Our thinking on bacon has "evolved."????? SAY WHAT??

[Johann]

I just discovered this group on FaceBook:

Abstaining from bacon, ham, all pig meats

Anyone can join.

[nuff sed]

It's too bad that some of or hospitals have bowed under pressure to dispense with distinctly Adventist traditions in favor of the almighty dollar. First it was serving of flesh foods with the rational that we were not 'serving the community' by sticking with vegetarianism. Now are we going to serve 'unclean' meats because the 'community' wants it??? Nuff Sed

[Tom Wetmore]

I really doubt that it was a decision driven by money. Regardless of the bacon issue, the rental income they receive from those two fast food restaurants is such a tiny and insignificant fraction of their overall income that it is immaterial to their finances. And I doubt that to serve bacon or not has any financial impact at all.

Panera is a very popular place. The demand for them is very high. I suspect that it was driven by employee and hospital visitor demand of dining alternatives, few of which are Adventists. Panera probably does not compromise with landlords on menu issues in their leases. It was not likely a choice of Panera with or without bacon, but Panera or no Panera. I would also guess the negotiating advantage was in favor of Panera if the hospital wanted them to meet consumer demand more than they wanted/needed to be near the hospital.

[OzarkWoman]

I really doubt that it was a decision driven by money.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I really doubt that it was a decision driven by money.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Panera Bread is not owned and operated by Adventists or by the Adventist church. The SDA church has no "stake" in the company, it's parent company, or any subsidiaries. The church is not "making money" on having that particular restaurant as a tenant. People do not normally choose which medical center they wish to patronize according to what restaurants are in the immediate vicinity.

If anyone takes the time to research the Panera Bread restaurants, you'll find that:

1) it has a wonderful menu of sandwiches, soups, salads, and beverages

2) it posts the nutritional values of its menu items, and is considered to be one of the healthiest fast food restaurants in North America

3) it donates millions of $'s of unsold breads and other foodstuffs to agencies to distribute to the needy

4) it provides a "pay what you can" restaurant in St Louis, MO, Portland, OR and Boston, MA

5) customers have the ability to order menu items sans meat.

source

I think Panera Bread sounds like a wonderful tenant.

If one wanted to criticize the healthiness of a food business owned by Adventists, how about starting with "Little Debbie's" which produces high fat, high sugar, rather unhealthy snack foods.

The point is, is that most people have the ability to choose what they put into their mouths. Nobody's pointing a gun at anyone's head to EAT PORK.

Disclaimer: I occasionally eat a Little Debbie's Cosmic Brownie...

[CoAspen]

Let me tell you how Little Debbies are made......some day!

(yep, i worked there once)

[Windsor]

These days the message via Harvard University going to the whole world is that nuts is what you need for good health and longevity. We should know that.

Just beware of too much salt on your peanuts. It may cause trouble for your heart.

Not just Harvard but Loma Linda's Adventist Health Study recommends nuts, especially walnuts.

[Windsor]

My first instinct was surprise, then I revisited the issue. They are leasing the property to Panera & Wendy's. If I lease my farm to someone and they chose to raise hogs instead of cattle, or sheep do I have the right to forbid the hog on my property that they lease?

Would you lease your farm to someone who you know is going to use it for raising hogs?

[CoAspen]

Ah.....yeah. Ain't against the law.

Let me ask you a question, would you lease your farm to a sinner?

[M. T. Cross]

I think the first compromise was made the day Striplets came out, and just continued down the line with turkey bacon.

Not supposed to eat bacon, but can eat something that looks just like it and is supposed to taste like it. That one has baffled me for many years.

[CoAspen]

Baffled since day one!! (By the way.....they don't taste the same!!!)

[Windsor]

I think the first compromise was made the day Striplets came out, and just continued down the line with turkey bacon.

Not supposed to eat bacon, but can eat something that looks just like it and is supposed to taste like it. That one has baffled me for many years.

God didn't forbid the Israelites to eat pork because it tasted good. The tree of knowledge of good and evil wasn't forbidden because of it's taste nor were any other fruits forbidden because of a similarity in taste or appearance to the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

[Johann]

Agreed, bacon has nothing to do with taste but contents. What about the fruit on the tree of knowledge? Was it the contents of the fruit? What did it do to Eve and Adam?

[Tom Wetmore]

As with the tree it wasn't about the fruit. The Genesis account suggests it was in fact good for food. The fruit itself was beside the point.

[olger]

I think the first compromise was made the day Striplets came out, and just continued down the line with turkey bacon.

Not supposed to eat bacon, but can eat something that looks just like it and is supposed to taste like it. That one has baffled me for many years.

It is the image of the beast.

[Gerr]

I think there was a major moral paradigm shift that happened as a result of that event in Eden. And then another at Sinai. And it wasn't until Moses that the ten were carved in stone. DId they exist prior to that point? And it also seems relevant to this discussion that the rules, other than the ten commandments, changed again at Calvary. Some might say that was more than a paradigm shift. It was a game changer. See Paul's writings on that.

What is this paradigm shift that your are talking about? Did God require of Adam & Eve something He does not require of people today or vice versa?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom

I think there was a major moral paradigm shift that happened as a result of that event in Eden. And then another at Sinai. And it wasn't until Moses that the ten were carved in stone. DId they exist prior to that point? And it also seems relevant to this discussion that the rules, other than the ten commandments, changed again at Calvary. Some might say that was more than a paradigm shift. It was a game changer. See Paul's writings on that.

What is this paradigm shift that your are talking about? Did God require of Adam & Eve something He does not require of people today or vice versa?

Mankind sinned.

[Bravus]

EGW didn't, however, practice what she preached...

[Gregory Matthews]

Bravus said:

Quote:

EGW didn't, however, practice what she preached...

