Shrimp

[fccool]

Quote:

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Did God ask Adam if he wanted to eat or not?

The test was to see if Adam would obey God's naked command......It disproves the notion that God always wants us to obey only if we want to do it.

Not true... the consequences were provided and explained. It was not a naked command. God warned about the danger, and explained why. God was not withheld knowledge from Adam, just like Devil implied...

One of the biggest lies of the Devil is that God wants us to obey Him without any underlying reason or explanation. OT is a book of laws and explanation and reasoning behind these laws.

Quote:

There are many examples in the Bible of God's commanding people to do things that they did not understand.

It does not mean that God provides no reasoning or explanation behind these. People may not understand, but it does not mean that God does not provide explanations.

Quote:

Yes, sometimes we are asked to obey God simply because of God's commandment.

Can you give me a logical reason why God commands us to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day of the week? Does logic lead us to keep the Sabbath on the Seventh-day and not on the first or sixth or fifth?

Yes . Because God decided to rest on 7th day, and not on any other... and because He provided it as a rest that our bodies and minds need, as well as time for fellowship.

Even for Israelites He explains why:

And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

God explains Himself and His reasoning. He does not want blind obedience. He wants us to understand why, and He wants us to do it understanding what we do. Don't paint God to be a tyrant.

[John317]

What we teach in our churches today is that we must absolutely abstain from everything at all times if we want to be right with God... so in effect we are engaging in a guilt based and disgusting approach....

- pigs are dirty, and they eat baby pigs

- shrimp eat drowned humans

- rabbits eat their own excrement

- lightly fermented drinks are fermented and unclean

- why would you want to eat the above?

If that does not work we turn to the guilt tactics of ... "it's sin to disobey, and you will pay a terrible health price"

We don't really care about getting people to love God and then obey (although we claim that we do), and rather ending up with disheartened people who obeying God and hate every minute of it... but they consider the suffering to be the "atonement price" that they pay to win God's favor.

I don't hear or see this taught in the Seventh-day Adventist church. This has never been the teaching of the church, and it's certainly not the teaching that you get from a reading of Ellen White on the subject of health. There are no doubt individual Seventh-day Adventist who approach it in the way you've expressed it here, but that can't be rightly attributed to the church itself.

Abstaining from eating certain meats is not the way a person is made right with God. Eating or not eating is not directly related to salvation. A man is saved by God's unmerited favor, and can only be accepted by faith and trust in Christ's merits.

But disobedience in the sphere of health is like a lot of things-- continuing to practice what we know is wrong is able to hurt our relationship with Christ, and if it is practiced long enough, it can separate us from God. The Bible tells us this: our sins separate us from God.

[Woody]

Quote:

Don't paint God to be a tyrant.

This is a good point. I had not thought of it this way.

[John317]

Quote:

Yes, sometimes we are asked to obey God simply because of God's commandment.

Can you give me a logical reason why God commands us to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day of the week? Does logic lead us to keep the Sabbath on the Seventh-day and not on the first or sixth or fifth?

Yes . Because God decided to rest on 7th day, and not on any other... and because He provided it as a rest that our bodies and minds need, as well as time for fellowship.

Even for Israelites He explains why:

And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

God explains Himself and His reasoning. He does not want blind obedience. He wants us to understand why, and He wants us to do it understanding what we do. Don't paint God to be a tyrant.

There are many who don't think that's a sensible explanation. Should they wait until they understand it and it makes sense to them before they obey it?

There's an explanation there, yes, but it rests on a command that has only God's explanation as its basis.

[fccool]

True, but it does not mean that we are to obey blindly. God's reasoning is not, here's the command... do it without any underlying reason... because I said so.

Sure... "trust in the Lord... and rely not on your understanding", BUT "Rightfully divide the word of God" and "prepare to give answer for the hope that is in you".

"Peter, get up kill and eat". Should Peter blindly obey? Was Peter distrusting of God?

[John317]

Quote:

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Did God ask Adam if he wanted to eat or not?

The test was to see if Adam would obey God's naked command......It disproves the notion that God always wants us to obey only if we want to do it.

