Is God interested in our health?

[HIM]

Is Paul contradicting himself? For health it's best to stay away from ultra processed foods.
Rom 14:6
He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[fn] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Unclean foods are not mention nor is the sabbath in Romans 14. So why bring the chapter up?

 

[Laodicean60]

Unclean foods are not mention nor is the sabbath in Romans 14. So why bring the chapter up?

Eating Kosher for health.

 

[Gary K]

I see, we need to be vegetarian. I disagree because any diet that requires supplements does not contain everything that God provided for our nutrition. I can understand fasts of different sorts but they are only fasts.

No. God said humans could eat meat after the flood. But the Jewish leaders said Gentiles could still eat meat but must abstain from blood. Why throw out a straw man when I've clearly said Gentiles must abstain from blood? What does me being a vegetarian/vegan have to do with it?

 

[Laodicean60]

straw man

No straw man just telling you the truth about health. Isn't this what the thread is about?

 

[trophy33]

No. God said humans could eat meat after the flood.

This is before the flood:
Genesis 7: 1 And the Lord said unto Noah...of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Therefore, from the point of view of the Jewish authors, Noah already knew the concept of clean and unclean animals before it was given by Moses. Similarly like they pushed the Sabbath back to the creation week, before it was given by Moses. Jewish authors after Babylon wrote these events as a retrospection, to create their specific Jewish mythological history.

But the Jewish leaders said Gentiles could still eat meat but must abstain from blood.

Also from meat sacrificed to idols, but Paul later dismissed that as based purely on individual faith/anxiety. However, no common meat you can buy in a normal market contains blood. Kosher is not unique in being without blood, its specificity is that the animal is killed ritually with a knife, while still conscious, and in the most of cases, the animals suffer needlessly.

In any case, blood would be destroyed by cooking quite quickly. What the book of Acts is about is a raw blood, probably blood drinking.

And as the meat of a strangled animal or sacrificed to idols is not less healthy, the blood part will also be more about ritualistic properties than about physical nutrition. For example, Mongols drank a lot of blood from their horses and certainly were not an unhealthy nation, conquering so much land.

 

[HIM]

Eating Kosher for health.

Ah thanks. In respect to eating unto the Lord. Then We should do all things to His glory. So avoid bad things, right?

 

[daq]

Me? I'm a vegetarian.

Good for you, "You shall not ratsach (murder/kill)."

 

[trophy33]

Good for you, "You shall not ratsach (murder/kill)."

Plants are living organisms, too. Also, in the modern industrialized agricultural production, many hundreds or even thousands of animals in the wild die every year for a vegetarian to have his veggies.

 

[daq]

Plants are living organisms, too. Also, in the modern industrialized agricultural production, many hundreds or even thousands of animals in the wild die every year for a vegetarian to have his veggies.

It is not possible for us to have a logical discussion based on a mutual set of facts where we can logically argue and debate from our agreed set of facts and come to logical conclusions based on logical reasoning. The reason why this is the case is because you and I do not have that common denominator, that agreed set of facts: for you do not play by the same rules that I do, and therefore we cannot have a logical and fair discussion, and you just revealed this in a previous post where you stated the following.

This is before the flood:
Genesis 7: 1 And the Lord said unto Noah...of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Therefore, from the point of view of the Jewish authors, Noah already knew the concept of clean and unclean animals before it was given by Moses. Similarly like they pushed the Sabbath back to the creation week, before it was given by Moses. Jewish authors after Babylon wrote these events as a retrospection, to create their specific Jewish mythological history.

I am not here to discuss the scripture with people who do not believe it is the Word of Elohim. I am not saying that shouldn't be done: but this isn't the place for it, and I am not here to participate in such an attempt. All of my arguments are based on the belief, and common denominator, that the scripture is holy and true and the Word of Elohim. Those who do not agree, I am not condemning them, but simply stating the obvious: that we do not have a foundational common denominator by which to engage in a logical discussion based on a shared set of accepted facts, the scripture.

Example: your statement in the previous post quoted above eliminates the need for you to investigate and study the scripture any further concerning that very question you raise. So instead of being taught by Elohim in His Word and with logic and reasoning you simply void it out by claiming it is a made up story of men from the time of the dispersion to Babylon.

Elohim does indeed use logic and reasoning through His Word, and has even used the natural creation to teach spiritual things to carnal minded men who cannot yet understand spiritual things so that we may come to be spiritual creatures by way of His teachings.

