LIVER most nutrient dense meat, but YUCK!

[CharismaticLady]

So why didn't you say "YUMMY!" instead of "YUCK!":cool:

I said yuck as a child. I'm an adult now, and eat it for the health benefits, like medicine. I've grown used to the taste, and it doesn't bother me anymore.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hmmmmm, an interesting reply CL however, what are your thoughts on question of whether God was arbitrary in his classification of clean and unclean?

You are probably reading my answer right now as you passed it. :)

#57

 

[quietthinker]

A question you didn't answer! Are you under the Law of Moses? You don't obey Moses!

Look mate, I know it's difficult to answer questions when those questions challenge or reveal cracks in cherished or long held points of view. The question however does not give justified liberty to evade it by the many forms of evasion available. If you do not want to answer it I'm not putting any pressure on you to do so. The tactic of evasion however does reveal an uncomfortableness with the question.

 

[quietthinker]

He had certain animals that He taught them were for offerings from after Adam sinned, but they couldn't eat the meat from the offerings. And after we could eat meat, actually EVERYTHING THAT MOVED, it wasn't until the law that He told them what those outward specifications were in Leviticus 11, and restricted them, but not why. And no, I do not think they were arbitrary, but it goes deeper than the outer features of those animals. What about a rabbit would make it unclean? Just because it doesn't have forked hooves, even though it chews the cud? No, it goes deeper than that. What about a horse that would make it unclean, as it has the same diet as cows. What about a pig makes it unclean, as it is healthier to eat than chicken or beef when thoroughly cooked?

Yes, people have their logic for all sorts of reasons. In heathen countries much logic is shaped by superstition. The West prides itself on basing its logic on 'Science'. Often that science contradicts God's Word and God's Word is relegated to superstition or shoved back into ancient times assuming this is sufficient reason not to take it seriously.

....Soooo, I would ask, If God's direction re diet was not arbitrary what is it?....is it valid?.....does it have intrinsic value for health? Sure, the reasons animals were classified certain ways were not given but does that make the reasons less valid?

One could ask all sorts of questions about God's Commands which he doesn't give reasons for......does that make them less valid? or do we pick and choose, make up our own minds what goes and what doesn't?

In any age people will have their logic which often is driven by popular opinion or taste......especially when it comes to matters of war or lust and now that we're on the subject, food. In some circles/cultures anything that moves is fair game to be eaten.....even, dare I say it, human waste....prepared of course and cooked to their liking....and they all have their logic.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yes, people have their logic for all sorts of reasons. In heathen countries much logic is shaped by superstition. The West prides itself on basing its logic on 'Science'. Often that science contradicts God's Word and God's Word is relegated to superstition or shoved back into ancient times assuming this is sufficient reason not to take it seriously.

....Soooo, I would ask, If God's direction re diet was not arbitrary what is it?....is it valid?.....does it have intrinsic value for health? Sure, the reasons animals were classified certain ways were not given but does that make the reasons less valid?

One could ask all sorts of questions about God's Commands which he doesn't give reasons for......does that make them less valid? or do we pick and choose, make up our own minds what goes and what doesn't?

In any age people will have their logic which often is driven by popular opinion or taste......especially when it comes to matters of war or lust and now that we're on the subject, food. In some circles/cultures anything that moves is fair game to be eaten.....even, dare I say it, human waste....prepared of course and cooked to their liking....and they all have their logic.

So why do you think God didn't advise Noah to eat only "clean" meats instead of "everything that moves"? Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.


And the Leviticus 11 law was obviously lifted when Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Josho]

I think we all get some accidental chicken liver on our plates from time to time when eating roast chicken.

Chicken liver pate is good though.

 

[quietthinker]

So why do you think God didn't advise Noah to eat only "clean" meats instead of "everything that moves"? Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.


And the Leviticus 11 law was obviously lifted when Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

To your first question....I don't know.....maybe he did, it just isn't recorded just like the antediluvians knew the Ten Commandments.

To the statement re Leviticus 11 tying it to 1 Timothy 4. I find this a curious thing to say for a strict ex Pharisee. There are different options on how to understand this.....either there is a contradiction or Paul has taken extraordinary liberties or he had something other in mind than the association we make today. I doubt there is a contradiction and I do not think Paul took liberties so it leaves the third option and I must ask you directly, do you think I fit into the description Paul gives in 1 Tmothy 4.

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding 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. 4For every creature of God isgood, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[CharismaticLady]

To your first question....I don't know.....maybe he did, it just isn't recorded just like the antediluvians knew the Ten Commandments.

To the statement re Leviticus 11 tying it to 1 Timothy 4. I find this a curious thing to say for a strict ex Pharisee. There are different options on how to understand this.....either there is a contradiction or Paul has taken extraordinary liberties or he had something other in mind than the association we make today. I doubt there is a contradiction and I do not think Paul took liberties so it leaves the third option and I must ask you directly, do you think I fit into the description Paul gives in 1 Tmothy 4.

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding 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. 4For every creature of God isgood, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The statement in 1 Timothy was not related to Leviticus 11, but to Genesis 9.

 

[quietthinker]

The statement in 1 Timothy was not related to Leviticus 11, but to Genesis 9.

Ahh yes. Do you have any thoughts why God gave the health laws in Leviticus 11 seeing they weren't arbitrary?

Here's a thought also....You have been raised with the practice of eating offal and pork from your early years and consider it acceptable practice. I imagine changing your view and practice as difficult. Now, can you imagine Paul, raised as a super strict Pharisee with the same sentiments as Peter when Peter saw the sheet coming down from heaven in his vision with all manner of animals in it being told to kill and eat.....he was repulsed at the very thought of eating anything classified as unclean.