Not true... the consequences were provided and explained. It was not a naked command. God warned about the danger, and explained why. God was not withheld knowledge from Adam, just like Devil implied...

God simply told Adam not to eat of a certain tree and that he would die if he disobeyed the command and ate of it. Gen 2: 16, 17. There's no explanation in the creation narrative. (Read the rest of the story in Patriarchs and Prophets.)

He said that Adam could eat of every tree in the garden except that one tree.

God tells us we can use every day of the week for ourselves except for one day, the seventh day, which is the Sabbath of the Lord.

There was no difference between the trees in and of themselves, and there is no difference between the 24 hour periods of the weekly days. The only difference is God's command related to the tree and the day.

Quote:

One of the biggest lies of the Devil is that God wants us to obey Him without any underlying reason or explanation. OT is a book of laws and explanation and reasoning behind these laws.

One of the biggest lies of the Devil is that God's commandments are not really commandments but are suggestions that we need not obey until or unless we want to.

The entire Bible opposes this idea.

[fccool]

Peter, get up kill and eat". Should Peter blindly obey? Was Peter distrusting of God? Was he committing a sin?

[fccool]

Quote:

One of the biggest lies of the Devil is that God's commandments are not really commandments but are suggestions that we need not obey until or unless we want to.

The entire Bible opposes this idea.

But I did not even come close to making such statement. Yet somehow you misinterpret that this is the idea behind my reasoning. Why?

[guibox]

The point about someone's generosity, that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to do something against your principles if they are based on what the Bible teaches.

[John317]

Quote:

One of the biggest lies of the Devil is that God's commandments are not really commandments but are suggestions that we need not obey until or unless we want to.

The entire Bible opposes this idea.

But I did not even come close to making such statement. Yet somehow you misinterpret that this is the idea behind my reasoning. Why?

You said,

Quote:

But the point is that God does not expect us to turn around in one day and all of a sudden keep everything that He commands. He wants us to do it because we want to, not because He commands us....

God does not desire obedience for the sake of obedience. If people did not fully understand why it is that God wants to do certain things, doing them out of duty is as empty as sacrifices that Israelites did out of duty.

God does not want us to wait until we fully understand something before we are willing to obey Him. There are times when we must obey on the basis of faith and confidence in Him.

[fccool]

Faith is not inconsistent with understanding... even partial understanding. In fact, faith relies on understanding. You have to understand that God is loving, and that he is our Creator. At the same time you have to understand why His laws are just. If you do them for the sake of doing them, what is your faith based on? Why do you do it? Because you've read a couple commands on piece of paper all sitting separate from the rest of Biblical discourse?

I understand that there are times when we are to trust God even when we don't understand... i.e. Abraham had to trust that God with his son. But the entire incident with Abraham was not a test! IT WAS EXPLANATION TO ABRAHAM in form of OBJECT LESSON. God already knew what Abraham would do, and He knew Abraham's intentions.

My point was not dealing with honest faith though, but the idea of doing something because of feeling guilt, or the ideology of duty.

Remember "If I have no love, I'm like a ______ "?

Sure, in case of Jonah... God did not want to explain due to the urgency, but it does not mean that He never did. In fact, the story ends with God's explanation.

Still... "Peter, kill and eat!". Was it a sin for Peter to disobey... three times?

[aldona]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

But if you're in a situation where you eat it accidentally, or where it's more important to maintain the relationship and respect someone's generosity by eating it, it's not actually a sin and it doesn't make you ceremonially unclean.

Eating it accidently is a totally different question, of course.

I'm not aware of any evidence in the Bible or in Ellen White's writings that we become ceremonially unclean from eating unclean meat, whether Pork or shrimp.

The point about someone's generosity, that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to do something against your principles if they are based on what the Bible teaches.

1Cor 10:27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

That seems pretty clear to me.

If someone who does not share our religious beliefs prepares food for you as an act of generosity or as part of a social occasion, and offers it to you, eat it.

