Double Standards: Does the liberty in Christ have limitations?

[shnarkle]

Are we ready to return to the burdens others have placed before us?

What arguments do you as a Christian provide to a Cannibal who has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior, but wishes to retain their dietary habits?

If a fellow convert to Christianity is told that they can't eat pork, while everyone else can eat whatever they want, wouldn't that be a blatant double standard? Christianity points out that nothing is to be refused, but instead received in thanksgiving. It is not what enters a man, but what comes out. As long as a cannibal doesn't kill their meal which is what the Jewish dietary law requires, then why can't this convert to Christianity continue in the liberty all other Christians have in Christ?

Some people think I'm joking or trolling. I'm as serious as a heart attack. I don't believe in double standards under any circumstances.

The reason I ask is because one of the local churches has a member who's family spent years living with and converting cannibals to Christianity. His father was murdered by one of the tribe's members. it was even made into a documentary movie. It's quite fascinating, and most Christians approve of the movie and give it high ratings.

I'm not suggesting that these cannibals killed this missionary because he told them that they had to change their dietary habits. They were able to leave that behind because they stopped killing each other. However, they were never told that they could continue to eat human flesh if they simply let their next meal die of its own accord.

I'm also not suggesting that Christianity or Christians condone cannibalism. I'm simply presenting an argument for debate in order to give Christians an opportunity to defend their faith. Perhaps there are some who can enlighten me as to how Christians are granted liberty to eat whatever they want, yet preventing a cannibal convert from eating whatever they want is not a double standard.

 

[Nancy]

It seems they have even more restrictions put on what they can and can't eat according to :

We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals. In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter.Num. 11:22a https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/RelS369/Kashrut.html

I scratch my head on the last one listed here. How does one know if an animals organs are diseased or not?? Hmm.

I see what you mean about the double standard thing and agree, I do not like them much myself. But, ick.

 

[shnarkle]

It seems they have even more restrictions put on what they can and can't eat according to :

It's odd to me that you view these as restrictions. I see them as beneficial guidelines.

We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals.

Animals that have died of natural causes, may be sick. Animals that were killed by other animals may be infected.

In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter.Num. 11:22a https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/RelS369/Kashrut.html

I scratch my head on the last one listed here. How does one know if an animals organs are diseased or not?? Hmm.

If you ever get the chance to remove the guts from some animals, you eventually begin to see the difference between healthy organs, and sick and diseased ones.

God also says not to eat the fat, and today most meat is packed full of fat. Marbling fat is preferred by most people nowadays. Those who are used to it, can't eat meat that is lean with no fat. It tastes like sawdust to them.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

God also says not to eat the fat, and today most meat is packed full of fat. Marbling fat is preferred by most people nowadays

It's interesting. I just read those verses. I didn't get the same take on it. I got that you were not to eat the fat of an animal found dead and that you were not to eat the fat of an animal that was presented to God as a sacrifice.

I didn't really take it to mean that you had to carefully remove any speck of animal fat from your food. That would actually be impossible because there is some marbling here and there in even very lean meat.

I guess my thought is, if God was saying never to eat the fattest, portions of any animal, why would He then go on to say do not eat the fat of an animal found dead or the fat of an animal for sacrifice?

So I see it as more like...if you have killed an animal for God, to not keep back the fattest portions for yourself, give the fattest (choicest) portion to God.

That led me to read about eli's sons again. They seemed to be demanding the fattest, choicest portions rather than waiting for the meat to boil, even sometimes demanding they get a portion before God...

When you are eating at the kings table, If you are a man of appetite, put a knife to your throat...do not desire the kings dainties(choicest portions)...

 

[shnarkle]

It's interesting. I just read those verses. I didn't get the same take on it. I got that you were not to eat the fat of an animal found dead and that you were not to eat the fat of an animal that was presented to God as a sacrifice.

Animals that were sacrificed, were eaten. Did you know that?

I didn't really take it to mean that you had to carefully remove any speck of animal fat from your food.

I didn't say that. I'm pointing out that God says not to eat the fat, and we're intentionally raising cattle with fat marbled throughout the meat.

That would actually be impossible because there is some marbling here and there in even very lean meat.

