Is it okay to eat pork?

[Akjv]

I'm not of the belief that we only look at one sentence and ignore the other. God would not have put eating swine is an abomination if He didn't mean it. Same thing He said in Lev. 11 He does not go back on His Word- agreed. Once He deems something an abomination, it stays that way. Not worth the risk, imho.

I'm not of the belief that we only look at one sentence and ignore the other. God would not have put eating swine is an abomination if He didn't mean it. Same thing He said in Lev. 11 He does not go back on His Word- agreed. Once He deems something an abomination, it stays that way. Not worth the risk, imho.

Gen 9:3 was not said for or to Gentiles. Now the New Covenant allows other animals for food besides Clean animals.

 

[Soyeong]

- staff edit -

God commanded to refrain from eating pork, so why do you not see anything wrong with disobeying what God has commanded? God has commanded for animals to be killed, so why are you opposed to what He has commanded? The Bible does not teach that life is an infinite wheel of reincarnation or that we can be reincarnated as pigs.

 

[Soyeong]

Gen 9:3 was not said for or to Gentiles. Now the New Covenant allows other animals for food besides Clean animals.

It should not make sense to interpret this as God flip-flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, but rather the word used refers to prey animals, which are clean animals. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, which includes His commands against eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14). In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy, for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

 

[Soyeong]

Staff Edit

Christ refrains from eating unclean animals and following Christ is not just for Jews, but for Gentiles too.

 

[ozso]

Dietary restrictions in Christianity was virtually unheard of until the 19th century.

 

[Soyeong]

Dietary restrictions in Christianity was virtually unheard of until the 19th century.

So when God commanded something and obedience to what God has commanded was virtually unheard of until the 19th century, then should we obey God or do what is popular?

 

[Akjv]

It should not make sense to interpret this as God flip-flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, but rather the word used refers to prey animals, which are clean animals. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, which includes His commands against eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14). In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy, for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

I don't se it same as you

 

[Soyeong]

I don't se it same as you

The specific set of laws that God has chosen to give teach us about the nature of who He is, for example, we can see that God is wise by seeing that He has given wise laws, we can see that God is holy by seeing that he has given holy laws, we can see that God is just by seeing that He has given just laws, and so forth. By doing what is wise, holy, just and so forth in obedience to God's laws we are testifying about the nature of who He is, and by doing that we are also expressing what we believe to be true about the nature of who He is, or in other words, we are believing in Him, hence God's command to be holy as He is holy. Likewise, by doing good works, we are testifying about God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and testifying about God's goodness, we are also expressing the belief that God is good.

A different set of laws would corresponds to a different God with a different nature. For example, a God who commanded His people to commit adultery would have a different nature, set of character traits, or identity than that of the God of Israel. God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any instructions that God has given for how to testify about His righteousness are eternal valid (Psalms 119:160), and the same is true for the other aspects of God's nature, including His holiness. It is contrary to the holiness of the God of Israel to eat unclean animals and if that were to ever change, then His holiness would not be eternal, and a God who does not command against eating unclean animals does not have the same eternal identity as the God of Israel. Someone who refuses to obey the God of Israel's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy lives in a way that testifies that the God that they follow is not holy.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Yes, Mark 7:


Paul confirmed that in Romans 14:


More generally, Colossians 2:


Eating pork is fine but you don't have to. Personally, I enjoy crispy bacon and Japanese black pig

See also Dietary laws from Adam to the apostles.

Bacon is the reason why I could never become a Muslim (just kidding)

 

[Aussie Pete]

It should not make sense to interpret this as God flip-flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, but rather the word used refers to prey animals, which are clean animals. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, which includes His commands against eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14). In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy, for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

Acts 10:9-16 and Colossians 2:16 contradict you. If you are right, then we should all be sacrificing animals for forgiveness of sin. We should be making offerings at the temple, except it does not exist. The law is a shadow. If you want to live in the dark, fine. Me, I prefer the Light.
Either you keep the whole law or it no longer applies. You can't pick and choose what to keep and what to neglect. Does your church stone adulterers to death? Why not? Would you join in? That's the law, after all.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm not of the belief that we only look at one sentence and ignore the other. God would not have put eating swine is an abomination if He didn't mean it. Same thing He said in Lev. 11 He does not go back on His Word- agreed. Once He deems something an abomination, it stays that way. Not worth the risk, imho.

