Is there lard in the beans?

[GayatfootofCross]

18 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

 

...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!

uhhh You can add Filipino to the list and gracious doesn't nec. mean I eat the meat or not.

It means  ..I don't freak out about it if served.

 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

.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 can easily think of many other  before violating yours or anyone else's principles for
the sake of someone's emotions.

This all goes well beyond the questions posed.Most of us should be able to determine a real meat dish compared to a vegeterian dish. In our case I would no more have refused the ham than I would have cut off my right arm.At that time  I recently had our first baby. My room mate and I connected immediately. We realized we both came from the same small area in northern Mn and my relatives were very well known to my room mate. We both had baby boys and her baby son passed away at six weeks,a short time before Easter. The mother reached out to my son for comfort. We have remained friends for over 50 years and I am thankful for that.I am no worse for wear for the ham we ate that day.        The son of our best friends died in a freak accident. The day before the funeral after all arrangements were made,the family was notified they would not hold the funeral or the dinner after ward as the young man did not regularly attend chruch and the elders and pastor did not "know the conditon of his heart".I had less than 24 hours to prepare for almost 300 people at our church. As usual many brought food to be served.Many dishes had pork and I couldnt have cared less. If the SDA's present couldnt figure out how to handle that To Bad. With a little thought it is possible to handle most situations diplomatically without being offensive about your personal beliefs.

[bonnie]

The home chruch of the parents of this young man refused to hold the services after all arrangements had been made and notification. The night before the funeral ,after holding a meeting they cancelled on the family.

[B/W Photodude]

17 minutes ago, bonnie said:

This all goes well beyond the questions posed ...

This is why I wrote:

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 was not speaking to any who chose to eat meat, just the ones who wanted to stick to their own personal choices in the matter.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

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).

One of my favorite preachers was one who described eating with the natives in New Guinea. He described how he ate by not stirring the pot too much. Obviously, some in the world have it different than we do in the western world. I can think of a number of practices that missionaries have done to "connect" with the natives that would be faulted in western culture. Even know of one missionary who went naked with the natives!

But speaking of diet, it reminds me of a joke defining hunger:

If you were eating a bowl of rice and found some worms in it, you would throw away the bowl of rice.

If you were really hungry, you would pick out the worms and keep on eating.

If you were starving and saw one of the worms crawling away, you would throw him back in the rice and keep on eating!

I do continue to support the right of an individual to make their own decisions and do know that people often change them when confronted with difficult circumstances.

[Gregory Matthews]

I know of congrations (multiple) that seek to reach out to people of multiple backgrounds.  They simply tell people that they are a mixed group in which some people are vegetarian.  They  identify dishes that are not.   I have not been aware of any problems of doing such. 

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

If you were starving and saw one of the worms crawling away, you would throw him back in the rice and keep on eating!

Haha!

I was visiting with an evangelist friend of mine that used a canned sermon called "Everyone Has Their Price". He would pull out a handful of insects and grubs and asked "How many of you would eat these for $1.00?" No hands. "$10?"  Still no hands "$100? $1,000?" By the time he got to $5,000, hands started going up.  When he got to $50,000, virtually every hand in the church went up.  He tried the same sermon on his first trip to Africa.  He asked "How many of you would eat these for $1.00?" Virtually every hand in the church went up.  If he had done his homework, he would have already known that certain insects - especially large grubs - are considered a delicacy among some African cultures.

[GayatfootofCross]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Haha!

I was visiting with an evangelist friend of mine that used a canned sermon called "Everyone Has Their Price". He would pull out a handful of insects and grubs and asked "How many of you would eat these for $1.00?" No hands. "$10?"  Still no hands "$100? $1,000?" By the time he got to $5,000, hands started going up.  When he got to $50,000, virtually every hand in the church went up.  He tried the same sermon on his first trip to Africa.  He asked "How many of you would eat these for $1.00?" Virtually every hand in the church went up.  If he had done his homework, he would have already known that certain insects - especially large grubs - are considered a delicacy among some African cultures.

Frying makes everything yummy!

[Gail]

In olden days, the family of Jacob lived in Egypt. Times were good until the new pharaoh was raised that did not know Joseph. When that happened, the family, which was big now, was turned to slavery and could no longer keep the Sabbath holy.

God did not strike them down as a people for non-compliance. But the way they were forced to live did have an effect on them. When they were finally freed, they needed to learn to trust Him anew. They needed to learn anew how to live. When the way was opened and the people lived in the wilderness then there WERE consequences for desiring meat and trying to gather manna on Sabbath.

They had problems in the wilderness. Who knows how much of those problems were connected to their having to live apart from God in compromise for so many years?

We do what we can and leave the rest to the Lord. How that translates in individual situations will vary. I think there would be a difference between a faithful heart and one that is rebellious but that is an issue that God can handle. And personally I would rather bring it to my Saviour for help than fellow humans.

[GayatfootofCross]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Amen to the last sentence; so what would you say regarding "sabbath-breaking" and the penalty, if any, the church should impose today? This is directly related to the food question here. What would be the "enforceable" positions that the church can and should enforce today?

Well in light (or dark) of few recent official statements the GC has been chiseling out regarding peoples most personal mental health/body surgical decisions and relational life choices.... They may come to the conclusion that an itemized list of what constitutes Sabbath Breaking and the accompanying various punishments must also be released ..OFFICIALLY!

