Is there lard in the beans?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
(1 Corinthians 10:27)

So I go to a restaurant that is owned by an unbeliever, the waiter places a plate of beans in front of me.  Do I need to ask if there is lard in the beans?

Note:  the unbeliever who owns the restaurant has been running ads on TV inviting everyone to his restaurant. 

[Geoarrge]

It's probably good to ask, as long as the intent is not to make a fuss if you find out there is.

[Stan]

This is more about food offered t Idols.

 

Pork etc was not considered food, as do not do consider mice food.  A nice trip to Israel today will help that understanding possible :)

[Gregory Matthews]

I am a vegetarian (who eats eggs and mail products).  I tell the waiter that I want such.  I am always offered beans that do not contain lard--every time.   Sometimes the restaurant substitutes.  On a few occasions I may be told that such can not be substituted in a dish and another dish may be suggested.

In most cases today, restaurants try very hard to keep their customers.  So, they work very hard to accommodate any request.   Most restaurants are aware of and accommodate on some level Vegan and gluten requests.

[Outta Here]

1 hour ago, Shane said:

So I go to a restaurant that is owned by an unbeliever, the waiter places a plate of beans in front of me.  Do I need to ask if there is lard in the beans?

Note:  the unbeliever who owns the restaurant has been running ads on TV inviting everyone to his restaurant. 

Go to their Facebook page and ask. That way, if you don't want lard in your beans, you'll know the answer ahead of time. 

As for me and my house, we eat what we're offered unless it'll kill us.

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, Shane said:

So I go to a restaurant that is owned by an unbeliever, the waiter places a plate of beans in front of me.  Do I need to ask if there is lard in the beans?

 

In case anyone is worried that it may give Christians a bad name to ask for no
meat, lard, dairy, or any number of other frequently undesired food items, more
than just Christians are asking for such food restrictions. I suspect there are
even people who will ask and not be pleasant when given items requested not to
be in their food.

To not be sensitive to the dietary choices of the public for a restaurant owner
is just not good business sense. In some parts of the country, they even have
vegetarian menus available on request and go out of their way to comply. Don't
forget that in some years nearly 20% of restaurants have gone out of business. 

[Dr. Shane]

Which is the greater sin?  Eating unclean meat and violating health rules?  Or, eating meat offered to idols and thus participating in idol worship?

[GayatfootofCross]

Most SDAs I know is along the lines believing it is a holy thing ..a sanctification thing. Like purification with water of old Israel.

I know plenty of SDAs that have no problem with  an occasional cake(with sugar plus shortening icing) or pie or sweets at home or served at functions.

Or Chips or Fries or ...gasp! Cheetos!

All made with ingredients that compromise health.

But no food that even touched a ham hock or a pepperoni.

A HOLY THING! Part of the Sanctification Thing.

 

 

 

[Outta Here]

The wages of sin is death. So, in the long run, what does it matter which is "greater"?

 

[Dr. Shane]

Quote

In 1905 she again expounded favorably on the distinction as given to the Jews, this time mentioning, in addition to pork, "other animals and birds whose flesh was pronounced unclean."¹⁹

The passage goes on to enumerate other aspects of Jewish health laws which Seventh-day Adventists have never sought to enforce, so that in summary it can be said that Mrs. White never explicitly declared that the general distinction between clean and unclean meats was one which Seventh-day Adventists were still bound to observe. Her statements commending the Jewish practice certainly encourage that position, but never make it explicit.

Adventists of today, with their understanding of the distinction between clean and unclean meat, need to give due weight to the general lack of such teaching in the Adventist church of her time. In 1883 W. H. Littlejohn, in a question and answer column in the Review, said he was not sure whether oysters would properly come under the prohibition on unclean meats found in Leviticus 11. If they did, he said, it would be because there was some natural reason.²⁰ It was also just at this time that Uriah Smith expressed his strong disavowal of the application of the Mosaic law in this matter, as mentioned above.

That is from the White Estate

[Dr. Shane]

1 hour ago, Aubrey said:

The wages of sin is death. So, in the long run, what does it matter which is "greater"?

 

Is that the Adventist position?  That eating unclean meat is sin?

[LifeHiscost]

Fasting is probably a good health habit to apply whenever there is any question of conscience.

 

Deuteronomy 3:21 KJV

It does seem important to recognize whenever Jesus made a reference from the Word, it came from the old testament.

¹⁹ What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

²⁰ For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's....1 Corinthians 6

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[bonnie]

3 hours ago, GayatfootofCross said:

 

I know plenty of SDAs that have no problem with  an occasional cake(with sugar plus shortening icing) or pie or sweets at home or served at functions.

Or Chips or Fries or ...gasp! Cheetos!

All made with ingredients that compromise health.

But no food that even touched a ham hock or a pepperoni.

A HOLY THING! Part of the Sanctification Thing.

