Animals as food.....

[Drew]

1 Timothy 4.3 indicates that there would be those who would depart from the faith who would arise and try to command to abstain from meats.

But if people simply don't like the taste, without trying to make it a rule for other people, this is a different matter altogether.

You have, I suggest, misunderstood this passage - it is most certainly not a text that argues that we should eat meat. Or, equivalently, Paul is not suggesting that those who advocate abstaining from meat have "departed" from the faith. Here is the relevant text:

men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-29752>4</SUP>For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

One needs to know the cultural context - the issue of "unclean" ve "clean" foods, as prescribed by the Law of Moses is what is really at issue. Paul's general point is that the kosher food laws associated with the Law of Moses have come to an end - there is no such thing as a distinction between "clean" and "unclean" food anymore.

This is most certainly not a statement that its OK to eat "everything". Will you eat fiberglass, for example?

Paul is making an argument about the Jew-Gentile distinction in respect to the matter of food. He is saying that what used to be considered "unclean" is now clean. But this is not the same thing as promoting the eating of meat - or of criticizing those who would abstain from meat. This is really about motivation - Paul is critiquing those who would insist on following the kosher food laws - he is not, in this text anyway, critiquing those who, like some in the church, argue that abstaining from meat is a positive symbolic act, signifying that God is engaged in a program to defeat death, including animal death.

 

[Drew]

I'll make a wager, however. When it sounds like you or I say it, we are understood clearly enough by the non-meat eaters to the point of their being offended just because we eat meats. But when we quote the bible saying the same thing, you'll see someone come on here and reinterpret it to tell us all why to "abstain from meats" means something else altogether. Incredible.

Please be careful, I suggest that it is you who is on shaky ground here. This statement is really about the kosher food laws - Paul's real point, as should be clear from many other contexts where he discusses the matter of food is about "clean" vs "unclean" foods as prescribed by the Law of Moses, and how it is a mistake to cling to the kosher food laws, now that Jew and Gentile have been integrated into the family of God.

He is not telling anyone that those who would abstain from meat in order to symbollically enact and endorse God's programme of redemption of the world by not participating in animal death are in the wrong. He is, instead, criticizing those who abstain from foods declared unclean by the Law of Moses.

It is motivation that is at issue here. And Paul is certainly not critiquing those who would promote abstinence from meat for the reasons I have been giving - to symbolically enact the defeat of death (animal death, in this case).

 

[Elijah674]

Please be careful, I suggest that it is you who is on shaky ground here. This statement is really about the kosher food laws - Paul's real point, as should be clear from many other contexts where he discusses the matter of food is about "clean" vs "unclean" foods as prescribed by the Law of Moses, and how it is a mistake to cling to the kosher food laws, now that Jew and Gentile have been integrated into the family of God.

He is not telling anyone that those who would abstain from meat in order to symbollically enact and endorse God's programme of redemption of the world by not participating in animal death. He is, instead, criticizing those who abstain from foods declared unclean by the Law of Moses.

It is motivation that is at issue here. And Paul is certainly not critiquing those who would promote abstinence from meat for the reasons I have been giving - to symbolically enact the defeat of death (animal death, in this case).

'i' don't buy that either. Verse please! Clean & unclean were by God's directive given to Noah, who surely knew the difference between the two + who was NO JEW! (Nor any law from Moses, either!)

But why do these ones not advocate eating skunk, snake, buzzards +? Same effect if salted good, huh?;) But I could care less about what they eat.

That is their choice, not mine. And God does document the outcome in Gen. 9:5.
'And SURELY [your blood of YOUR LIVE will I REQUIRE:] at the hand [of EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT]..'

--Elijah

 

[ronniechoate34]

Are you teachable forum????
Were [ALL] of these men only Clean food eaters + 7th Day Sabbath keepers? And Acts 15's [DOCUMENTATION] has a verse 1 + 5 that consider's the [ONLY] thing that was considered.

'Except ye be circumcised [after the manner of Moses], [ye cannot BE SAVED].' Got that?? Well verse 5 again says the exact same thing! And you tell God that He is talking about what??

Verse 5 ibid.
'But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which [believed], saying, [THAT IT WAS NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE THEM AND TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES.]'
(And the clean & the unclean were even before the flood, + the Godhead's 7th Day Sabbath!!)

And the DECREE?? Verse 22-24 and verse 24..
'Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, [have troubled you with words, SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS, SAYING, YE MUST BE CIRCUMCISED, AND KEEP THE LAW: (of MOSES in verse 5) to which we gave no such commandment.'

One might learn a little about what God spake to His very own from creation on, long before any 'Jews' stomach came on the scene! Gen. 26:5 And what the Jer. 17:5 & the Rev. 17:1-5 ones teach will soon enough find them.. 'AS THOUGH THEY HAD NEVER BEEN.' Obad. 1:16

I suggest that one read the last of Rev. 22's few verses of God's Word of WARNING before they try to put different Words into His Book.

