Is vegetarianism or veganism against Christianity?

[Carry_Your_Name]

I have no idea how so many products are legally allowed to be classed and sold as food when they are clearly not fit for human consumption and full of chemicals.

Just because somethinhamight have a tiny little bit of potatoe in it for example does not make it food and fit for human consumption.

I don't know how it's legal to sell people death and disease and call it food as so many products and prosessed food does. It should be criminal. The industry is so corrupt.

Look at how unhealthy many people are now and it's also long term illness that come from unhealthy diets not only pysical but mental health as body effects mind. It's disgusting.

Yeah, and what's more astounding is that you've got these folks here abusing certain bible verses to defend junk food, including some mods.

 

[electedbyHim]

No you don't. You're not just gonna one twinkie or one chip, these junk are designed to make you want more. Before you know it you've guzzled up at least half a bag, and you still don't feel full.

I do not eat twinkies or sweets.

You clearly do not understand your freedom in Christ.

From what I have read in your posts, it is sin to eat anything that is not organic or kosher.

This is not Biblical for the Christian.

So be sure to look down on other Christians who eat foods that are not organic or Kosher as you have.

You and the other poster have presented nothing to refute that Christ declared all foods clean.

Perhaps you are not mature enough to understand that all foods are clean to eat per Romans 14:1-23

Romans 14:1-23 teaches us that not everyone is mature enough in the faith to accept the fact that all foods are clean. As a result, if we are with someone who would be offended by our eating “unclean” food, we should give up our right to do so as to not offend the other person. We have the right to eat whatever we want, but we do not have the right to offend other people, even if they are wrong. For the Christian in this age, though, we have freedom to eat whatever we wish as long as it does not cause someone else to stumble in his/her faith.

Clearly it offends you what others are eating as "unclean".

Free has broken this down in this thread.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I do not eat twinkies or sweets.

You clearly do not understand your freedom in Christ.

From what I have read in your posts, it is sin to eat anything that is not organic or kosher.

This is not Biblical for the Christian.

What's not biblical is binge eating whatever junk you like, looking for comfort in food and drinks insteand of Jesus. That's a form of bondage, not freedom.

So be sure to look down on other Christians who eat foods that are not organic or Kosher as you have.

You and the other poster have presented nothing to refute that Christ declared all foods clean.

"Foods for stomach and stomach for food", but God will destroy both.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word proceeds from the mouth of God.

Perhaps you are not mature enough to understand that all foods are clean to eat per Romans 14:1-23

You're not mature enough to read the Scripture in context or understand what "every creature of God" means.

Clearly it offends you what others are eating as "unclean".

@Free has broken this down in this thread.

No sir, go enjoy your bacon and shrimps if you like, what offends me is your defense of your gluttony and the Big Food industry whose junks have sickened the entire world with chronic disease.

 

[electedbyHim]

What's not biblical is binge eating whatever junk you like, looking for comfort in food and drinks insteand of Jesus. That's a form of bondage, not freedom.

"Foods for stomach and stomach for food", but God will destroy both.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word proceeds from the mouth of God.

You're not mature enough to read the Scripture in context or understand what "every creature of God" means.

No sir, go enjoy your bacon and shrimps if you like, what offends me is your defense of your gluttony and the Big Food industry whose junks have sickened the entire world with chronic disease.

You went from twinkies and chips are a sin, to gluttony.

Because a Christian eats chips or has a twinkie is not sin.

But you can have your opinion of what you think the Bible says.

I will stick with the text and sound Pastors and theologians.

And I love my bacon wrapped shrimp.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Free]

Isn't that the opposite of what you wrote above, regarding certain meats ?

Is what the opposite? You quoted a lengthy post. Please be more specific.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You went from twinkies and chips are a sin, to gluttony.

Because a Christian eats chips or has a twinkie is not sin.

But you can have your opinion of what you think the Bible says.

I will stick with the text and sound Pastors and theologians.

And I love my bacon wrapped shrimp.

Grace and peace to you.

