Should I eat breakfast or not?

[JonMiller]

There are plenty of SDA churchs that have meat dishes. Generally ones from other cultures though.

JM

 

[foofighter]

Jon,

Yes, I was speaking about USA for sure. We have lived in the Northeast, South, Southeast and Western parts of NA, and believe me, there was never, ever any meat there, nor would it have been "kosher" to bring it. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, even in the US, but percentage wise, I would guess, a very small amount.

 

[Xenon]

There was a church here, that actually covered the faucet in the kitchen so no one could drink with their meals. Talk about controlling!!!!!

Actually, considering what happened at today's potluck at my church, this would be a good idea for us. The water has so much sulfur in it that I couldn't drink more then 2 sips. Some poor lady with asthma drank some, and I ended up trying to drive her home to get her inhaler. Eventually we had to pull over and she was so short of breath that she rolled down a hill and almost lost consciousness. Thank the lord that a police officer drove by, stopped, and called an ambulance for her.

In short, if they have the faucet covered, it might be for your own good

 

[foofighter]

Xenon,

That's too bad. Is the water ususally okay to drink? Hope the lady is alright. Unfortunately, the reason at this church, was because it isn't healthy to drink with your meals. This is a very small church, and things like this have been going on for years there.

 

[Xenon]

Xenon,

That's too bad. Is the water ususally okay to drink? Hope the lady is alright. Unfortunately, the reason at this church, was because it isn't healthy to drink with your meals. This is a very small church, and things like this have been going on for years there.

Yeah, she was fine. I drove out to the hospital afterwards to give the staff her info and give back her stuff. She's tough as nails though; she has 6 cracked vertebrae in her spine, has no sensation in her legs, yet still walks. Unfortunately the water is usually like this.

I know that milk isn't so great to drink with meals because it impedes digestion, but I've never heard of water doing the same. Weird.

 

[MRHarvey]

Actually, considering what happened at today's potluck at my church, this would be a good idea for us. The water has so much sulfur in it that I couldn't drink more then 2 sips. Some poor lady with asthma drank some, and I ended up trying to drive her home to get her inhaler. Eventually we had to pull over and she was so short of breath that she rolled down a hill and almost lost consciousness. Thank the lord that a police officer drove by, stopped, and called an ambulance for her.

In short, if they have the faucet covered, it might be for your own good

I hope that no one reading this message is offended by what I am about to say, because this is not an attack on any of YOU! But it is a dreadful pity that the SDA church officially doesn't even allow it's members to drink coffee! (I have it on pretty good grounds that a lot of SDA's secretly break that prohibition, but that is a matter for another discussion.) Because I happen to know that in an emergency, a cup of hot, steaming black coffee can relieve an athsma attack. So in this particular case, Xenon, a cup of Java could have relieved that lady's athsma attack, and you probably wouldn't even have had to go to the trouble of trying to drive her home, let alone get the ambulance and all that!

It just goes to show that the coffee issue is one more area where Ellen G. White really missed the boat!

God bless you all!

Mark

 

[JonMiller]

I am pretty sure that coffee is dangerous for me. But I Agree, it is a very week drug. The issue is that the SDA church declares certain issues of health a sin, and not others. But ignores the fact that it is the unhealthiness that is wrong, imbibing in reasonable quantities for some is not sinful.

Same is true for alcohol.

Or (if it was legal) pot.

JM

 

[Xenon]

I hope that no one reading this message is offended by what I am about to say, because this is not an attack on any of YOU! But it is a dreadful pity that the SDA church officially doesn't even allow it's members to drink coffee! (I have it on pretty good grounds that a lot of SDA's secretly break that prohibition, but that is a matter for another discussion.) Because I happen to know that in an emergency, a cup of hot, steaming black coffee can relieve an athsma attack. So in this particular case, Xenon, a cup of Java could have relieved that lady's athsma attack, and you probably wouldn't even have had to go to the trouble of trying to drive her home, let alone get the ambulance and all that!

It just goes to show that the coffee issue is one more area where Ellen G. White really missed the boat!

God bless you all!

Mark

This is the first time that I have seen anyone use a friend's medical condition to attack someone's beliefs, and I hope it is the last.

 

[MRHarvey]

This is the first time that I have seen anyone use a friend's medical condition to attack someone's beliefs, and I hope it is the last.

I regret that you took my message as an attack on your beliefs, but you shouldn't have! In my posting, I said plainly:

...this is not an attack on any of YOU!

My expressing disagreement with Ellen G. White on a fairly significant point of doctine was not an attack on anyone's religious beliefs.

If anyone in the Christian Forums were to express disagreement with Dr. Albert Benjamin Simpson's views on a major doctrinal issue, I certainly wouldn't take that as a personal "attack" on "my" religious beliefs! That is to say, while I hold Dr. Simpson in high esteem in a lot of ways, I certainly don't believe him to be doctrinally infallible. Therefore, I would have no problem with discussing the the possibility that he may not have always been right, on every point of doctrine!