--Elijah

PS: None of these laws in verse 5 are Moses Laws.

Gen.26
[1] And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
[2] And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
[3] Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
[4] And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
[5] Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

I guess that you aren't really being clear enough to make me understand. Why don't you help me understand what you are getting at here.


Perhaps you could make it simpler for me.


I understand that there is more to God's commandmendts than is listed in the scriptures that I posted. Is that what you are pointing out to me here?

 

[RoadDebris]

Eating cow tomorrow. Tri-tip! On the non-clean side maybe we'll grill some oysters while were at it.

 

[RockyVanRen]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I look at two things

Act 10: 10-15 (NIV)


¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.†“Surely not, Lord!†Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.†The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.â€

I take the above as a two fold lesson (food and people) then there is this thought:

If we weren’t meant to eat animals why did God make them so taste?

 

[Vic C.]

'i' don't buy that either. Verse please! Clean & unclean were by God's directive given to Noah, who surely knew the difference between the two + who was NO JEW! (Nor any law from Moses, either!)...

snip

--Elijah

Hmm, clean and unclean foods weren't mentioned until Leviticus. God told Noah this:

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

 

[Drew]

I look at two things

Act 10: 10-15 (NIV)


<SUP>10</SUP> He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.†“Surely not, Lord!†Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.†The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.â€

This text is not an endorsement of eating meat. It needs to be understood in context. The issue here is the Jew-Gentile divide, and Peter is being taught that the Law of Moses has come to an end. This text is not about recommended eating behaviours - it is about the ingathering of the Gentiles into the family of God.

If we weren’t meant to eat animals why did God make them so taste?

There is a problem with this line of reasoning. What if I asked "If I was not supposed to have sex with lots of women, why did God make promiscuous sexual activity so pleasurable?"

 

[RockyVanRen]

Drew,

You skipped the part where I said it was a two fold lesson regarding people and food. If it was only about people why would he be told to "kill and eat" while he was hungry? I think two birds one stone approach here. As for the second reason.. You take me a little to seriously

 

[warfrog]

Greetings,

"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Therefore let us persue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Pard]

There is a problem with this line of reasoning. What if I asked "If I was not supposed to have sex with lots of women, why did God make promiscuous sexual activity so pleasurable?"

Yes, very pleasurable. Running around with lots of sexual partners is so fun... until you get some STD and then it sucks, or so I imagine.

 

[Nick]

And Tim, you get the burgers I'll get the Bratwurst?

And I'll get the Kangaroo meat. :D

It cannot be sinful to eat meat - Jesus did. :yes

Perhaps God will plan for us to be vegetarians with Eden restored, but that is not now. I also think that Drew makes a good point here that creation is not necessarily for our enjoyment or pleasure. God is gracious in that he does make some things like sex and meat (to some) pleasurable.

 

[Drew]

Yes, very pleasurable. Running around with lots of sexual partners is so fun... until you get some STD and then it sucks, or so I imagine.

My point, of course, was that the "if we are not encouraged to eat animals, why did God make them tasty?" argument does not really work (altough I believe the poster who made it was joking).

We need to think contextually. When God encourages Peter to eat animals in that section of Acts, He (God) is certainly not telling humanity "its good to eat meat". He is instead telling us that the kosher laws have come to an end, and that Gentiles are not to be considered as outsiders from God's family.

 

[Drew]

And I'll get the Kangaroo meat. :D

It cannot be sinful to eat meat - Jesus did. :yes

Perhaps God will plan for us to be vegetarians with Eden restored, but that is not now. I also think that Drew makes a good point here that creation is not necessarily for our enjoyment or pleasure. God is gracious in that he does make some things like sex and meat (to some) pleasurable.

I never said it was "sinful" to eat meat. I have agreed all along that we are permitted to eat meat. My point, which I do not believe anyone has really seriously engaged is this: If we believe that God's programme of redemption is working towards the defeat of all death (read Romans 8 if you believe "its all about us" and the rest of creation is not that important), then it is a good thing to symbolically tell that story to the rest of the world by abstaining from eating meat (which, of course, requires the death of animals).

 

[Sparkey]

I never said it was "sinful" to eat meat. I have agreed all along that we are permitted to eat meat. My point, which I do not believe anyone has really seriously engaged is this: If we believe that God's programme of redemption is working towards the defeat of all death (read Romans 8 if you believe "its all about us" and the rest of creation is not that important), then it is a good thing to symbolically tell that story to the rest of the world by abstaining from eating meat (which, of course, requires the death of animals).

You're free to do so but why should I argue? Can opposition in terms of "engaging" your point by argument not also be seen as desire to oppose others and symbolically misrepresent our good hearts?

No skin off my nose if you don't wanna eat meat. I think the better way to "symbolically tell the story to the rest of the world," would be to live peaceably with all men. If God says it's okay for you to do something and that it's okay for you to not do it also, then I don't want to start saying different.