I hope that my "principles...based on what the Bible teaches" would include concepts like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and living peaceably with all men as far as possible. Dietary rules are a good idea from the health point of view but I would not elevate them to the status of "principles".

aldona

[guibox]

Good text, aldona. 1 Corinthians 10:27 is pretty clear on Paul's stance on the matter.

The Pharisees were experts on following the law to a tee and not compromising one iota even at the expense of Christian charity.

We should not do the same. Our allegiance and worship to God is not at stake here but simple dietary restrictions that surely are not set in stone without compromise in all given situations, and that no room is made for compromise for the greater good.

I believe Paul addressed this clearly, as did Christ when He talked about 'straining a gnat while swallowing a camel'.

There are some issues of the law and Christianity that are 'more weightier' than others. We must guard against sliding into Pharisaism as much as slippery-slope-to-hell, gratuitous compromise.

[Bravus]

We also have still not firmly established from the Bible that the principle of avoiding 'unclean' foods is, in fact, 'based on the Bible' if we read the entire book.

I can see points on both sides, and have conceded the health issues, but if we are going to spurn someone's hospitality based on a particular belief than it had better be pretty solidly founded...

[fccool]

How about pride?

[John317]

He who waits for entire knowledge before he will exercise faith, cannot receive blessing from God. Gospel Workers (1915), page 260, paragraph 4

Those who defer obedience till every uncertainty disappears, and there remains no risk of failure or defeat, will never obey. Faith looks beyond the difficulties, and lays hold of the unseen, even Omnipotence, therefore it cannot be baffled. Faith is the clasping of the hand of Christ in every emergency. Gospel Workers (1915), page 262, paragraph 1

When the Lord gives a work to be done, let not men stop to inquire into the reasonableness of the command or the probable result of their efforts to obey. PK 243

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. GC 241

To man alone, the crowning work of His creation, God has given a conscience to realize the sacred claims of the divine law, and a heart capable of loving it as holy, just, and good; and of man prompt and perfect obedience is required. Sons and Daughters of God (1955), page 40, paragraph 2

God requires prompt and unquestioning obedience of His law; but men are asleep or paralyzed by the deceptions of Satan, who suggests excuses and subterfuges, and conquers their scruples, saying as he said to Eve in the garden: "Ye shall not surely die." Disobedience not only hardens the heart and conscience of the guilty one, but it tends to corrupt the faith of others. That which looked very wrong to them at first, gradually loses this appearance by being constantly before them, till finally they question whether it is really sin and unconsciously fall into the same error. 4 T 146

Could God give us any greater proof of His love than in thus giving His Son to pass through this scene of suffering? And as the gift of God to man was a free gift, His love infinite, so His claims upon our confidence, our obedience, our whole heart, and the wealth of our affections are correspondingly infinite. He requires all that it is possible for man to give. The submission on our part must be proportionate to the gift of God; it must be complete and wanting in nothing. We are all debtors to God. He has claims upon us that we cannot meet without giving ourselves a full and willing sacrifice. He claims prompt and willing obedience, and nothing short of this will He accept. We have opportunity now to secure the love and favor of God. This year may be the last year in the lives of some who read this. 3 T (1872-1875), page 369, paragraph 3

27 (John 14:15). Reaching the Condition of Sinlessness.--Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all His precepts (MS 122, 1901). S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 6 (1956), page 1118, paragraph 10

[John317]

Peter, get up kill and eat". Should Peter blindly obey? Was Peter distrusting of God? Was he committing a sin?

It was a vision, so Peter could not possibly have gotten up and killed the animals. Peter was not responsible for what happened in his vision. It was an illustration.

After the vision, it was clear that God did not want Peter to eat those animals. Peter understood the purpose was to teach him not about animals about about non-Jews.

Quote:

The angel, after his interview with Cornelius, went to Peter, in Joppa. At the time, Peter was praying upon the housetop of his lodging, and we read that he "became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance." It was not for physical food alone that Peter hungered. As from the housetop he viewed the city of Joppa and the surrounding country be hungered for the salvation of his countrymen. He had an intense desire to point out to them from the Scriptures the prophecies relating to the sufferings and death of Christ.