God also said that we should stone adulterers. You agree? It's the law.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Dietary restrictions in Christianity was virtually unheard of until the 19th century.

You have Seventh Day Adventists to thank for that.

 

[ozso]

God also said that we should stone adulterers. You agree? It's the law.

This is selective law keeping. Ellen White selected it, you keep it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

God also said that we should stone adulterers. You agree? It's the law.

We are in the New Covenant now, no longer under a theocracy, adultery is still a sin Romans 7:7 Mat 5:19-30, just like eating unclean foods, and God will judge us all on the last day. The wages of sin is still death, but He gives us another path to obey Him though love and faith.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This is selective law keeping. Ellen White selected it, you keep it.

Pretty sure it was God who deemed which foods were clean and unclean and it was God who gave Judgement on adulterers in the wilderness, not EGW.

 

[Soyeong]

Acts 10:9-16

In Acts 10:9-16, Peter could have obeyed God's command in his vision and God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so understand why Peter refused to do what God's law permitted him to do is the key to correctly understanding his vision. Peter notably did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common, and God notably did not rebuke Peter for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for his use of the word "common". So Peter had correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correct knew that he was not supposed to eat them, but he had incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to to eat unclean animals, yet you ignore how he interpreted his vision and reinterpret it as though God has rebuked him as referring to clean animals as being unclean.

and Colossians 2:16 contradict you.

Colossians 2:16 in itself leaves room for two scenarios:

1.) The Colossians were not keeping God's holy days, they were being judged by Jews for not keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for not keeping them.

2.) The Colossians were keeping God's holy days, they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for keeping them.

In Colossians 2:16-23, it describes the people who were judging the Colossians as teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that #2 is the case, which also means that it is ironic when people try to use this passage to justify their refusal to obey God. You are mistaking verses that were only speaking against the teachings of men as teaching us to rebel against the commands of God and you should be quicker to think that you must have misunderstood those verses than to think that it makes perfect sense to interpret servants of God as teaching us to rebel against what He has commanded.

If you are right, then we should all be sacrificing animals for forgiveness of sin. We should be making offerings at the temple, except it does not exist.

The Israelites were given a number of laws while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years that had the condition "when you enter the land...", so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when the Israelites were in exile, the condition for their return to the land was for them to first return to obedience to God's law, which contains laws in regard to temple practice, which couldn't be followed because the temple had just been destroyed, so God honored their obedience to the laws that they were able to obey.

The law is a shadow. If you want to live in the dark, fine. Me, I prefer the Light

Proverbs 6:23 For a lamp is the command, And the law a light, And a way of life are reproofs of instruction,

Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

 

[Soyeong]

God also said that we should stone adulterers. You agree? It's the law.

Rather, the law instructs for both the man and woman who are accused of adultery to be brought before a judge who does a thorough investigation, with no one being put to death without at least two or three witnesses, and for the witnesses to be the ones who throw the first stone.

 

[tonychanyt]

Bacon is the reason why I could never become a Muslim (just kidding)

Before I got married, I joked with my Christian friends that I was thinking about becoming a Muslim because they could have multiple wives, but then I would miss my bacon too much

 

[Aussie Pete]

Before I got married, I joked with my Christian friends that I was thinking about becoming a Muslim because they could have multiple wives, but then I would miss my bacon too much

Multiple wives? Hmm, who can handle all those mothers in law?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Rather, the law instructs for both the man and woman who are accused of adultery to be brought before a judge who does a thorough investigation, with no one being put to death without at least two or three witnesses, and for the witnesses to be the ones who throw the first stone.

OK, so you agree that stoning is the correct judgement for adultery.