Bible is the same, and your body is honest. You are what you eat, and you reap what you sow. If all foods were clean and fit for consumption, why has America become the sickest and fattest country in the world, stricken with all kinds of chronic disease, largely attributed to the ultra processed food and drinks? That's not my opinion, that's an objective fact. The text plainly stated "every creature of God", I stick with that. My uncle had a heart attack which later required a bypass sugery, my mom is suffering from type 2 diabetes, so forgive me for being caatious with my diet, I just don't wanna follow their footsteps.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Bible is the same, and your body is honest. You are what you eat, and you reap what you sow. If all foods were clean and fit for consumption, why has America become the sickest and fattest country in the world, stricken with all kinds of chronic disease, largely attributed to the ultra processed food and drinks?

Well, I'll give you this part.

Had no idea when I started catching up on this thread that my Twinkies would be under attack, but I do at least acknowledge that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit...

I'd caution against a form of legalism here, though. Blanket statements like eating any processed foods is equivalent to sin and/or gluttony has you falling back into Jewish legalism, and that will never sell with educated Christians. And it also takes away the value in what you might otherwise be teaching.

Take care of the temple, yes. Biblical command.

Return to judgementalism over maintaining the Jewish food laws, not so much.

 

[electedbyHim]

Bible is the same, and your body is honest. You are what you eat, and you reap what you sow. If all foods were clean and fit for consumption, why has America become the sickest and fattest country in the world, stricken with all kinds of chronic disease, largely attributed to the ultra processed food and drinks? That's not my opinion, that's an objective fact. The text plainly stated "every creature of God", I stick with that. My uncle had a heart attack which later required a bypass sugery, my mom is suffering from type 2 diabetes, so forgive me for being caatious with my diet, I just don't wanna follow their footsteps.

I am sorry about your mother.

As for Americans, not everyone is a Christian. Food is designed for convenience and $$ in this world. Peaople eat with their eyes.

I agree obesity is a huge issue.

Christians need to do everything in moderation and exercise self-control.

I understand where you are coming from.

For myself, I am on a carnivore diet, if I slip one day and eat a a salad and raviolis, I do not see it as sin.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Free]

I see your point because I once believed as you do. When and if you're ready to accept the same gospel that Jesus and the disciples taught without contradiction to the OT, let me know.

The gospel has nothing to do with this.

I do know that the whole Bible is true and that not one word of the law will pass away till heaven and earth pass.

When he said his law is for ALL generations in the OT, it isn't a contradiction to what the NT says about the law.

The law is still valid including food laws and those that have grace will not be judged according to the law.
Thank God for grace.

Then why do you keep avoiding my questions about the Law? I have asked you several questions several times and you have yet to provide any answers.

What law? "Law" has many uses in Scripture, even in regards to the Mosaic Law it can refer to it in entirety or certain aspects. So, as I have asked several times, are Christians supposed to only learn about the law or still adhere to it? If we are to adhere to it, how much of the law are believers supposed to adhere to? All of it or a part or parts of it? If a part or parts of it, which one(s)?

Do you regularly sacrifice animals and present peace offerings? Do you stone adulterers and homosexuals? Do you wear mixed fabrics? Do believers need to be physically circumcised?

The yoke in Acts 15 isn't the Law, its keeping the Law ((((first))))) for Salvation.

You Keep ignoring the context of the yoke in Acts 15 to fit your belief.

The law is NOT the yoke or burden he speaks about. The burden or yoke is trying to earn righteousness by keeping the Law perfectly.

You're missing something in the context, even though I pointed out a while back.

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Act 15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
Act 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
...
Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (ESV)

This applies to both trying to be justified by works and adhering to the law after being saved. That is the whole point. It begins with Judaizers claiming that those already saved by grace also needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Then "some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" argued that Gentile believers needed to be circumcised and "keep the law of Moses."

It is that that Peter addresses, questioning "why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" And, James fully agrees, saying that "we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God," and gave four things that Gentile believers are to follow. Very clearly, then, this applies to believers after they have been saved, otherwise James is promoting works salvation, despite their agreement that "we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Both Peter and James clearly nullify any requirement of Gentile believers to follow the dietary restrictions (at a minimum) of the law of Moses. And that is completely consistent with Mark 7:19, Acts 10:10-16, Rom 14, and 1 Tim 4:3-5.

The only sins that exist are written in the law.