 

[warfrog]

I never said it was "sinful" to eat meat. I have agreed all along that we are permitted to eat meat. My point, which I do not believe anyone has really seriously engaged is this: If we believe that God's programme of redemption is working towards the defeat of all death (read Romans 8 if you believe "its all about us" and the rest of creation is not that important), then it is a good thing to symbolically tell that story to the rest of the world by abstaining from eating meat (which, of course, requires the death of animals).

If that is your conviction then live it through faith in Him, if i was with you i would abstain from eating meat so that you do not have cause to stumble, simple as that, now if you were with someone who eats meat and your actions could cause him to stumble, would you eat the meat for your brothers sake.

Noones looked or commented on the scripture given, but this entire discussion revolves around it, look in those scriptures, it isnt what you eat it was your doing in heart as you eat it that destroys, not the food itself, all food through Christ is pure, but all actions we do are not and there is a guidline given on how to do the righteous, be peaceably and have joy in the Holy Spirit.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Drew]

You're free to do so but why should I argue? Can opposition in terms of "engaging" your point by argument not also be seen as desire to oppose others and symbolically misrepresent our good hearts?

I have no idea what you are saying here. I provided an argument as to why it might be a good thing to abstain from meat. If you are suggesting I am misrepresenting others, I am confident this is simply not so.

In a "normal" debate, those who think God entirely endorses the eating of meat would actually deal with my argument. Remember - I have agreed that we are "permitted" to eat meat. My point was that meat-eating may not be the "best" choice for the Christian.

I think the better way to "symbolically tell the story to the rest of the world," would be to live peaceably with all men.

This sounds very much like an assertion that my encouraging others to abstain from meat for a sound reason is "trouble-making" - not living peacably with others. If this is what you are saying, I politely suggest it is not a valid line of reasoning. On this kind of reasoning, any effort to exhort the church to adopt a more kingdom-like mode of behaviour can be seen as "making trouble". And that certainly does not make sense.

 

[Drew]

If that is your conviction then live it through faith in Him, if i was with you i would abstain from eating meat so that you do not have cause to stumble, simple as that, now if you were with someone who eats meat and your actions could cause him to stumble, would you eat the meat for your brothers sake.

This simply does not make sense. If my brother were going to prostitutes, does that mean that I would cause him to "stumble" if I suggested he not do so?

Now I have agreed - we are "permitted" to eat meat. But that does not mean it is the best choice for us to make. You and other posters seem to think that I am "crossing a line" in suggesting others consider making the better choice. This is simply not true - Christians have the responsibility to exhort each other to make better choices.

Noones looked or commented on the scripture given,.....

Which scripture? I, for one, have indeed commented on the Acts scripture about the animals on the sheet - it is not a teaching about diet, it is a teaching about the Gentiles being included in the people of God.

 

[RockyVanRen]

My stance on that particular passage in Acts is that if it were only geared toward teaching that the Gentiles were now acceptable a different vision would have been given; maybe a mixed market place or something else only involving people. If the vision only involved bringing all people into the family why would God confuse the message with reference to food?

I believe that there is nothing “just there†in the bible. Everything is important (when viewed in the original language) and a lesson can be found in everything. As for abstaining to prevent stumbling, my wife went vegetarian almost five years ago. I gave up meat for two and a half miserable months (but I did not complain). After loosing twenty five pounds and being tired all the time it was my beautiful and wonderful wife that brought me a hamburger.

 

[warfrog]

This simply does not make sense. If my brother were going to prostitutes, does that mean that I would cause him to "stumble" if I suggested he not do so?

Now I have agreed - we are "permitted" to eat meat. But that does not mean it is the best choice for us to make. You and other posters seem to think that I am "crossing a line" in suggesting others consider making the better choice. This is simply not true - Christians have the responsibility to exhort each other to make better choices.


Which scripture? I, for one, have indeed commented on the Acts scripture about the animals on the sheet - it is not a teaching about diet, it is a teaching about the Gentiles being included in the people of God.

Actually it does make sence, Paul clearly said all things regarding meat and drink are pure before the Lord, sexual immorality isnt because we know this through scripture, in fact the hypothetical representation you just brought up crumbles right off that point.

No i do no think you are crossing the line at all, in fact i said follow your conviction if you are truely convicted of that through faith, follow that in faith through the Lord and said if i was in your presence i would avoid meat knowing of your own conviction and faith so that i wouldnt make you stumble, that way i do keep righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit among my brother and myself.

The better choice is to put away your personal conviction for the sake of your brethren, in my case if i was with a vegetarian and know that all things are pure to the Lord i would still put away meat for the sake of my brethren knowing it could cause the brother to stumble, i keep righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit and do not destroy the one Christ has died for.

In my own presence i would continue to eat meat knowing all things regarding food and drink are pure before the Lord.

Romans 14:14-23, sorry i didnt post it was directly in Romans before.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.