Why do you take the risk of eating murdered animals?

[Hopeful]

And christians use the scripture where Paul says Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities to justify full obiedience to government. Its probably the only one verse in the bible that governments would never allow to be banned. Everyone open your banned bible to the one verse still allowed, let everyone be subject to there governing authority.

Step back in history and the most horrible things have resulted through government obedience, all the genocide, wars, and so on.

Im a lover not a fighter.

Those obeying ungodly authorities will suffer for it at God's judgement seat.
Obedience to ungodly rulers is idolatry, don't you think?.

 

[Corn Pop]

Those obeying ungodly authorities will suffer for it at God's judgement seat.
Obedience to ungodly rulers is idolatry, don't you think?.

I obey the government because i can still legally do the right thing and obey God at the same time if i choose, im not forced to do any wrong. The government has not stopped me and there is no law stopping me from living a loving life towards myself or others. They might take my privilleges away in the name of safety and security i disagree with and i can have my opinion. I call them privelliges because a right can never be infringed upon and if one gets over ruled though some gap then it was always really a privelliege and never a right.

I dont have a problem with any authority im under. If i do good and whats right im no problem.

 

[Serving Zion]

Where is zion?

How can you ask me to describe the location of a spiritual place? Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within.

 

[Serving Zion]

For Christians, morality trumps law.
Abortion, pornography, death penalties, and war are legal, but immoral.
Helping illegal border crossers is illegal, but moral.
We have got to do the right thing according to God all the time.

Having the moral high ground is righteousness. The definition of righteousness is that precisely: "morally justifiable". Righteousness is part of the armour of God - which part? Why? Therefore it is to stand boldly against accusations. But there also is risk in being overly righteous (Ecclesiastes 7:16, Psalms 94:20-21, Matthew 23:34-35).

 

[Serving Zion]

Those obeying ungodly authorities will suffer for it at God's judgement seat.
Obedience to ungodly rulers is idolatry, don't you think?.

Daniel gives a good example. Btw, the word is "subject yourselves to" it is not "obey". Sometimes by obeying authorities when we should be disobeying them is the exact opposite of subjecting ourselves to them. We do it in order to avoid being subjected to them. That's what he's talking about: so that the greater authority can be shown to them through us.

 

[Luminous_Rose]

I understand it to be a record of history containing information for philosophical purposes when understanding God's reason for creating humans.

Genesis 1:26 NIV:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In this verse, it mentions God making us to rule over the animals. In the KJV is often times mention the word "dominion" Not that that is our only purpose when we read it, but the phrase here, "and let them have dominion" if we look in the Hebrew is rāḏâ, which is defined in the concordance as:

râdâh, raw-daw'; a primitive root; to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically, to crumble off:—(come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule,(-r, over), take.

Outlines of how it is used:

1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down

A. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate

B. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate

2. to scrape out

A.(Qal) to scrape, scrape out

Dominion in the American Heritage dictionary is defined as:
n.
Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty.
n.
A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.
n.
A self-governing nation under the nominal rule of the British monarch.


This sounds that we have some deciding factors over animals, yes? Animals and humans are separate in this verse. It makes sense that animals would not be above or equal to human beings. God prepared everything before bringing us, humans, into being. God thought this through. After all, when a couple is expecting a baby - what do they tend to do? Decorate the nursery? Buy a crib/bassinet/sleeping space of some sort? Buy supplies like diapers, perhaps bottles/pacifiers, burp cloths, clothes, etc.? They are prepared for bringing baby home. God thought of us and made sure everything was ready before placing us into being.

We have Genesis 8:21 too: "And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma."

Just because the Lord smelled a pleasing aroma probably doesn't define why there were such changes after Noah. What information are you able to pull from Genesis 8:21?

It doesn't fit logically with the fact that He said "I now give them into your hand". That does directly say that they weren't given for food before that time.

What doesn't fit logically? That people could've eaten meat before then? God loving and listening people probably did pay attention to God's decrees, but there were other people between Adam and Eve and Noah. What about Cain? I mean, we don't know much about what happened to him after he was marked and cursed. Cain was not able to cultivate the land upon being cursed by God...could it be possible that maybe he resorted to eating meat? He was a rule breaker anyway, murdering his brother and all and it doesn't tell us much else about Cain's life after he was cursed. That's the kind of thing I think I'm thinking about - the people in between that might not have been listening to God at that time.

I was wanting to go back to the beginning, to the time before the humans. God had already made a complete world and He had seen all that He had made and He was very pleased. There were no humans in that time, so what is the purpose of the human?

