Religious rules on food - do you follow them?

[PruePhillip]

Scholars know how those "accounts" took shape and that there were no witnesses of the historical Yeshua involved in writing the main story lines (it is mainly re-writing and adding stuff from the authors' own imaginations).

Whether the theologians believe in God or not has nothing to do with it (and it shouldn't either). I believe in God but I don't believe you can find out much about the historical words of Yeshua through reading the New Testament (except for the Q-lite part).

Jesus may have said something about salvation not coming from showing off or following rules and regulations dogmatically. But he certainly did not say that anything goes. Or he wouldn't have said stuff about ripping your own eye out or cutting off your hand.

You cannot and should not twist a teaching to suit your own weakness or dogma.

So what evidence do you have that Jesus never said or did these things?
The seven witnesses largely agreed on the account.
The oldest documents we have don't contradict later documents.
Furthermore, if you will receive it, the Gospel account is also written in the
Old Testament. Isaiah gives a mini-Gospel in 53 and latter half of 52. David
gives us the crucifixion. Many accounts, maybe hundreds that collaborate
the seven authors.

 

[Cooky]

I'm a mineralitarian. All I eat are extracted minerals from the soil, and water.

...This way, I don't eat anything that is or was ever "alive".

 

[stvdv]

That part of your life which pertains to the spirit, ie grace, love, forgiveness,
compassion, stoicism, love of God, charity, truth, honesty, magnanimity etc..
Refraining from eating fish on Fridays, for instance, has no bearing upon
these things.
In the Old Testament there were prohibitions on eating shell fish,pork, fat etc..
Jesus encountered Jews observing all these restrictions yet doing nothing
about the spiritual issues.

Personal I find this a very strange quote from Jesus. My first thought that comes up now is "maybe the ones writing this quote did not love Jews so much and therefore put this quote in the Bible". In the Hindu Scriptures there is even "Ayur Veda" dedicated on food, health, medicine. In Buddhism they have strict diet, very simple food, most Monks eat only in the morning what I remember. So again, strange that Christianity talks opposite on this subject. Also Muslims have Ramadan, and having restrictions on what they eat.

If Jesus was a true Prophet, I can not believe that he said "Some Jews follow ALL prohibitions and do NOTHING spiritually". Makes no sense to me. When I use my common sense. As how I explain below (seems exaggeration to me, so not Truth).

"jews doing NOTHING about the spiritual issues, yet doing ALL these restrictions". This is exaggeration twice "NOTHING" + "ALL". I don't know much about Jews, BUT if you do ALL restrictions that is not just skip fish. Hypothetical "Jews have 20 restrictions = ALL" and they do them because they believe in them (I mean, you don't do them for fun I think .. in general humans don't like restrictions ...) then it seems to me they do quite SOMETHING and for sure not NOTHING. And maybe ALL restrictions is even more than 20, imagine that, maybe 30 or 40. pfffff.
(My Master made it perfectly clear that I should not exaggerate, that's why how you wrote it, flashed red to me).

I have done lots of fasting. I always got unbelievable blessings from God. And I was very fanatic with it. Only some watermelon for 30 to 50 days, no talking etc. And God was pouring His Blessings on me. So probably I am an exception that fasting impacts on my spiritual life. I always felt much more "love towards God" and more compassion and love and forgiveness in general. And what I don't eat, others can eat, so it counts to charity (is good for the earth if I eat less, less needs to be exploited).

I can not imagine this. Jews on RF seem to me serious when it comes to spiritual matters, while following "all" prohibitions.
But of course there can be 1 or 2 who were a bit lazy about spiritual issues. BUT if lazy then it seems very weird that they followed ALL restrictions.

Stoicissm "the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint" for sure is a big part when fasting.

Eating pure and satwic food has to do with "love and truth". If our body is the temple of the Divine, then for sure what you eat has impact.

If Charity, like you say, is spiritual, then eating very pure and satwic food will grant you a longer life, so you can do even more charity.

So in general I would say "what you eat has big impact on spiritual life" as per the above examples.

 

[PruePhillip]

Personal I find this a very strange quote from Jesus. My first thought that comes up now is "maybe the ones writing this quote did not love Jews so much and therefore put this quote in the Bible". In the Hindu Scriptures there is even "Ayur Veda" dedicated on food, health, medicine. In Buddhism they have strict diet, very simple food, most Monks eat only in the morning what I remember. So again, strange that Christianity talks opposite on this subject. Also Muslims have Ramadan, and having restrictions on what they eat.

If Jesus was a true Prophet, I can not believe that he said "Some Jews follow ALL prohibitions and do NOTHING spiritually". Makes no sense to me. When I use my common sense. As how I explain below (seems exaggeration to me, so not Truth).

Well, I am sorry but He said it.
I am not a Hindu, and I despise Islam. I believe that Jesus
was the one written of for 2,000 years, the one who came
to give his life to redeem His people.
Jesus isn't just a prophet, a wise man, a scholar, a philosopher,
a king, a warrior --- he came to be that one thing that every
man despises: to be the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation
of the world.