 

 

 

The failings or eating habits of "those other" SDA's doesnt have anything to do with the biblical instruction concerning unclean meat.                                                  Questioning a restaurant about what ingredients   are used in preparing your order is something routine. You are paying for a service\product.                                        

[Stan]

Right on @bonnie

[Stan]

Check out

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/66-17.htm

[Outta Here]

11 hours ago, Shane said:

Is that the Adventist position?  That eating unclean meat is sin?

Is that really the question you wanted to ask in this thread? If so, why did you ask if you should ask if there was lard in the beans?

You also asked "Which is the greater sin?" My stance on "greater and lesser" sins is that there isn't much of a difference in the long run. A sin is a sin is a sin. Jesus died on the cross because of sin. A tiny sin, a big sin...whichever. He still died.

[bonnie]

18 minutes ago, Aubrey said:

Is that really the question you wanted to ask in this thread? If so, why did you ask if you should ask if there was lard in the beans?

You also asked "Which is the greater sin?" My stance on "greater and lesser" sins is that there isn't much of a difference in the long run. A sin is a sin is a sin. Jesus died on the cross because of sin. A tiny sin, a big sin...whichever. He still died.

Who has been granted the authority to determine lesser or greater sin for someone else?  Any sin you refuse to let go of or rationalize continuing becomes the greater sin. Biblically it is pretty clear.

[Outta Here]

Bonnie, that makes sense!

 

[GayatfootofCross]

When I was at a self supporting Independent Ministry where masses go for healing of the body ..We were talking about healthier places to eat.

A lovely sanguine Hispanic Woman told me to be careful of Food Trucks (taco trucks) when it comes to their delicious  beans.

She gave an example of what she has done in the past.

She goes up and orders a vegie burrito and asks if the beans have LARD in them.

 "o no we do not put LARD in our beans"

She then tells them..

" My doctor says I can't have them. Are you sure?"

" o yes we do not have LARD in our beans."

She counters back..

" If the beans have LARD in them My body will go in shock and i will drop on the ground right here and have a seizure! I could even die!!!"

then the Taco Truck Person said 

"Yes. We have LARD in our beans"

"

 

[bonnie]

46 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

When I was at a self supporting Independent Ministry where masses go for healing of the body ..We were talking about healthier places to eat.

A lovely sanguine Hispanic Woman told me to be careful of Food Trucks (taco trucks) when it comes to their delicious  beans.

She gave an example of what she has done in the past.

She goes up and orders a vegie burrito and asks if the beans have LARD in them.

 "o no we do not put LARD in our beans"

She then tells them..

" My doctor says I can't have them. Are you sure?"

 

46 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

" o yes we do not have LARD in our beans."

She counters back..

" If the beans have LARD in them My body will go in shock and i will drop on the ground right here and have a seizure! I could even die!!!"

then the Taco Truck Person said 

"Yes. We have LARD in our beans"

"

 

Regardless of the issues raised there is always a "what if" . It somehow seems to make the specific issue not really all that important when you consider those that have made a decision to not eat or do  may "gasp"  have a piece of pie or chips or?? Perhaps it is necessary to lie to avoid eating lard inadvertantly. 

The question  and answer is rather simple concerning unclean meat.  It doesn't say if you do A you may as well go ahead and do B and eat unclean meat. Biblically it even covers the "what if" concerning behavior with an unbeliever.

We were invited to Easter dinner with a couple that did not understand we did not heat pork. The dinner was a financial stretch for them and for reasons not important here the refusal to accept or to eat the ham offered would have been far more harmful than graciously accepting and appreciating the effort made on our behalf.

 

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, bonnie said:

The question  and answer is rather simple concerning unclean meat.  It doesn't say if you do A you may as well go ahead and do B and eat unclean meat. Biblically it even covers the "what if" concerning behavior with an unbeliever.

We were invited to Easter dinner with a couple that did not understand we did not heat pork. The dinner was a financial stretch for them and for reasons not important here the refusal to accept or to eat the ham offered would have been far more harmful than graciously accepting and appreciating the effort made on our behalf.

Recently, well, over a year ago, there was a thread regarding someone who
cooked something for a church potluck that had meat and the thought was that
they did not want to hurt the feelings of the person preparing the food and
would not tell the other diners at the potluck, because it seemed the
preparers feelings were more important than the dietary preferences of the
diners. Now this was different than the quoted situation where the ham was
"graciously accepted." But I see a lot of these situations where people are
expected to sacrifice their principles for someone else's feelings.

I really see a problem with secretly letting someone eat unacceptable food
under these situations. It is a serious violation of another human being's
personal autonomy. I know that certain areas of the US, this seems to occur
more often than others. When I once was at a church potluck and ate something
that I am certain had meat in it, I declined to go to anymore potlucks.
Regardless of whether there is any harm or not, or even if it is not a sin, a
person has a right to self determination of how they will live down to what
they eat. 