I'm well aware of that. I'm not suggesting that trace amounts of fat in the meat need to be extracted. I'm pointing out that ranchers intentionally feed their cattle high levels of corn which turns instantly to fat, and permeates through the meat. That is all profit. By the time the dense fat is cut away, you're still looking at way more fat than what would ordinarily be cut off from grass fed cattle.

I guess my thought is, if God was saying never to eat the fattest, portions of any animal, why would He then go on to say do not eat the fat of an animal found dead or the fat of an animal for sacrifice?

I don't follow. I also don't recall the law saying not to eat the fat of animals that are found dead. It simply states not to eat anything that dies on its own. It sounds like you're suggesting that it's okay to eat the fat of animals found dead.

So I see it as more like...if you have killed an animal for God, to not keep back the fattest portions for yourself, give the fattest (choicest) portion to God.

It's not the meat. All of the meat is eaten. It is only the fat and organs that are not to be eaten.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

don't follow. I also don't recall the law saying not to eat the fat of animals that are found dead. It simply states not to eat anything that dies on its own. It sounds like you're suggesting that it's okay to eat the fat of animals found dead.

No, its the verses of Leviticus. It says God instructed Moses to tell the people not to eat the fat of a sheep, oxen or...forget what the 3rd animal is. Then it talks about not eating the fat of an animal found dead (though it says they can use it for other purposes, just not for their food) or the fat of a sacrifice.

Its not important. I just saw some part of the spirit of the law there and wanted to share it. If you don't see it, no biggie.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It also says how Abel brought the best portions of his lambs to God. I think it means the tastiest, tenderest portions. To me, that is the fattest, choicest portions.

So I think I have Gods mind on this, concerning it not being a prohibition against eating any animal fat.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Think about it. Does God crave and eat tender, juicy steaks? No. We do. And to sacrifice and bring Him a portion that we do not consider to be the best tasting cut, is to not give God the best portion but to covet it for ourselves.

 

[shnarkle]

it talks about not eating the fat of an animal found dead (though it says they can use it for other purposes, just not for their food) or the fat of a sacrifice.

I'm not familiar with any verses like that. Could you provide a reference? I seriously doubt this claim.

Its not important. I just saw some part of the spirit of the law there and wanted to share it. If you don't see it, no biggie.

I don't see it because it isn't in the bible.

 

[shnarkle]

It also says how Abel brought the best portions of his lambs to God. I think it means the tastiest, tenderest portions. To me, that is the fattest, choicest portions.

He sacrificed the best, the fattest. Your private interpretation flies in the face of the text itself. It explicitly states that the fat and guts are to be sacrificed. Only the meat may be eaten. That's what it says. You're welcome to your opinion, but you don't really have anything from the text to back it up. However, you are in good company with your fellow Christians who are eating human fat, muscle, bone, guts, etc. Your logic works perfectly for justifying their dietary habits.

 

[shnarkle]

Think about it. Does God crave and eat tender, juicy steaks? No. We do. And to sacrifice and bring Him a portion that we do not consider to be the best tasting cut, is to not give God the best portion but to covet it for ourselves.

Again, by this logic, there simply is nothing better than the pinnacle of God's creation; humanity.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I'm not familiar with any verses like that. Could you provide a reference? I seriously doubt this claim.

7 “These are the instructions for the guilt offering. It is most holy. 2 The animal sacrificed as a guilt offering must be slaughtered at the place where the burnt offerings are slaughtered, and its blood must be splattered against all sides of the altar. 3 The priest will then offer all its fat on the altar, including the fat of the broad tail, the fat around the internal organs, 4 the two kidneys and the fat around them near the loins, and the long lobe of the liver. These are to be removed with the kidneys, 5 and the priests will burn them on the altar as a special gift presented to the Lord. This is the guilt offering. 6 Any male from a priest’s family may eat the meat. It must be eaten in a sacred place, for it is most holy.

All of the fat of the sacrifice was offered to God. The fat was given to God as a special offering. Was this because the fat was bad? Was God saying, offer the worst, least choice portion of the animal to Me??

22 Then the Lord said to Moses, 23 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. You must never eat fat, whether from cattle, sheep, or goats. 24 The fat of an animal found dead or torn to pieces by wild animals must never be eaten, though it may be used for any other purpose. 25 Anyone who eats fat from an animal presented as a special gift to the Lord will be cut off from the community.