 

[stvdv]

Well, I am sorry but He said it.

Don't be sorry.

But I do hope that a Jew on RF can tell me how many restrictions they have. Maybe that they had not so many in the past. And tell if it is possible to follow ALL restrictions + doing NOTHING spiritual. Seems like a "contradiction in terms" to me. If Jesus had said "they follow some restrictions and do not much spiritual I would be totally fine. But I love Jesus, so I don't want "His quotes spelled wrong"

 

[PruePhillip]

Don't be sorry.

But I do hope that a Jew on RF can tell me how many restrictions they have. Maybe that they had not so many in the past. And tell if it is possible to follow ALL restrictions + doing NOTHING spiritual. Seems like a "contradiction in terms" to me. If Jesus had said "they follow some restrictions and do not much spiritual I would be totally fine. But I love Jesus, so I don't want "His quotes spelled wrong"

No, not the Jews of the Old Testament.
Restrictions were a kind of symbol, like slaying the Passover lamb was a symbol.
But in Christ we have only two symbols - baptism and the Eucharist.
Jesus referred to Jews who observed the law but not from their heart.

 

[BSM1]

So drugs taking is also no problem ... when it goes "in the mouth" ... according to your above definition?
And to vomit will defile a man when stuff comes "out of the mouth".

Many people use your line to indulge in foodstuff that are not healty (it won't defile me)
While dietary advice is generally common sense advice helping to keep good health

Examples: Ramadan Fasting, Ayurvedic diet advice, Genesis diet etc.etc.

I think there is nothing wrong with exercising some "Control" or call it "Restraint"
But I know, in Holland we have a saying "If you touch a man his food, you touch him"
(meaning he gets angry)

Why in the world would you want to twist this into something completely off the rails? The verse was in context of Jesus being asked about eating certain foods at certain times.

 

[stvdv]

Why in the world would you want to twist this into something completely off the rails?
The verse was in context of Jesus being asked about eating certain foods at certain times.

As I explained already, I can not believe Jesus said it in those words
But I am fine if you have another opinion.

Why in the world would you want to twist this into something completely off the rails?

Jesus said it best:
Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
These self-or church-imposed dietary laws are just another form of control.
Sit, Ubu. Sit.

You stated this as a fact. I just disagreed with this, so to me it is not a fact. Hence my reply. Not twisting. Not off the rails
If you would have said "I believe the church imposed the dietary laws .... another form of control" I would not have replied

 

[stvdv]

Yeah, you're right about the fruit. That's why we see orange so well - ripe fruit.
But it's time we had Plant Rights. Over time I have been amazed at the sophistication
of plants, ie recognizing relatives, signalling danger, making basic calculations - even,
in the case of the Mimosa plant, learning to trust humans. So let's stop eating them.

I remember "Mimosa" plant. Special indeed.

Once I was eating watermelon, ca. 25 monkeys came over on the roof top I sat eating. Demanding watermelon. So I shared the watermelon with all monkeys. They spit out all the black seeds, just eating the watermelon. Fruits indeed are meant to be eaten. And eating fruit is the least of violence.

 

[BSM1]

As I explained already, I can not believe Jesus said it in those words
But I am fine if you have another opinion.

Why in the world would you want to twist this into something completely off the rails?

You stated this as a fact. I just disagreed with this, so to me it is not a fact. Hence my reply. Not twisting. Not off the rails
If you would have said "I believe the church imposed the dietary laws .... another form of control" I would not have replied

It really makes no difference what you 'believe', that's what the passage says. No if you want to start a thread on selective interpretation of the Bible we can talk.

 

[Marcion]

So what evidence do you have that Jesus never said or did these things?
The seven witnesses largely agreed on the account.
The oldest documents we have don't contradict later documents.
Furthermore, if you will receive it, the Gospel account is also written in the
Old Testament. Isaiah gives a mini-Gospel in 53 and latter half of 52. David
gives us the crucifixion. Many accounts, maybe hundreds that collaborate
the seven authors.

There are no seven witnesses, it is a religious myth.
What evidence do you have that they were actual witnesses please?

 

[PruePhillip]

There are no seven witnesses, it is a religious myth.
What evidence do you have that they were actual witnesses please?

The main historian was the Physician Luke who accompanied Paul to
Rome and perhaps died with him. He gave us Acts and the Gospel of
Luke.
Matthew was the Taxation Official. You can see his background in the
way he wrote - a kind of shorthand that govt officials learned.
John was the one who Jesus loved the most. Leaning upon Jesus's
breast. His Gospel and his letters show a tender hearted, simple man.
Paul is the Pharisee who knew the law. His writing is authoritative like
himself.
Hebrews, don't know who wrote it.
James was the brother of Jesus.
Other than John these men were all dead by AD 64.