In the vision Peter "saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto them, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."

This vision conveyed to Peter both reproof and instruction. It revealed to him the purpose of God--that by the death of Christ the Gentiles should be made fellow heirs with the Jews to the blessings of salvation. As yet none of the disciples had preached the gospel to the Gentiles. In their minds the middle wall of partition, broken down by the death of Christ, still existed, and their labors had been confined to the Jews, for they had looked upon the Gentiles as excluded from the blessings of the gospel. Now the Lord was seeking to teach Peter the world-wide extent of the divine plan.

Many of the Gentiles had been interested listeners to the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, and many of the Greek Jews had become believers in Christ, but the conversion of Cornelius was to be the first of importance among the Gentiles.

The time had come for an entirely new phase of work to be entered upon by the church of Christ. The door that many of the Jewish converts had closed against the Gentiles was now to be thrown open. And the Gentiles who accepted the gospel were to be regarded as on an equality with the Jewish disciples, without the necessity of observing the rite of circumcision.

How carefully the Lord worked to overcome the prejudice against the Gentiles that had been so firmly fixed in Peter's mind by his Jewish training! By the vision of the sheet and its contents He sought to divest the apostle's mind of this prejudice and to teach the important truth that in heaven there is no respect of persons; that Jew and Gentile are alike precious in God's sight; that through Christ the heathen may be made partakers of the blessings and privileges of the gospel. AA 135, 136

[fccool]

John, again you bring up the extreme view that I don't claim! I'm not making an statement that you should not obey when you can't absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt understand everything.

The point is that God does not desire your obedience for the sake of obedience. He wants you to do it out of love. If you are doing it just to win favor with God... it's like telling your wife that you've married her to appear to be a good guy, but you don't really love her. You did it out of guilt.

Likewise with God, if we demand that people do things out of duty, without understanding and love... what different is it than God simply creating robots to love him? I hardly think that this is the case.

[fccool]

Quote:

It was a vision, so Peter could not possibly have gotten up and killed the animals. Peter was not responsible for what happened in his vision. It was an illustration.

After the vision, it was clear that God did not want Peter to eat those animals. Peter understood the purpose was to teach him not about animals about about non-Jews.

You are evading my question, John. Peter could have in a vision got up, killed and ate... mentally at least. But he did not, because he noticed God contradicted Himself, so he refused. Was it wrong for him to refuse God's command?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The point about someone's generosity, that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to do something against your principles if they are based on what the Bible teaches.

I disagree. We are not talking about salvation matters here. We are not talking about breaking allegiance with Christ by denying Him.

If we believe something is wrong to do, then we shouldn't do it just because there people who want you to do it. It doesn't make it right to just because everyone else think it's right. If I was the only one in the world who believed something to be right, I should still do it.

The question of whether something is a salvation issue or not can be used about virtually every topic, from the Sabbath to lying or stealing. One can always excuse disobedience to God's commands if one tries hard enough.

Quote:

guibox-- We are talking about an issue of 'meat and drink' of which Paul says these are not of the 'kingdom of God'.

Romans 14: 17. The Kingdom of God-- i.e., the church and salvation-- are spiritual matters and are not directly related to what we eat or drink in the context of Romans 14. The chapter is dealing with people's opinions about food, not about food that is unhealthful in their own nature.

We need to consider also:

Quote:

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 (New International Version)

19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1 Cor. 6: 19, 20

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. Romans 14:22-23 (New International Version)

Quote:

guibox-- When these matters of the 'law' interfere with the possible salvation of someone else, we should choose the lesser of the two evils.

Yes, I agree.

But give me an example of how my telling someone I don't like pork or some other food will interfere with the possible salvation of someone else.

If I were convinced that my eating a piece of pork or any other food would result in a person's salvation, I would be happy to eat some pork or a snake or a snail, etc.

[guibox]

Well, in the case of Jose Rojas' mom, what would she have thought if he says 'Oh, I don't eat that, sorry'. She comes from a culture that didn't understood such a thing.