It isn't difficult to see how Noah would have known the difference between clean and unclean creatures: we are taught this later in the Torah, and it is entirely logical: the unclean animals kill and eat other animals for food, and both the clean and the unclean animals are called living souls.

"You shall not murder-kill"... do you need to be told this? No, you know instinctively that it is not right to take the life of another living soul. Thus it is common sense that the herbivores are the clean animals and the carnivores are the unclean animals.

 

[trophy33]

"You shall not murder-kill"... do you need to be told this? No, you know instinctively that it is not right to take the life of another living soul. Thus it is common sense that the herbivores are the clean animals and the carnivores are the unclean animals.

Therefore its clean to kill and eat those nice ones, but its wrong/unclean to kill and eat the bad ones? Your "moral" interpretation of clean food does not make much sense.

 

[daq]

Therefore its clean to kill and eat those nice ones, but its wrong/unclean to kill and eat the bad ones? Your "moral" interpretation of clean food does not make much sense.

Ah, so you insist I answer you, eh?

It will end in this manner: if indeed you are "in adulthood", as you emphatically implied at my expense here, and yet you cannot discern the moral difference between removing a head of grain from its stalk, and removing the head of a living soul from its neck, then it is no wonder civilization has come full circle and is once again just as it was in the days of Noah.

Thus you have not only an issue with disbelief concerning the flood narrative, but also a more serious issue with believing the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts: for he uses that phrase, "as in the days of Noah", (Mat 24:37-39, Luk 17:26-27), and therefore, logically speaking, he affirms the flood narrative as holy writ or he would not have used it, and moreover other authors of holy writ likewise believe and use it in various scripture discourses such as Isa 54:9, Eze 14:14-20, Heb 11:17, 1 Pet 3:20, and 2 Pet 2:5.

The scripture calls the land animals and the great sea creatures living souls. The scripture does not call herbs and fruits from fruit trees living souls. You didn't study it out, and therefore do not believe the scripture: thus your moral compass allows you to believe that removing a head of grain from its stalk is no different than removing the head of a living soul from its neck.

 

[trophy33]

Ah, so you insist I answer you, eh?

No, you can stay silent. Its fine with me. It may be even better then to come with something that is non-responsive or a nonsense, because it saves time.

It will end in this manner: if indeed you are "in adulthood", as you emphatically implied at my expense here, and yet you cannot discern the moral difference between removing a head of grain from its stalk, and removing the head of a living soul from its neck, then it is no wonder civilization has come full circle and is once again just as it was in the days of Noah.

Thus you have not only an issue with disbelief concerning the flood narrative, but also a more serious issue with believing the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts: for he uses that phrase, "as in the days of Noah", (Mat 24:37-39, Luk 17:26-27), and therefore, logically speaking, he affirms the flood narrative as holy writ or he would not have used it, and moreover other authors of holy writ likewise believe and use it in various scripture discourses such as Isa 54:9, Eze 14:14-20, Heb 11:17, 1 Pet 3:20, and 2 Pet 2:5.

The scripture calls the land animals and the great sea creatures living souls. The scripture does not call herbs and fruits from fruit trees living souls. You didn't study it out, and therefore do not believe the scripture: thus your moral compass allows you to believe that removing a head of grain from its stalk is no different than removing the head of a living soul from its neck.

A cow is not a grain, its a soulish creature, but clean to eat (according to the Jewish faith). How was Noah supposed to know which animals are clean and which not - according to you, the herbivores are clean and carnivores not, because carnivores "murder/kill" and that makes them unclean.

So, my reaction was, that this does not make sense - why would it be allowed to kill/eat the nice, good animals (herbivores) but not those "bad, sinning" animals (carnivores).

To which you responded with talking about something else, as is cited above.

 

[daq]

No, you can stay silent. Its fine with me. It may be even better then to come with something that is non-responsive or a nonsense, because it saves time.



A cow is not a grain, its a soulish creature, but clean to eat (according to the Jewish faith). How was Noah supposed to know which animals are clean and which not - according to you, the herbivores are clean and carnivores not, because carnivores "murder/kill" and that makes them unclean.

So, my reaction was, that this does not make sense - why would it be allowed to kill/eat the nice, good animals (herbivores) but not those "bad, sinning" animals (carnivores).

To which you responded with talking about something else, as is cited above.

That is not what I said at all. Apparently you did not follow my logic.
If you kill and eat a herbivore that makes you a carnivore.

 

[trophy33]

If you kill and eat a herbivore that makes you a carnivore.