I already mentioned before the purpose of people in previous posts, which I'll stick to:

From what I can gather for an in general type of statement here: The purpose of people as I mentioned before is to do God's will and spread His word. God didn't create us, though, because he needed us. He created us to share His creation with. God wanted to love us and share that with us, he wanted us to be part of His family. God wants us to choose to honor him with our lives and do what's right according to His word.

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

Perhaps meat eaters will not be punished because they are so brainwashed.
Perhaps evil forces wanted to destroy you spiritually and decided to convince you meat is not murder.

Why are you risking everything for meat when there are so many alternatives? To me that is insane.

Based on Matthew 7:12 " do to others as you would want them to do to you" Caveat of Christ, I gave up meat-eating 15 months back-- was hard first few weeks ( but still eat eggs). Whether Jesus meant only humans when he issued that caveat, or it covers animals as well, I leave to your discretion and insight. I wish not to debate on this. I wish you well regardless. It's true we will have a judgment on the last day. Nobody is saved until Jesus pronounces it either way-- again that's my take from the Word-- please feel free to believe what you like. I'm looking forward to the day of the Christ. To see Him judge and rule (Matthew 25:31-46)

 

[JLB]

Nobody is saved until Jesus pronounces it either way-

Amen sir.


Amen.

 

[Hopeful]

I obey the government because i can still legally do the right thing and obey God at the same time if i choose, im not forced to do any wrong. The government has not stopped me and there is no law stopping me from living a loving life towards myself or others. They might take my privilleges away in the name of safety and security i disagree with and i can have my opinion. I call them privelliges because a right can never be infringed upon and if one gets over ruled though some gap then it was always really a privelliege and never a right.

I dont have a problem with any authority im under. If i do good and whats right im no problem.

That is a good way to look at "rights", as privileges.
My government has done so much to antagonize God that I feel like a pilgrim just passing through.
It has no real bearing on my life.

 

[Hopeful]

Having the moral high ground is righteousness. The definition of righteousness is that precisely: "morally justifiable". Righteousness is part of the armour of God - which part? Why? Therefore it is to stand boldly against accusations. But there also is risk in being overly righteous (Ecclesiastes 7:16, Psalms 94:20-21, Matthew 23:34-35).

We can be righteous without running into biker bars with pamphlets about Jesus.
"Overly" is only in relation to unrighteousness.
There is a time and place for everything of God, including when to manifest His Son on earth...and a time not to.

 

[Hopeful]

Daniel gives a good example. Btw, the word is "subject yourselves to" it is not "obey". Sometimes by obeying authorities when we should be disobeying them is the exact opposite of subjecting ourselves to them. We do it in order to avoid being subjected to them. That's what he's talking about: so that the greater authority can be shown to them through us.

As my words were my own, and not from scripture, my use thereof is my conclusion.
Obedience to corrupt laws and law makers is idolatry.
We have placed their authority above God's.

 

[Rajesh Sahu]

Amen sir.


Amen.

 

[Serving Zion]

[ACMP=announcement]
This thread has undergone a minor cleanup and some parts were removed from the public record.

Please take time to read and understand the Terms of Service.

It is a good idea to ask a member to clarify their views of any given scripture before accusing them of ignoring what it says. This will ensure that you are not misrepresenting the other member:

1.1: Grant others the courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. As best as one is capable, speak truth in love.; ( Mathew 7:12, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith. (Exodus 20:16)

[/ACMP]

 

[for_his_glory]

It doesn't fit logically with the fact that He said "I now give them into your hand". That does directly say that they weren't given for food before that time.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

In order for God to make coats of skin I would think He had to sacrifice/kill animals for this as they were skinned. You can't skin an animal and it still being alive. IMO I do not think God would waste the meat, but to give to Adam and Eve to eat.

Genesis 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Again we see God being pleased with Abel in the sacrificial killing of a sheep for a sacrifice unto God. This is very similar to Leviticus 3:9 where the fat was burned and the meat was eaten. Same also as eating the Passover lamb we read about in the Exodus.

If we go back to Genesis 9:1-4 we read that God gave permission to eat animals before the flood as these verses are not speaking about a new creation, but that of a renewal. It's not necessarily speaking of a new command that man can eat animals in whom he already had full dominion over them. However there was definitely a new prohibition not to eat meat mingled with blood as life is in the blood and in Leviticus 11 God explains what ones are good for food.

 

[for_his_glory]

[ACMP=announcement]
Talking about Zion and moral laws is going off topic and needs to be another thread. Please stay on the topic of the OP, thank you.