I think to start eating something you have considered as unclean your whole life would be considerably more of a challenge (massive) than to stop eating certain foods so I doubt the text in 1 Timothy 4 was sanctioning eating unclean meats. I think the text is referring to fanatical folk who made rules about not eating any flesh or engaging in God given marriage....the which we see in various persuasions.

Further....to answer your question in your post #65 where God says to Noah 'every living thing shall be food for you'.....I've thought about it and I think certain things where new revelations to those folk, at least to Noah's group, for example the eating of flesh was not sanctioned by God till after the flood as best as I can ascertain. Noah knew of the clean and unclean classification by the numbers of the animals that came into the Ark....two of each pair of unclean and seven of each pair of clean.....an indication that the knowing was there even though not specifically stated.

By the way CL, seeing you quoted 1 Timothy 4, I asked you in the previous post wether you think I fit into the category of people described in this text. Don't be backward in answering...be straight forward.

 

[JohnDB]

Eating blood before the era of proper sanitation of course was not wise.

But....

More importantly the practice of eating blood was part of idol and Baal type god worship. Something that we should never do and God has always been against.

Today with the "all foods clean" era...where it's perfectly acceptable to eat any part of an animal...
That still doesn't mean that I actually enjoy all parts of an animal.
I have never liked calves tongue... eating something tasting me back? No thanks!

Eating brains?
Again not on my list of things I want to eat.

Rocky Mountain oysters?
Not if I can help it.

Red legged partridge?
Tried it... didn't like it.

Baby Eels looked too much like leeches for me to stomach them.... especially when they tried to climb up the sides of the bowl of batter.

And the list continues....

 

[CharismaticLady]

Ahh yes. Do you have any thoughts why God gave the health laws in Leviticus 11 seeing they weren't arbitrary?

They were not called "health laws." Please don't be offended, but that is SDA, not anywhere in the Bible.

The "clean" animals were the animals God allowed to be offered as a sacrifice or offering unto Him. God predestined the Jews to be a nation unto Himself, thus they were to only eat what was already separated unto God, because they belonged to Him.

Heathen Gentile nations were separated from God, so he separated the animals between clean and unclean, told Noah to only have two of each of those that were unclean, whereas He told Him to have seven of the "clean." To the Jews He told them the unclean animals represented the heathens. They were not to mingle with them, but to remain separated, just as they were to separate themselves from the animals that God did not allow to be sacrificed to Himself.

Further....to answer your question in your post #65 where God says to Noah 'every living thing shall be food for you'.....I've thought about it and I think certain things where new revelations to those folk, at least to Noah's group, for example the eating of flesh was not sanctioned by God till after the flood as best as I can ascertain. Noah knew of the clean and unclean classification by the numbers of the animals that came into the Ark....two of each pair of unclean and seven of each pair of clean.....an indication that the knowing was there even though not specifically stated.

By the way CL, seeing you quoted 1 Timothy 4, I asked you in the previous post whether you think I fit into the category of people described in this text. Don't be backward in answering...be straight forward.

Yes, you are right that man and beast were all vegetarians until after the flood.

When God said to Noah that "every moving thing would be food to them" before the law, and repeated in 1 Timothy 4, after the covenant of law was over, I don't think adding your denomination's focus on "health" to God's Word is the best way to understand God's reasoning and the TRUTH of the mystery of the future redemption of all peoples when salvation would eventually come to the Gentiles. Health is never mentioned with regards to clean and unclean meats. Otherwise, pork would not be healthier than chicken or beef.

No, I do not correlate Adventists to 1 Timothy 4, as all the points would have to fit, and they don't. Besides, you do not depart from the faith. There are other groups that believe in doctrines of demons, but Adventists are not one of them. I respect Adventists. You live up to the light you have. Philippians 3:16.

1 Timothy 4:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

 

[quietthinker]

They were not called "health laws." Please don't be offended, but that is SDA, not anywhere in the Bible.

The "clean" animals were the animals God allowed to be offered as a sacrifice or offering unto Him. God predestined the Jews to be a nation unto Himself, thus they were to only eat what was already separated unto God, because they belonged to Him.

Heathen Gentile nations were separated from God, so he separated the animals between clean and unclean, told Noah to only have two of each of those that were unclean, whereas He told Him to have seven of the "clean." To the Jews He told them the unclean animals represented the heathens. They were not to mingle with them, but to remain separated, just as they were to separate themselves from the animals that God did not allow to be sacrificed to Himself.



Yes, you are right that man and beast were all vegetarians until after the flood.

When God said to Noah that "every moving thing would be food to them" before the law, and repeated in 1 Timothy 4, after the covenant of law was over, I don't think adding your denomination's focus on "health" to God's Word is the best way to understand God's reasoning and the TRUTH of the mystery of the future redemption of all peoples when salvation would eventually come to the Gentiles. Health is never mentioned with regards to clean and unclean meats. Otherwise, pork would not be healthier than chicken or beef.

No, I do not correlate Adventists to 1 Timothy 4, as all the points would have to fit, and they don't. Besides, you do not depart from the faith. There are other groups that believe in doctrines of demons, but Adventists are not one of them. I respect Adventists. You live up to the light you have. Philippians 3:16.

1 Timothy 4:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Interesting that you should equate me with Adventists....hmmmm.....and that you do not associate the terms 'clean or unclean' with health particularly seeing it was given regards to diet....hmmmm.

Would it be too much of a stretch to associate what you eat to your health?