Sins or classifications of sins?

Jesus own words.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Please cite passages properly as per the rules of this forum and theological discussion in general. What does Jesus mean by "till all be fulfilled"? When does that fulfillment take place?

You can follow the traditions of men.

I can't.

You just seem to follow your own.

 

[Free]

Only NATURAL foods created by God are sanctified. Twinkies, Cheetos, cereals, hot dogs, anything in a box or a bag with a long list of ingredients and chemical additives are sanctified by the FDA, not God. If you insist that those are sanctified by God too, you're taking the Lord's name in vain, and you're putting your own health at risk.

This is going far beyond Scripture into what is known as legalism. There is simply no way to sustain such an argument biblically.

Yeah, God's general dietary guide (Gen. 1:29, 9:3) and then kosher law are simply a food satefy regulation. I don't understand why this has sparked so much controversy.

It's more than "simply a food safety regulation," otherwise the eating of unclean animals still wouldn't have been permitted in the NT. The dietary laws are also meant to show the Israelites' separation from the surrounding peoples. It marked them as the distinct people of God.

Lev 20:22 “You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
Lev 20:23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.
Lev 20:24 But I have said to you, ‘You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.’ I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples.
Lev 20:25 You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean, and the unclean bird from the clean. You shall not make yourselves detestable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground crawls, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.
Lev 20:26 You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. (ESV)

This article makes some interesting points: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/israel-food-laws/

The "yoke" was never the law itself,

That's not what Peter said and James agreed with.

and rigid religious traditions.

And, yet, you are trying to bring in a rigid religious tradition of your own.

No, it's not. It's a form of idolatry. You're seeking comfort and relief from these highly palatable junks with no or little nutritional value.

And what about craving a steak?

I go with the holy word of God at the BEGINNING of these verses - every creature of God - which determines the context, instead of taking a part out of context to justify your own sin of gluttony. You're not sinless as long as you crave twinkies and chips.

More legalism based on an entirely subjective view of food. Do you see how problematic that is? It's the same as those who argue that abortion should be permissible based on some entirely subjective criteria of when a fetus becomes a human or a person. At what point does processed food become "unsanctifiable"? How processed must it be? What is the objective criteria and where does the Bible support that criteria?

It there is no objective criteria, then it is entirely subjective, and points to your position not being truthful to Scripture.

No you don't. You're not just gonna one twinkie or one chip, these junk are designed to make you want more. Before you know it you've guzzled up at least half a bag, and you still don't feel full.

If you lack self-control, then that is on you, but you can't therefore say that it is sin for others to eat or even crave such things.

Bible is the same, and your body is honest. You are what you eat, and you reap what you sow. If all foods were clean and fit for consumption, why has America become the sickest and fattest country in the world, stricken with all kinds of chronic disease, largely attributed to the ultra processed food and drinks? That's not my opinion, that's an objective fact. The text plainly stated "every creature of God", I stick with that. My uncle had a heart attack which later required a bypass sugery, my mom is suffering from type 2 diabetes, so forgive me for being caatious with my diet, I just don't wanna follow their footsteps.

While I am sorry about your uncle and your mother, do you think that their situations have resulted in you reading into the text of Scripture? You are being more than just cautious, you are going far beyond Scripture into legalism, as I previously stated. As per Rom 14, you can eat what you want to eat, but you cannot tell others they are in sin if they eat Twinkies or crave them.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I go with the holy word of God at the BEGINNING of these verses - every creature of God - which determines the context, instead of taking a part out of context to justify your own sin of gluttony. You're not sinless as long as you crave twinkies and chips.

I am also aware of these verses from Colossians 2..."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (v8)
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" (v14)
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come;" (v16-17)
"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (v20-22)

Those now in Christ have been freed from the Laws you wish to keep.
I know why too.
Because, as it is written..."Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1 Tim 1:9-10)
While you cling to the status of "sinner", the Law will always be your unkeepable guide.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The first verse in 1 Timothy 4 sets the context.

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Is the law of moses and dietary instructions from God, a doctrine of devils?

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Has YOUR conscience been seared with a hot iron so your sin doesn't bother you anymore?