But I don't think you can see the spirit of the law. You just see the letter and say, God forbids men to ever eat fat.

 

[shnarkle]

24 The fat of an animal found dead or torn to pieces by wild animals must never be eaten, though it may be used for any other purpose. 25 Anyone who eats fat from an animal presented as a special gift to the Lord will be cut off from the community.

The Talmud specifies that those who transgress this law will die somewhere between the age of 50 and 60 years old. How did they know that eating animal fat would cause health problems, or shorten one's life?

Regardless, this is referring to kosher animals who die naturally, or die as the result of wounds, but also even if they are killed by kosher methods to put a wounded animal out of its misery.

They can be given or sold to gentiles though. So perhaps God is letting them know that only he has the constitution to handle it. Giving unclean animals to the gentile population isn't the same thing though. Presenting an offering to God is not the same as giving God something to eat.

But I don't think you can see the spirit of the law.

Perhaps. What's your point? What's the spirit of the law?

You just see the letter and say, God forbids men to ever eat fat.

Yes, God forbids His chosen people from eating fat. Again, what's your point? He also forbids them from eating people due to the dietary laws, but here again, if we take your position, there is no prohibition from eating people now that the dietary laws are done away with. Is that what you meant by spiritual? So you can eat the meat, the guts, the organs, and the fat. It's all for you now.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Perhaps. What's your point? What's the spirit of the law?

Hmm...do you remember where Paul said, you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?

 

[ScottA]

Are we ready to return to the burdens others have placed before us?

What arguments do you as a Christian provide to a Cannibal who has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior, but wishes to retain their dietary habits?

If a fellow convert to Christianity is told that they can't eat pork, while everyone else can eat whatever they want, wouldn't that be a blatant double standard? Christianity points out that nothing is to be refused, but instead received in thanksgiving. It is not what enters a man, but what comes out. As long as a cannibal doesn't kill their meal which is what the Jewish dietary law requires, then why can't this convert to Christianity continue in the liberty all other Christians have in Christ?

Some people think I'm joking or trolling. I'm as serious as a heart attack. I don't believe in double standards under any circumstances.

The reason I ask is because one of the local churches has a member who's family spent years living with and converting cannibals to Christianity. His father was murdered by one of the tribe's members. it was even made into a documentary movie. It's quite fascinating, and most Christians approve of the movie and give it high ratings.

I'm not suggesting that these cannibals killed this missionary because he told them that they had to change their dietary habits. They were able to leave that behind because they stopped killing each other. However, they were never told that they could continue to eat human flesh if they simply let their next meal die of its own accord.

I'm also not suggesting that Christianity or Christians condone cannibalism. I'm simply presenting an argument for debate in order to give Christians an opportunity to defend their faith. Perhaps there are some who can enlighten me as to how Christians are granted liberty to eat whatever they want, yet preventing a cannibal convert from eating whatever they want is not a double standard.

There are no double standards, only misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Thus, Paul was able to rightly say without exception, "Nothing is unlawful for me."

If Jesus is God, and one is "in Christ", they are God, meaning they are the law, and whatever they do is according to the law. God does not sin.

There is no "but" or exception there.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The Talmud specifies that those who transgress this law will die somewhere between the age of 50 and 60 years old

Can you give me that verse? Its interesting...

 

[shnarkle]

Hmm...do you remember where Paul said, you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?

No. Where did Paul say: "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?"

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No. Where did Paul say: "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?"

Hang on I will go find it.

 

[shnarkle]

Can you give me that verse? Its interesting...

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Bikkurim 2) states that early death takes place before the offender becomes fifty, but Talmud Bavli (Moed Kattan 28a) holds that it happens between the ages of fifty and sixty.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No. Where did Paul say: "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?"

7 What soldier has to pay his own expenses? What farmer plants a vineyard and doesn’t have the right to eat some of its fruit? What shepherd cares for a flock of sheep and isn’t allowed to drink some of the milk? 8 Am I expressing merely a human opinion, or does the law say the same thing? 9 For the law of Moses says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” Was God thinking only about oxen when he said this? 10 Wasn’t he actually speaking to us? Yes, it was written for us, so that the one who plows and the one who threshes the grain might both expect a share of the harvest.