No one I know of would suggest that it would be OK to serve pork to an
Orthodox Jew nor would they allow them to eat it to spare the emotions of the
preparer. If the preparer would be so upset that what they prepared was
unacceptable to someone else and could not graciously not serve it, perhaps
they need a safe room somewhere where they can mend their hurt feelings!

You will find often those of another belief trying to live life as best as
they know it and they should be respected for it no matter how insignificant
it may seem to you. I recall onetime having a patient in the hospital who was
a young woman, early thirties with young children, who had a severe blood
loss. She was also Jehovah's Witness. It was unacceptable to her to receive a
blood transfusion and the physicians were unable to do surgery to stop the
blood loss as her blood levels were already critically low. She died. None of the
staff could accept that she refused to receive blood and left behind two
motherless children. I asked a co-worker who was having trouble with the
situation "What was so important to her (co-worker) that she would rather die than to
violate it". She said, "nothing." 

You can easily think of many other things that should have been no big deal
as it was far more unhealthy than just doing something that was asked. The
three Hebrews were faced with a situation of bowing down to the image or get
cast into a furnace. That sounds kind of unhealthy to me!

So, think carefully before violating yours or anyone else's principles for
the sake of someone's emotions.

[GayatfootofCross]

11 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

Recently, well, over a year ago, there was a thread regarding someone who
cooked something for a church potluck that had meat and the thought was that
they did not want to hurt the feelings of the person preparing the food and
would not tell the other diners at the potluck, because it seemed the
preparers feelings were more important than the dietary preferences of the
diners. Now this was different than the quoted situation where the ham was
"graciously accepted." But I see a lot of these situations where people are
expected to sacrifice their principles for someone else's feelings.

I really see a problem with secretly letting someone eat unacceptable food
under these situations. It is a serious violation of another human being's
personal autonomy. I know that certain areas of the US, this seems to occur
more often than others. When I once was at a church potluck and ate something
that I am certain had meat in it, I declined to go to anymore potlucks.
Regardless of whether there is any harm or not, or even if it is not a sin, a
person has a right to self determination of how they will live down to what
they eat. .....

So, think carefully before violating yours or anyone else's principles for
the sake of someone's emotions.

...................................................................

Yeah that would be me

here is that post

"When i was selling books as a very young naive christian man i came across a former Miss Alabama who's life went really bad

Years before i met her ..the love of her life was doing something with his gun and accidentally shot himself in the gut and she watched him die.

i invited her to my cute lil country church and told her we had vegetarian potluck every week

i told her she didnt have to bring anything

well the night before we went together to church i went over there and there was white flour all over her and she was a bit manic making a giant  A GIANT pot of chicken and dumplings

I didnt know what to say seeing she has been slaving all night

... so the next morning we went to church

and im just praying

didnt know what to do

i did know one thing for sure

if i told anyone what was in it that dish it wouldn't  been touched and she would have been crushed

so i said nothing

i was so embarrassed and soooo protective of her

well we are sitting together with the elder's wife who i really didnt know and she was gushing to my guest how tasty her dish was

she asked what's it made out of and i looked at her sheepishly and told her it was chicken

her smile froze and then recovered quickly and smiled wider and said it was wonderful

i will forever to eternity be grateful for that moment"

 

[JoeMo]

B/W,

What you say is great for us religiously liberated caucasian folks in a nice western church where everything we would ever want to eat is within a few miles and a few bucks (dollars not deer).  The majority of the world does not have that privilege.  Talk to frontier missionaries trying to "connect" with a primitive godless culture in the Amazon or Southeast Asia,  Central Africa.  They have a choice - eat what if offered as a gift to "connect" with the people (or survive), or alienate them and starve.  I guarantee if I was starving to death, I would eat dog (if it was medium rare).

This is not just the situation for missionaries; it is the situation for Muslims, Buddhists,Hindus, and others who leave the faith of their families to become Christians.  They are rejected by family and community.  If they are lucky enough to find an SDA mission that can house and support them, they are doomed to eat whatever they can scavenge.  Chances are they were not brought to Jesus by SDA's anyways.  Those who are brought by SDA's are especially blessed.

[B/W Photodude]

1 minute ago, GayatfootofCross said:

Yeah that would be me

 

Wasn't trying to "out" anyone!  

[GayatfootofCross]

9 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

Wasn't trying to "out" anyone!  

i know and thanku

although im always very out

..............

That was me a very timid, naive, co dependent, self loathing, and closeted on fire christian young man over 30 years ago not knowing how to handle such situations.

But I assure you ..If it was pork dumplings I probably would have freaked out visibly and gave her a bible study on why we don't eat such flesh!

So zealous!

...Since then I have visited more primarily non English  SDA churches like Hispanic and Polynesian .. where fish and chicken are found in their potluck dishes and Im very gracious!