balasta boy
Member
brunoy did you find a text in the bible that allow to eat pork?:no::no::clap: good
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do creationists eat pork?
- Thread starter St Giordano Bruno
- Start date
james2ko
Well-Known Member
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]1. So I guess Paul is advocating the consumption of poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs, as long as we pray over it? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2. Read the first two verses. The context implies the judging of one another on the basis of whether we are omnivores or vegetarians. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]6. Again, context is key. The whole chapter is a lesson to those strong in the faith (Rom. 15:1) not to offend one who is weak in the faith (14:1), especially by eating or drinking anything that would trouble the weak brother's conscience. Such a brother might be a vegetarian or one who abstains from drinking wine (vs. 2, 21). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It could also be a reference to those described in I Corinthians 8:10. There, some were upset by seeing fellow Christians eating in an idols temple, and presumed that what was being eaten had been offered to idols. That chapter similarly warns the "strong" not to cause the "weak" to stumble as a result of the liberty the "strong" enjoy because of knowledge they possess (vs. 1-4, 7, 11). In both cases, the subject has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between clean and unclean meat as outlined in Lev 11 and Deut 14.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]7.`This is an unwarranted assumption[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]1. So I guess Paul is advocating the consumption of poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs, as long as we pray over it? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2. Read the first two verses. The context implies the judging of one another on the basis of whether we are omnivores or vegetarians. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]3. This chapter discusses the legality of Christians eating meat that was sacrificed to idols. Verse 7 explains that some weak Christians cannot separate the sacrilege done to such meat from the value of the meat as simple food. More on this in point 6. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]4. The correct context and interpretation of this passage is here (about half way down)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]5. Check the context. Paul is referring to the ritual observances, the ceremonies, of the Old Covenant, as food was involved with them (vs 11) But over the years, people came to have a superstitious attitude toward such things--that if, for instance, they ate of something that had been offered in sacrifice, it would impart to them some spiritual strength. Again, nothing to do with clean and unclean foods.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]6. Again, context is key. The whole chapter is a lesson to those strong in the faith (Rom. 15:1) not to offend one who is weak in the faith (14:1), especially by eating or drinking anything that would trouble the weak brother's conscience. Such a brother might be a vegetarian or one who abstains from drinking wine (vs. 2, 21). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It could also be a reference to those described in I Corinthians 8:10. There, some were upset by seeing fellow Christians eating in an idols temple, and presumed that what was being eaten had been offered to idols. That chapter similarly warns the "strong" not to cause the "weak" to stumble as a result of the liberty the "strong" enjoy because of knowledge they possess (vs. 1-4, 7, 11). In both cases, the subject has absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between clean and unclean meat as outlined in Lev 11 and Deut 14.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]7.`This is an unwarranted assumption[/FONT]
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The rest of your post is open to interpretation and the perceived intent of Paul's letters, so I will just focus on the above...
Really?
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Apathy in their religious views.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
The rest of your post is open to interpretation and the perceived intent of Paul's letters, so I will just focus on the above...
Really?
You were asked this:
now give me text that found in the bible that telling us that the for is safe to eat or the bible is allowing us to eat pork?
And you answered:
1 Timothy 4:1-6 "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; {2} Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; {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. {4} For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: {5} For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. {6} If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, thou hast attained."
Your response implies Paul is giving us permission to eat swine, humans, poison ivy, and every creature of God, and as long as we pray over it, it will be ok..You do realize that is what you are implying.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I did not "imply" anything of the sort.1 Timothy 4:1-6 "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; {2} Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; {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. {4} For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: {5} For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. {6} If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, thou hast attained."
james2ko
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you are aware the Greek word for "meat" [bromah] could also be translated as food:
G1033
βρῶμα
brōma
Thayer Definition:
1) that which is eaten, food
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayers/Strongs Number: from the base of G977
Citing in TDNT: 1:642, 111
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Do you consider [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs to be food?
It seems that is what you are "implying".
[/FONT]
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I wonder if those Christians adamantly arguing that pork is forbidden to believers, adhere to the entire Kashrut?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. No but it seems you do. And if you don't, where does it state in the passage consuming pork is permitted?
It seems that is what you are "implying".
2. Oh I see, resorting to fallacious tactics instead of addressing the issue. Typical for those at a lost for answers. Are you going to answer the question in point 1?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Do you consider [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs to be food?
It seems that is what you are "implying".
[/FONT]
So, this was not a barely subtle slippery slope fallacy?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
You either accept the whole OT or reject it. Don't go quoting injunctions against homosexuality, for example, whilst eating a ham and cheese sandwich.
Matthew says Mosaic law remains unchanged. Most Christians say it no longer applies, yet the OT is still right there in their Bibles and they quote it incessantly.
Matthew says Mosaic law remains unchanged. Most Christians say it no longer applies, yet the OT is still right there in their Bibles and they quote it incessantly.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Oh, you mean like this:
Seems you are upset that your attempt to be witty came back and bit you in your arse.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Nope..not trying to be witty at all. I'm trying to get to the bottom of Tumbleweed's interpretation of the passage. Since he is busy sidetracking and creating smoke screens, perhaps you could fill us in..How about it?
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
You are the one who brought poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs to the conversation, not 9-10ths.
You are the one who claimed 9-10ths was implying that the Bible is saying that even eating poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs are fine so long as it is prayed over.
You were the one who pointed out that the word translated to meat in that passage could also be translated as food.
So I would say that you are implying that you believe poison ivy salad and "human" baby back ribs are considered food.
But here we have YOU trying to attach that belief to 9-10ths.
Then you have the gall to claim that 9-10ths is trying to side track the discussion?
Like I already said:
Seems you are upset that your attempt to be witty came back and bit you in your arse.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
This has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked in reference to the interpretation of the passage. I'm sure 9-10 and Tw are fully capable of defending their own arguments. Now are you going to provide one or not?
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
No need for me to repeat what 9-10ths and Tumbleweed have already presented.
Now if someone were to actually put forth a counter argument to what the two of them have presented...