'Not eat this?? Why not?? I spent all day cooking for you! I feel did something special for you and you insult me? This is a man of God?'

Right or wrong in her thinking it is still the reality for her. Insults are not easily forgotten and sometimes taint the way we think about or look at people.

I disagree with you on Paul's take on the food issue. I think Paul was not just talking about clean meats or food sacrificed to idols. Paul was saying that even if some health laws are valid, there are some exceptions to the rule for the greater good of the gospel. Yes, they may be valid but don't make them a stumbling block when it really matters one way or the other. I think 1 Corithians 10:27 is clearly taking even unclean meats into occsasion.

Really, what do you think people who sat down to a pagan banquet would be eating? Clean foods sacrificed to idols? I don't think so. Paul is saying that in the spirit of Christian charity..

DON'T MAKE A BIG DEAL OVER IT.

The kingdom of God is not about food or drink...period.

Weigh the balances and options, choose the lesser of the two evils in these situations.

[John317]

Faith is not inconsistent with understanding... even partial understanding. In fact, faith relies on understanding. You have to understand that God is loving, and that he is our Creator.

Of course. Faith, confidence and trust are based on our knowledge of who God is. My knowledge of God leads me to trust Him in the matter of not eating the animals listed in Lev. 11. The same for the health message that He revealed through the Spirit of Prophecy for those who accept and proclaim the Third Angels' Messages in order to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Intelligent faith also leads me to confidence in obeying His other commandments, even when I may not understand all the reasons for the command.

[guibox]

fccool and others,

Many don't believe that a falsehood would be taught in the case of the vision of the animals and the blanket shown to Peter.

I must ask you then...

What about the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?

Do you believe as many Christians do due to this one verse alone that when we die, we go to Abraham's bosom and a tormenting hell?

How do you get around that when it is the same principle as the unclean vision?

[John317]

... But the entire incident with Abraham was not a test! IT WAS EXPLANATION TO ABRAHAM in form of OBJECT LESSON. God already knew what Abraham would do, and He knew Abraham's intentions.

Yes, it was a test, and a very big test at that. The Bible shows it was a test, and Ellen White agrees.

"It was to test [Abraham's] faith... No other test could have caused Abraham such torture of soul... " (PP 154).

"That [Abraham] might reach the highest standard, God subjected him to another test, the closest [test] which man was ever called to endure. In a vision of the night he was directed to repair to the land of Moriah, and there offer up his son as a burnt offering upon a mountain that should be shown him.... But God had reserved His last, most trying test for Abraham until the burden of years was heavy upon Him..." PP 147.

On p. 155 of the same book, Ellen White writes that "the trial was far more severe than that which had been brought upon Adam."

Of course no test is for God to learn anything. God knows the heart. But that doesn't mean God doesn't test us. The Bible specifically teaches that God tests us. Therefore, it is not necessary for God to learn anything in order for something to be properly called "a test." God tested Adam and Eve, Abraham, the ancient Hebrews, and He has tested the Christian church, particularly the Seventh-day Adventist church. And He tests us individually.

In Patriarch and Prophets, pp. 152-155, Ellen White explains why God gave this great test to Abraham.

[Bravus]

This might be a topic for a new thread, perhaps in one of the theology forums. But I believe one of the main threads that runs through the epistles (i.e. the New Testament minus the gospels and Revelation) is that of the struggle between the bondage of the law and the freedom of the gospel. And Paul comes down hard, every time, on the side of freedom.

Yes, freedom with a sense of awe and honour toward God

Yes, freedom within a walk with God and a desire to do what he knows is best for us

Yes, freedom within the context of our responsibilities toward others

But he repeatedly makes the point that it is the weak of faith who wrap themselves up in a blanket of rules and laws, and the strong of faith are free. The truth sets us free.

In this context Paul sets himself against a whole raft of Jewish laws, both those stated in the OT and those that the Jews had added. He clearly states that we are not under the law but under grace. Will that make us licentious? No - because we will be living by the Spirit. But are we still bound by those laws? No.