mar 7:18) And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
(Mar 7:19) since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mar 7:20) And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
(Mar 7:21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
(Mar 7:22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
(Mar 7:23) All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."


AT

Yes, I understand it quite well.

Was Jesus saying we could eat other people here? If not, why not?
Was Jesus saying that ingesting human flesh was ok? If not, why not?

 

[freeindeed2]

Yes, I understand it quite well.

Was Jesus saying we could eat other people here? If not, why not?
Was Jesus saying that ingesting human flesh was ok? If not, why not?

Yeah! I'm sure he was talking about cannibalism here! Give me a break. Maybe he was talking about eating the moon! Or maybe eating the sun, for 'Sunday worship'! LOL!

 

[RND]

Yeah! I'm sure he was talking about cannibalism here! Give me a break. Maybe he was talking about eating the moon! Or maybe eating the sun, for 'Sunday worship'! LOL!

free, I know it's difficult for you to carry on a coherant and rational discussion most of the time, in that you attempts at sarcasim get in the way.

Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?

When Jesus declared all foods clean (as some think He did) was he including humans? If not, why not?

 

[tall73]

A. I am not sure the text is best rendered as He thus made all foods clean.

B. If it were however you still have the question that some Adventists ask of "what is meant by food." That seems to be RND's question.

C. You also have the issue here not being food as such but the uncleaness of not washing.

D. However, the question is not so much what constitutes food, but what was previously prohibited that would now be clean if that is how the passage was rendered?

If He is making something clean then it has to mean that some things that were not clean now are. That of course hinges on A. But it tends to rule out the idea that "unclean meats are not food"argument. Because whatever was unclean before was also not food.