[/ACMP]

 

[Serving Zion]

IMO I do not think God would waste the meat, but to give to Adam and Eve to eat.

I think that it would be abhorrent to them who had been so close to God and who had spent quality time with Him, affectionately naming every creature as a possible candidate for a helper (Genesis 2:18-20). How can you think to eat the one who might have been your helper?

Abel in the sacrificial killing of a sheep

There is no evidence of that, and this was discussed from post #85:

No details are given about the fat, and as I mentioned earlier, the word for fat is sometimes used to describe richness or excessiveness - so if someone is raising a flock they know the fat ones are better than the scrawny ones, therefore to give them up for God is more of a sacrifice than to give him only the least valuable ones. But go and look at the different translators' decisions: https://biblehub.com/genesis/4-4.htm and look at the CEV version.

It's not necessarily speaking of a new command that man can eat animals in whom he already had full dominion over them

I can understand why you might be loking at it like that if you are only looking at an English translation, but that's why it is important to look at the original language because the Hebrew language is so rich with meaning that it conveys the contexts that can't be so easily conveyed in English (unless we were to write long-winded explanations, but that would be distracting).

So have a look at this, it's the interlinear translation on BibleHub:

Genesis 9:3 Interlinear: Every creeping thing that is alive, to you it is for food; as the green herb I have given to you the whole;

Can you see there (counting from the top-right toward the left) the 7th word is "shall be". That's the word that we are looking at as being the new thing coming into being. It's important to see that right underneath that word it shows the context of the word as it has been written by the little dots etc (which are the vowel indicators). It tells us that it is a Qal-verb of imperfect tense.

Here's an article about the Imperfect-tense Qal-verb:

http://www.becomingjewish.org/pdf/qal_imperfect-hebrew.pdf

This is copied from it:

The Hebrew imperfect does not have tense apart from context and syntax – just like the Hebrew
perfect. The Hebrew imperfect denotes incomplete action, whether in the past, present, or future.

So we can see that the tense of the verb is not attached to the word because it is a Qal-verb. With Qal-verbs, the tense (past/present/future) is only implied by the text that it relates to. So we can see that God is comparing the giving of meat to the giving of herbs: "just as the green herbs I have given you". So we can see that the context there shows He is giving the meat just as He has given the green herbs. So look at this: the word נָתַ֥תִּי "have I given" is a different word from יִהְיֶ֖ה ("shall be"). The context of נָתַ֥תִּי is Qal-perfect (http://www.becomingjewish.org/learning_biblical_hebrew/pdf/qal_perfect-hebrew.pdf). The perfect tense is used to convey a thing that already is.

So we can see that it is clearly implied through the context of the Hebrew language, that the giving of meat for food is a new thing, because it is given in context of being "just as" the herbs were ("already") given for food.

 

[Serving Zion]

Talking about Zion and moral laws is going off topic and needs to be another thread. Please stay on the topic of the OP, thank you.

With respect, I do think morality is relevant to the topic, especially insofaras the reasons one might have for abstaining from it in light of the fact that the law of God does not forbid it.

 

[Serving Zion]

"Overly" is only in relation to unrighteousness.

I don't see the word "unrighteous" in Ecclesiastes 7:16 but I think it is implied by the fact that only the unrighteous would have any problem with people who are doing righteousness. The teacher of Ecclesiastes is saying that by being overly-righteous, we risk destroying ourself. Jesus said a similar thing in Luke 16:1-12.

There is a time and place for everything of God, including when to manifest His Son on earth...and a time not to.

That's an interesting idea ... do you have scripture to show that? I am thinking of Luke 11:33. How can that fit with your saying that there is an appropriate time to not manifest His son on Earth?

 

[JLB]

I think that it would be abhorrent to them who had been so close to God and who had spent quality time with Him, affectionately naming every creature as a possible candidate for a helper (Genesis 2:18-20). How can you think to eat the one who might have been your helper?

The animals were not intended to be helpers comparable to him, as we see that the Lord intended for Eve to fill that role.


And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. Genesis 2:18-20


The phrase is “helper comparable to him”, which none of the animals were, and were never intended as such.





JLB

 

[JLB]

There is no evidence of that, and this was discussed from post #85:

Of course there is evidence; the scripture is our evidence.


Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, Genesis 4:4


By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
Hebrews 11:4



The animal Abel brought to the Lord, “by faith”, was a sacrifice, meaning the animal was sacrificed and it’s fat was offered to God, as the Lord commanded Abel.


“By faith” indicates the Lord spoke to Able and Able responded in obedience.





JLB