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which (((God hath created to be received with thanksgiving))) of ((((them)))) which ((((believe)))) and know the ((((truth.)))

The central point of this discourse is found in the preceding verse, “…to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” And it is substantiated in the verse immediately following, “for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” So what does it mean to “know the Truth?” The truth being that the dietary instructions are abolished? No. God’s law, which includes God’s dietary instructions (Lev. 11), is declared by a Scripture to be the truth.

Psalm 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth. If all animals are now clean and suitable for eating, then as a consequence Leviticus 11 is no longer truth. For example, if all animals are now made clean, is the following statement true?

Leviticus 11:7-8 Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses. Doesn’t seem like it……or what about this statement, is this still true?

Leviticus 11:46-47 ‘This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.’” Those statements by God are either still true or they are not. There is no “in between”…There is no, well yes it is still true but we are not to do that truth…The command is either true or it is now false…Paul says that all Scripture is not only still truth but also still instructions in righteousness.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. If Paul says that, then how can we conclude anything different? How can we say that Leviticus 11 is no longer instructions in righteousness? How can we say that Leviticus 11 is no longer Scripture? Again, the law of God is truth…

Psalm 119:42 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. That is a definitive statement…. 1 Timothy 4 verse 3 clearly says: …and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Verse 3 provides the context. It states that these are men who commanded believers to abstain from eating meat that God has already said is good to eat according to the Truth of His Word. Thus, these false teachers are commanding believers not to eat beef, chicken, and other meat already declared food….not by man, but declared food by the truth of God's Word. Guess where God’s Word declares what was created for food? That’s right, Leviticus 11, which happens to be part of God’s law…and what is God’s law? and thy law is the truth. Not was truth, but IS truth…

These false teachers are not telling believers to abstain from eating pork for example, which is not defined as food in Scripture, by the way. Keep in mind, when this was written to Timothy, the Scripture was, in fact, the Old Testament. The New Testament hadn’t been written yet. Where in Scripture (the Word of God) are we told that swine, lobster, etc. are created to be good for food? Since when are animals that are unclean defined in Scripture as clean food? They are not, Leviticus 11 makes that clear.

Why is this important? Paul wrote 1 Timothy 4. Paul was a Jew. Paul wrote from a Hebraic context. Food, according every Hebrew that authored every book of the Bible, was defined by Leviticus 11. Pig, lobster, dog, cat, etc., are not considered to be food according to the Bible! We cannot read 1 Timothy 4:3 with our society’s definition of food. Do we consider dog or cat to be food? No, we do not. But our society believes pig and lobster to be food, and there lies the problem when we read 1 Timothy 4:3 from our perspective, instead of a Jewish perspective, like Paul.

What does it mean in verse 5 that the food is “sanctified by the Word of God and prayer?” For something to be sanctified it means it is to be holy or set apart, hallowed or made uncommon. Here is the Greek word for sanctified… hagiazō (ἁγιάζω) According to the Newman Greek Dictionary it means: set apart to or by God, sacred, consecrated.
In Scripture, for something to be holy, it literally means to be “set apart,” it is the opposite of common or profane. If all animals are now clean as supposed, then the animals would not be holy or set apart. Consider this, animals that are set apart for eating must be separate from animals that are not set apart for eating. This is by the very definition of the word sanctified. The very fact that there are animals sanctified means that there has to be a separate group of animals that are not sanctified.