Or omnivore, but thats not the point here. The point is that the Jewish division of animals into clean and unclean was not based upon herbivores/carnivores categories. And the secondary point is that "you will not kill" is not about food.

 

[daq]

The point is that the Jewish division of animals into clean and unclean was not based upon herbivores/carnivores categories.

There was no "Jewish" in the days of Noah, and again, disbelieving the scripture destroys any common denominator we might have had so as to have a logical discussion based on an agreed upon set of facts, (the scripture).

And the secondary point is that "you will not kill" is not about food.

It is about murder/killing and that is, first and foremost, physical killing, according to the understanding of the word used, (ratsach), and how it is used in other scripture contexts which interpret the meaning of that word for the observant reader and student of the scripture.

Your opinion is irrelevant if you have added to what the commandment says or have diminished from what it says.

 

[trophy33]

There was no "Jewish" in the days of Noah, and again, disbelieving the scripture destroys any common denominator...

The story of Noah is a Jewish story, in Jewish literature. Therefore "clean/unclean" mentioned in that story is how Jews understood them, not your speculations about it.

It is about murder/killing and that is, first and foremost, physical killing, according to the understanding of the word used, (ratsach), and how it is used in other scripture contexts which interpret the meaning of that word for the observant reader and student of the scripture.

Your opinion is irrelevant if you have added to what the commandment says or have diminished from what it says.

Its not mine opinion. The same book that says "you will not kill" also says what is allowed to eat (many animals), gives instruction for policing, including the death penalties (like for adultery - and somebody had to kill them for it to be the death penalty) or sending Jews to wars (in which they were killing enemies).

Therefore, your usage of this sentence out of its context is not right. Its context is moral - murder, not just technical physical killing.

 

[daq]

The story of Noah is a Jewish story, in Jewish literature. Therefore "clean/unclean" mentioned in that story is how Jews understood them, not your speculations about it.

You are the one speculating and especially when you say that the passage is not authentic and rather written much later "by the Jews" when the fact of the matter is that the Master himself affirms and therefore authenticates the narrative.

Its not mine opinion.

Yes, it is, for the text says merely, and only, "You shall not ratsach."

The same book that says "you will not kill" also says what is allowed to eat (many animals), gives instruction for policing, including the death penalties (like for adultery - and somebody had to kill them for it to be the death penalty) or sending Jews to wars (in which they were killing enemies). Therefore, your usage of this sentence out of its context is not right. Its context is moral - murder, not just technical physical killing.

Wrong, ratsach is not harag, learn the differences: otherwise you end up believing in a hypocritical Creator who says not to kill, and then turns, and changes his mind, and commands his people to kill.

 

[trophy33]

You are the one speculating and especially when you say that the passage is not authentic and rather written much later "by the Jews" when the fact of the matter is that the Master himself affirms and therefore authenticates the narrative.

The story about Noah was written by Jews and is found in Jewish literature. These are facts, not speculations. What clean/unclean meant is defined by the authors (Jews), not by you. BTW, I am not making a point that the story did or did not happen. I am making a point that the clean/unclean is in the Jewish context, no other context can be proven.

Yes, it is, for the text says merely, and only, "You shall not ratsach."
Wrong, ratsach is not harag, learn the differences: otherwise you end up believing in a hypocritical Creator who says not to kill, and then turns, and changes his mind, and commands his people to kill.

Just read few pages forward, there are many commands to kill. I guess you already heard about animal sacrifices, for example. Or about Israel conquering the Palestine with the instruction "do not leave anyone alive".

 

[Gary K]

The story about Noah was written by Jews and is found in Jewish literature. These are facts, not speculations. What clean/unclean meant is defined by the authors (Jews), not by you. BTW, I am not making a point that the story did or did not happen. I am making a point that the clean/unclean is in the Jewish context, no other context can be proven.


Just read few pages forward, there are many commands to kill. I guess you already heard about animal sacrifices, for example. Or about Israel conquering the Palestine with the instruction "do not leave anyone alive".

Interesting. The entire Bible is written by Jews other than the books written by Luke, So what's your point. Does paganism agree with Christianity? Do we find the concepts in the Bible taught by pagans?

 

[trophy33]

So what's your point.

I think my points are clear and said in the post you quoted:

a) clean/unclean mean what they mean in the Jewish context (i.e. as defined by the Mosaic Law)

b) "you will not kill/murder" commandment does not mean Jews were not allowed to kill animals for food or for sacrifices or even people in wars or in other contexts.