Once again, Xenon, I was merely trying to give you food for thought. It was not my intention to offend you. And as far as I'm concerned, Mrs. White's honesty, her sincerity, and her good intentions are all beyond discussion! But I really don't understand why you -- or, for that matter, any Seventh-Day Adventist living today -- would be offended just by somoene questioning the doctrinal infalliblility of Mrs. White!

Again, God bless you all!

Mark

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The Apostle, Peter, was faced with exactly the same situation, in real life, in Acts, chatper 10. He was staying as a guest at the home of a gentile. Because his host was a gentile, he obviously would not have kept the kosher dietary laws. Therefore, the food that he was serving would be considered "unclean" according to those laws. And Peter was getting hungry (verse 10). Peter had never eaten anything "unclean" or "defiled" before (verse 14)! Nevertheless, the rest of the chapter (really, from verse 10 onwards) tells us how God showed Peter, in a vision, that it was all right for him to eat anything!

Does anyone have any thoughts about the statement set out above?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Does anyone have any thoughts about the statement set out above?

BFA

all a matter of interpretation.... of course the usual sda interpretation is that the dream was dealing with people and not food, however it could be applicable to both.... or neither... just depends on what position someone is trying to find support for...

 

[MRHarvey]

Hi, Jon! This message is actually a repeat of a message that I tried to post before. I'm not exactly sure why the "original version" of this message didn't go through. The best guess I can make, is that I must have clicked on the wrong button when I tried to post this message before!

I am pretty sure that coffee is dangerous for me. But I Agree, it is a very week drug. The issue is that the SDA church declares certain issues of health a sin, and not others. But ignores the fact that it is the unhealthiness that is wrong, imbibing in reasonable quantities for some is not sinful.

Same is true for alcohol.

Or (if it was legal) pot.

JM

Let me see if I understand you correctly. I think you are saying that everything is fine in moderation, for most people or for some people, at least! Have I interpreted you correctly?

If so, I would agree with you completely! That said, I do not really want to get into discussion about the more controversial issues of using marijuana, or even alcohol, in moderation. For the moment, I would like to focus on the issue of coffee alone!

For most people, not only is the use of coffee in moderation all right (of course, if you -- JM -- have some health condition that makes coffee dangerous for you, then that is another matter), but numerous medical studies have shown that a couple of cups a day can have tremendous health benefits for most people. It can even help to prevent premature death!

Recently, an excellent article about the subject appeared in the Toronto Star. You can find the article at the Web site of the Toronto Star (at http://www.thestar.ca or http://www.thestar.com). Just look for articles about coffee and premature death, using the Web site's own internal search engine!

Addendum: The last time I tried to find the article on the Toronto Star's Web site, I had some trouble finding it. But fortunately, I also found out that this same article is on the Web site of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well, in the Lifestyle section. Their Web site is at http://www.seattlepi.com.

Actually, you should be able to access the article directly by clicking on this link ...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/370490_stayyou14.html

I hope that some of you in this conference -- even those of you who may not agree with my position on coffee -- will at least be open-minded enough to give this article a look!

God bless you all!

With love in Christ,

Mark

 

[Xenon]

I regret that you took my message as an attack on your beliefs, but you shouldn't have! In my posting, I said plainly:


My expressing disagreement with Ellen G. White on a fairly significant point of doctine was not an attack on anyone's religious beliefs.

If anyone in the Christian Forums were to express disagreement with Dr. Albert Benjamin Simpson's views on a major doctrinal issue, I certainly wouldn't take that as a personal "attack" on "my" religious beliefs! That is to say, while I hold Dr. Simpson in high esteem in a lot of ways, I certainly don't believe him to be doctrinally infallible. Therefore, I would have no problem with discussing the the possibility that he may not have always been right, on every point of doctrine!

Once again, Xenon, I was merely trying to give you food for thought. It was not my intention to offend you. And as far as I'm concerned, Mrs. White's honesty, her sincerity, and her good intentions are all beyond discussion! But I really don't understand why you -- or, for that matter, any Seventh-Day Adventist living today -- would be offended just by somoene questioning the doctrinal infalliblility of Mrs. White!

Again, God bless you all!

Mark

It isn't the questioning that I mind; Ellen White was clearly human and was certainly not infallible. I actually appreciate the tip about coffee helping asthma attacks. It's the method that rubs me the wrong way. This was a situation where a friend of mine was in clear danger of dying, and to have that situation turned on its head to attack something struck a nerve. I would have had a similar reaction had someone said that I wasn't obeying the sabbath (this was after church on Saturday) by allowing the police officer call an ambulance to help her and take her to the hospital.

I know there are people on all sides of the fence who would do this. I just happen to think that it is very wrong.

 

[MRHarvey]

It isn't the questioning that I mind; Ellen White was clearly human and was certainly not infallible. I actually appreciate the tip about coffee helping asthma attacks. It's the method that rubs me the wrong way. This was a situation where a friend of mine was in clear danger of dying, and to have that situation turned on its head to attack something struck a nerve. I would have had a similar reaction had someone said that I wasn't obeying the sabbath (this was after church on Saturday) by allowing the police officer call an ambulance to help her and take her to the hospital.