We cannot conclude that all animals are set apart or sanctified, when there in fact would be nothing to set them apart from if all animals were made clean. How can animals even be set apart and holy if they are all rendered the same? If all animals were made clean, then by that very definition, they would then be common, unholy, or not set apart. They would not be declared sanctified, but instead, declared profane or common.
So, this is very important to understand. The very fact that Paul states that these animals are sanctified absolutely proves that there are still some animals that are NOT sanctified. It proves that there are still some animals that are NOT set apart or holy, which is contrasted against the animals that ARE set apart, that ARE sanctified.
So, here is the question must still be asked that if all animals are now clean and set apart then what in the world could they be set apart from? Logically it should be obvious that it cannot be possible the clean is no longer set apart – sanctified - from the unclean because supposedly there is no such thing as anything unclean! For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.
We cannot declare that all animals are now set apart or made holy. It simply does not make sense. It is literally an oxymoron. It is contradictive to what Paul just said. This is why Paul had to state in verse three that those who believe and know the truth, God’s law, will understand what he is saying. Too many people are reading Paul in 1 Timothy 4 and do not know God’s law. People are reading 1 Timothy 4 and trying to evidence what they want Paul to be saying, or what they have been told Paul is saying.
The animals that are sanctified or set apart for food from animals that are not set apart for food are defined very clearly in Leviticus 11. If we believe and know the Truth that means we believe and know the law of God. The very fact that some animals are declared to be “consecrated", or “sanctified” or “made holy” or set apart by the Word of God means that some animals are obviously NOT "set apart" by the Word of God. Something can only be "set apart" if there is something to be "set apart" from. That is not too complicated at all.

verse four (4) uses the qualifier IF it be received in thanksgiving. The ONLY animals that are to be prayerfully received in thanksgiving for food according to Scripture are those listed as such in Leviticus 11. We are told by His Word to be thankful for clean animals as food, not for unclean things. Why would we be thankful for eating animals God told us were unclean?

As it has already been established, God’s law is declared as Truth throughout Scripture. Unless we want to contradict Scripture, God’s law, which is Scripturally defined as Truth, cannot be fables and commandments of men. God did not turn Truth into not Truth. Fables and truth are polar opposites, they are obviously not the same thing.


Titus 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

In this verse, Paul again contrasts Jewish fables and commandments of men with the Truth, meaning that Jewish fables and commandments of men are not the same thing as commandments from God. Surprisingly, mainstream doctrine often confuses commandments of men with commandments of God.

As long as we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we will correctly conclude that usage of the word “fables” in 1 Timothy 4 verse 7 is not equating to God’s commandments but is instead referring to commandments and doctrines of men. Does God cunningly or deceitfully or sneakily devise anything? Is that His nature? Is the law of God deceitful or cunning?

If you feel that the Mosaic Law still applies to you, you must ask yourself how many of the following apply to you...
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1 Tim 1:9-10)

If any of them do apply to you, repentance from sin is still available to you.
You don't have to go on as a sinner.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Is what the opposite? You quoted a lengthy post. Please be more specific.

No thanks.
As you said, they were too long for me to reread..

 

[Free]

No thanks.
As you said, they were too long for me to reread..

Too long for you to reread? I didn't say that. It was a bit lengthy as far as posts go, but less than 600 words; still a quick read. Maybe you didn't read it entirely the first time, which would be where the problem lies, and makes me wonder what the point of your post was then.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Too long for you to reread? I didn't say that. It was a bit lengthy as far as posts go, but less than 600 words; still a quick read. Maybe you didn't read it entirely the first time, which would be where the problem lies,

Could be.

and makes me wonder what the point of your post was then.

At the time, I thought the second one nullified the first.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is going far beyond Scripture into what is known as legalism. There is simply no way to sustain such an argument biblically.

All of these are perfectly within the scope of the Scripture. God doesn’t make junk, men do.

It's more than "simply a food safety regulation," otherwise the eating of unclean animals still wouldn't have been permitted in the NT. The dietary laws are also meant to show the Israelites' separation from the surrounding peoples. It marked them as the distinct people of God.

You’re making an invalid argument inflamed by identity politics. The Israelites weren’t born with unique metabolism or autoimmune system, they were not uniquely susceptible to the pathogens and toxins in unclean foods that could make them and everybody else sick. What’s fit or unfit for their consumption is fit or unfit for others’. It is a scientific fact that all the unkosher animals on the lists are predators, scavengers and bottom feeders, they eat all kinds of trash, and those trash goes into your body if you eat them. Pig in particular is known to be a carrier of roundworm trichinella spiralis, the culprit of trichinosis.

And, yet, you are trying to bring in a rigid religious tradition of your own.

That’s not any tradition, that’s reasonable concern for food safety and physical health, it has nothing to do with religious tradition. You’re the one who’s been arguing from a religious perspective, not me.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And what about craving a steak?

This shows your ignorance. If you eat a real juicy steak, you’d be naturally full with the fibers and proteins, you are very unlikely to overeat compared to eating ice cream.