On one level one might say that there is truth in what Bravus said. The story of her life shows that she struggled, at times with the message that she presented. The integrity that is there is in the revelation that she struggled and was human.

The issue for us is: What do we do with the life of EGW? Some attempt to put her on a pedestal and above normal life. Those who do that have problems when confronted with her human frailty. Those who can acknowledge that she was NOT without sin generally ride out the storm in their own psychic and move on to a higher understanding.

Walter Rae, who wrote THE WHITE LIE is an example of this. In the early years of his life he placed EGW on a pedestal that was well above reality. Then in his study of her he was forced by the evidence to confront the fact that she was not all that he had made her out to be. His conclusion was that she was a false prophet and he wrote his book.

Speaking frankly, I will say that the SDA Church is indebted to him in the same sense that the early Christian Church was indebted to the critic Marcion. Rae's book forced us into a deeper study which has resulted in a more accurate view of her life and work. But, the major problem with Rae was not the facts that he discovered but his analysis of those facts. On that point, he often blew it.

On a second level there is another issue: We may not accurately understand what her message was and/or she, herself may not have understood it in fullness.

I will give an example: At a time when EGW was telling us that we should not eat unclean animals she was eating oysters. Why? Simply because at that time in her life, she, along with other leaders of the SDA Church did not believe that oysters met the Biblical definition of an animal that should not be eaten.

On this point, the foundational issue was not her human failure to fully follow what she taught. Rather, it was with her understanding of what the message was. In the history of her life there are other examples of this.

So, Bravus, you raise a point which is worthy of valid consideration. The question now is: What does one do with the conclusion that one reaches on this question?

NOTE: Here is what Wikipedia says about Marcion:

Quote:

Marcion of Sinope (Greek: Μαρκίων[1] Σινώπης), (c. 85 – c. 160) was a bishop in early Christianity.[2] His theology completely rejected the existence of the deity described in the Jewish Scriptures and in distinction affirmed the Father of Christ to be the true God. He was denounced by the Church Fathers and he chose to separate himself from the Imperial Church. He is often considered to have held a pivotal role in the development of the New Testament canon.

The statement that he played a pivotal role in the development of the NT Canon is accurate although in his view of that canon and in other aspects of theology he was wrong.

His pivotal role in the development of the NT Canon was that because of him the early Christian Church felt forced to devote study and attention to deciding what material should be included in the NT Canon.

[Dr. Waite]

http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/...h.i6Pv4f58.dpuf

Is this because Florida Hospital is giving the hired health workers a choice?

432. Brother and Sister -----, I wish to present for your consideration a few points that have been revealed to me since first there arose the difficulties connected with the question of discarding flesh meat from the tables of our medical institutions. . . . {CD 290.1}

I have been plainly instructed by the Lord that flesh meat should not be placed before the patients in our sanitarium dining rooms. Light was given me that the patients could have flesh meat, if, after hearing the parlor lectures, they still urged us to give it to them; but that, in such cases, it must be eaten in their own rooms. All the helpers are to discard flesh meat. But, as stated before, if, after knowing that the flesh of animals cannot be placed on the dining room tables, a few patients urge that they must have meat, cheerfully give it to them in their rooms. {CD 290.2}

Accustomed, as many are, to the use of flesh meat, it is not surprising that they should expect to see it on the sanitarium table. You may find it unadvisable to publish the bill of fare, giving a list of the foods supplied at the table; for the absence of flesh meat from the dietary may seem a formidable obstacle to those who are thinking of becoming patrons of the sanitarium. {CD 290.3} [emphasis mine]

[Gerr]

But is God asking sinful man something that He did not require from sinless Adam or vice versa?

[Tom Wetmore]

Gerry, I am not sure what your point is? And I think you have perhaps missed the point I was trying to make. I think we are just talking past each other.

But to try to answer you question, yes on specific things god requires very different things of people in different times, places and circumstances. In the context of what this topic is about, whether to eat bacon or not was obviously not a test or requirement God put before Adam and Eve. And I dare say that eating flesh food of any sort wasn't on their menu of choices in the garden. In fact the range of possible moral dilemmas for them was pretty simple in comparison to what we face today. In a metaphorical sense we are surrounded by a forest of trees of the knowledge of good and evil. It almost seems in some folks reckoning that the options for good fruit to eat are what is narrowed down to one tree hidden somewhere in the middle of the forest that we all have to search for in order to live. And it seems that many of the rest of the trees look an awful lot like it. But I think the real problem is that there are really many good choices and many bad choices and many mixed choices that amount to not all bad or not all good. Some trees have both good and bad fruit. And some fruit you can eat around the rotten spots and worms.

But in a very broad simplistic sense of your question, of course what God requires of us is just the same as he required of Adam and Eve - to trust and obey him. But they had one clear and unambiguous choice in a perfect environment. One bad thing to avoid among an unlimited array of all things good and perfect. Evil was confined and limited. That seems altogether different than what we face today, or even what the children of Israel faced.

Evil was unleashed on the world on that day by their wrong choice. We on the other hand are surrounded by all the wrong choices and have to look for, rather than simple avoid, the few and far less clear good choices. That is the paradigm shift. Things are not the same anymore. Everything is different.

[Tom Wetmore]

To continue on with the points I was making, the tests God put before mankind between Eden and Sinai seem, well ever changing. Then ten rules were written on stone, and a whole bunch of very specific regulations and guidelines were written down by Moses. That was another shift in the moral paradigm. But it was not easy to get it all right. The people failed. Repeatedly.

Then Jesus came and said "I give you a new command." But this time it was different. Very different. He said "I'll make it simple again." One choice. Choose Him. Trust Him. Follow Him. He is the One Truth, the One Way out of the forest of evil.

[phkrause]

[Narcah]

Pig is bad meat.