I know there are people on all sides of the fence who would do this. I just happen to think that it is very wrong.

Once again, Xenon, I did not attack you personally! I didn't attack ANYBODY, or anyTHING, for that matter! The closest I came to saying anything that could be considered an "attack", by any stretch of the imagaination, was when I said ...

... Ellen G. White really missed the boat!

But now that even you yourself have acknowledged that Mrs. White was not infallible, I really don't think that even that remark can be taken as an attack!

I would have had a similar reaction had someone said that I wasn't obeying the sabbath ... by allowing the police officer call an ambulance to help her and take her to the hospital.

Oh, come on, Xenon! That kind of hypothetical situation is something completely different! I didn't even criticize anything that you did! Therefore, it is ridiculous that you would even make that comparison!

God bless you in your search for His truth!

Mark

 

[moicherie]

all a matter of interpretation.... of course the usual sda interpretation is that the dream was dealing with people and not food, however it could be applicable to both.... or neither... just depends on what position someone is trying to find support for...

Considering Peter went to see a Gentile soon after and declared his 'God is no respector of persons' statement the story suggests the vision was about people and not food since Jews considered Gentiles as unclean as the food they were forbidden to eat. But of others want to use this text to justify their diet than good for them.

 

[sentipente]

Considering Peter went to see a Gentile soon after and declared his 'God is no respector of persons' statement the story suggests the vision was about people and not food since Jews considered Gentiles as unclean as the food they were forbidden to eat. But of others want to use this text to justify their diet than good for them.

Ditto.

 

[AzA]

"Unclean" for a Jew had more than one implication, and thus more than one remedy:

-- physical uncleanness could be remedied with a ritual bath and temporary separation;
-- ritual uncleanness in a person could be remedied with temporary separation, a trip to the priest, and a sacrifice, and ritual uncleanness in an object could be remedied by burning or breaking it;
-- moral uncleanness could be remedied with a sacrifice or exile;
and if I remember right
-- abomination could be 'remedied' by death...

That order is not ours. It was theirs, and it was temporary.

But we may still end up doing or not doing the same kinds of things as that group of people even if we do so for different reasons. We limit access to roofs on tall buildings not because Moses told us to or we fear our neighbor's cow getting up there and falling off -- but because we foresee trouble and figure it's worth our time to forestall said trouble (and maybe also because the civil building code says so).

There is mixed medical judgment on the value of particular foods. None of the medical judgment has yet changed the nature or bio-habits of the animals in question. None of our religious judgment can do that either... A scavenger is still a scavenger, whatever we say about it, and either it is "good for food" or it is not. Food can affect our physical experience, but it cannot change our nature.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Option 1, hands down. I'm not ashamed of what I believe.

Yeah....I remember teaching a sabbath school class after I had discarded the Adventist diet and the topic came up. I ask the class what would they do if they where trying to win some one to Christ and the Adventist church and they offered you a pork sandwich to eat, knowing that your Adventist views would loose you the possible convert.

Curious... if you were so sure that your Adventist views would turn him against you, then why refer to him as a "possible convert"?

The problem with that scenario is that it would be unlikely for your host to tell you what is in the burrito unless you asked.

Believe me, if I had any doubts... I would ask.

 

[MRHarvey]

Considering Peter went to see a Gentile soon after and declared his 'God is no respector of persons' statement the story suggests the vision was about people and not food since Jews considered Gentiles as unclean as the food they were forbidden to eat. But of others want to use this text to justify their diet than good for them.

Thank you for your encouraging words, moicherie and sentipentie!

In my previous post, I focused on the food aspect of this vision. But with regard to the question, "Is it about food or is it about people?", I don't think it is a case of one or the other; it includes both!

I say this because Peter was not only going to SEE a gentile, but he was also struggling with the question of whether or not to EAT the food that the gentile man had prepared for him. (verses 9 and 10). To do so would, of course, require him to eat foods that the Jews were forbidden to eat, because gentiles did not keep the kosher dietary laws.

Since -- to make a long story short -- God gave Peter the permission to both see and eat with the gentile man, this vision is about both food and people! That's the way I see it, anyway!

God bless you all!

Mark

 

[moicherie]

Thank you for your encouraging words, moicherie and sentipentie!

In my previous post, I focused on the food aspect of this vision. But with regard to the question, "Is it about food or is it about people?", I don't think it is a case of one or the other; it includes both!

I say this because Peter was not only going to SEE a gentile, but he was also struggling with the question of whether or not to EAT the food that the gentile man had prepared for him. (verses 9 and 10).

Hello MRHArvey

I'm sure you mean well but the food that Peter was waiting for was not the food in Cornelius house, the text does not say that no matter what version you read from - please read the text again. The men that Cornelius sent had not yet arrived at Peter house to collect him, Peter did not know they were coming

Acts 10:4-8

Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked. The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea."
7When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. 8He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.
.



Acts 10:9-10
Peter's Vision

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.

Peter was not worrying about anyone's food...(why are you changing the story?)