At what point does processed food become "unsanctifiable"? How processed must it be? What is the objective criteria and where does the Bible support that criteria?

At the point that such food-like substances don’t exist in nature, their chemical composition irreversibly changed. Did God edit herbicide resistant genes into GMO crops genomes? Or man? Did God create hydrogenated oil or high fructose corn syrup? Or man?

It there is no objective criteria, then it is entirely subjective, and points to your position not being truthful to Scripture.

“Every creature of God”, that’s an objective criteria truthful to Scripture, you’re just ignoring it.

If you lack self-control, then that is on you, but you can't therefore say that it is sin for others to eat or even crave such things.

Why not? Junk food are laden with sugar, fat and salt, designed to make you crave for more. Knowingly indulge in these things is a sin. Gluttony isn’t just about overeating, if you crave these highly palatable and tasty treats with excessive calories and no nutritional value over plain meat, vegetables, legume and grains, that’s gluttony too.

While I am sorry about your uncle and your mother, do you think that their situations have resulted in you reading into the text of Scripture? You are being more than just cautious, you are going far beyond Scripture into legalism, as I previously stated. As per Rom 14, you can eat what you want to eat, but you cannot tell others they are in sin if they eat Twinkies or crave them.

Why not? Why are you so hostile against a simple dietary guideline laid out in the Bible? Do you really love pork and shrimp more than God himself? Is our body not the temple of the Holy Spirit that we should take care of? If we have the ground to call out other additions such as porn, drug and social media, why not sugar addiction? Why is this one a taboo? How are these sugary treats not a unique modern tradition that never existed In history? And don’t throw the book at me like Tenchi, as per 1 Cor. 6:12, all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial, just because you can doesn’t mean you should, you just don’t know the difference.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Those now in Christ have been freed from the Laws you wish to keep.
I know why too.
Because, as it is written..."Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1 Tim 1:9-10)
While you cling to the status of "sinner", the Law will always be your unkeepable guide.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:17-19)
Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matt. 7:22-23)
But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:48-50)
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (Jn. 14:15)
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt.19:17)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Well, I'll give you this part.

Had no idea when I started catching up on this thread that my Twinkies would be under attack, but I do at least acknowledge that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit...

I'd caution against a form of legalism here, though. Blanket statements like eating any processed foods is equivalent to sin and/or gluttony has you falling back into Jewish legalism, and that will never sell with educated Christians. And it also takes away the value in what you might otherwise be teaching.

Take care of the temple, yes. Biblical command.

Return to judgementalism over maintaining the Jewish food laws, not so much.

This is not about legalism, judgementalism or whatever ugly label you make out of thin air. This is about idolatry, using food as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional stress, which is often mistaken as a hunger cue that causes you to snack, and that is definitely gluttony - eating food for pleasure, not sustenance. If you have a beef with kosher laws, then stick with the Biblical commands in Gen. 1:29 and 9:3, those are for all mankind, they long predate any Mosaic laws. You know, even mindless animals naturally know what and how much to eat, why are we the "educated Christians" squabbling on that? Do you trust God or USDA's food pyramid with 8 servings of grain products per day? "Eating whatever you like with moderation" is propaganda from Big Food industry, from greedy corporations, not biblical teaching. The first temptation Jesus faced in his ministry was food after 40 days and nights of fasting. If you can't even pass this test, how can you resist greater temptations?

 

[Corn Pop]

When you look at rules given the Hebrews around food and being clean it was understsndable, like pigs were unclean and carried all sorts of worms and diseases that's why it was banned. And chickens are fifty. Stone age safety practices. Even these days you have to still cook pork and chicken right through not like a steak, but even steak and lamb in stone age allowed to eat had to be cooked right through, but now pork and chicken as they raised are safer these days to consume. Everything banned for the Hebrews are all bottom feeders, pigs, chickens, lobsters, and so on.

And when people hunt these days they still do safety checks on the animal firdt like check the liver to make sure the animal its not diseased and fit for consumption and so on.

Thats why in the stone age certain animals were banned and no blood was allowed when eating meat and so on. The rule was best stay away from all bottom feeders.