Same thing regarding duck and oysters and a pepperoni accidentally touching your garlic wholewheat bread topped with yummy cashew butter at a family holiday gathering.

 

[bonnie]

2 hours ago, GayatfootofCross said:

Well in light (or dark) of few recent official statements the GC has been chiseling out regarding peoples most personal mental health/body surgical decisions and relational life choices.... They may come to the conclusion that an itemized list of what constitutes Sabbath Breaking and the accompanying various punishments must also be released ..OFFICIALLY!

Same thing regarding duck and oysters and a pepperoni accidentally touching your garlic wholewheat bread topped with yummy cashew butter at a family holiday gathering.

 

What is the attraction for some wanting to define themselves as a SDA and have so little in agreement with the denomination?  Especially considering "duck and oysters and a pepperoni accidentally touching your garlic wholewheat bread topped with yummy cashew butter at a family holiday gathering". I have never had oysters and pepperoni at a family gathering but certainly doing so would void any importance of all biblical instruction. With the focus of some on the hypocrisy  of "those other" christians in good standing it must be a very important consideration when trying to justify one's own behavior.

It would seem Paul is hopelessly outdated and should be dismissed as having any application for conduct of those within the church.  Obviously many feel they have more divine insight.

Should we do away with the Seventh Day portion of our official name? Why not If there is resentment towards the biblical teaching of the Sabbath or the unfair  expectation that those that CHOOSE voluntarily to request membership understand the reason for Sabbath observance and accept it. 

What right does anyone have to chastise me for anything if there has been a comparable behavior on their part as in duck and oysters and a pepperoni accidentally touching your garlic wholewheat bread topped with yummy cashew butter at a family holiday gathering"

These type of issues keep being repeated so they must be important. It does serve the purpose of making the lifestyle choices of some just a little more acceptable

My relational life choices should not enter into my membership regardless.  Why can't I be head deaconess on Sabbath after spending FRi night at the local bar? This thread has several references to "those others"  I know for a fact there is not one that doesn't have something.

In a situation very close to me concerning relational life choices,the legal representative of the MNSDA conference agreed with you.  In a interview following the settlement of  the deliberate destruction of two families, very negative impact on a large congregation,the "affair" by the pastor with a troubled member was explained away as it was just their time to fall in love.  Sometimes children are unfortunate by-products .

I am sure there are those that think I am wrong but I want some consideration as to lifestyle,belief, and example to those that lead out in our denomination. I would not want someone that drinks,or believes it is just fine to hold a non critical job on sabbath or after all grab some overtime.  Relational life issues would be very important to some of us as to those that teach our children. Whether or not they ever ate chips or not I would not want someone teaching my children that adultery, alcohol, living a gay lifestyle,choosing to work on sabbath,or keeping an eagle on on all "those others" to somehow make relational life choice more acceptable regardless of what they are. For me,I will stick with poor outdated and irrelevant Paul and the biblical instruction that is available to all.

[Gregory Matthews]

Little agreement with the denomination:

Problems with the above may occur with the issue as to what the denomination teaches and with how to apply it.  I will give some examples of which I am aware or and I can personally vouch for them happening.  My examples will come from the United States and from outside the U.S.  For the one  that clearly happen prior to my birth, this is well known in SDA history.

*  Eating oysters:  During the time of EGW differences of opinion existed in the denomination as to what was a "clean" food and what was not.  EGW, herself, considered oysters to be a clean food.   Well into the years when she advocated not eating meat, she considered oysters to be good to eat when she was ill.  This was something like it is today with people who advocate chicken soup for one who is sick.  NOTE:  One of  the examples of this may be found that in 1882 EGW was eating oysters and considered them helpful to her when sick.

*  Non-critical employment on the Sabbath:  A SDA congregation located near a government park decided to   sponsor a guided nature walk through the park and to assist them they asked that the park to provide a Ranger to lead the nature walk.  The Ranger who led the nature walk was a congregational member.  That local congregation attempted to discipline him for working on the Sabbath.  I was personally able to prevent this from happening.  This occurred in the U.S.

*  The daughter of my then commander was involved in an accident on a Friday evening, after the Sabbath had begun.  Her life was saved by an ambulance crew that was led by a SDA.  An elected denominational official removed him from a position in the local congregation and wanted to discipline him.  I was able to prevent him from being disciplined, by directly dealing with that elected official.  But, I could not save his position.  He was replaced in that position by a person who worked in a gambling positon at a local casino.  NOTE:  This was in a country other than the U.S. and the denominational official my not have known how the replacement was employed, as I decided to leave that alone as I became aware of it after it happened.

 

 

 

[bonnie]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Finally. We see it in writing. A perfect example of "I" trouble.

Interesting response. I dont know if you have children or not, and if so what you considered important in raising them to help them grow into the adults you hoped they would be. Yes, "I" was careful of those within the chruch who had influence on our sons at a vulnerable age.I make no apologies for that. Much more concern than the beliefs or conduct of those not a member. Most of us get one chance at raising our children in the way they should go. 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Eating oysters:  During the time of EGW differences of opinion existed in the denomination as to what was a "clean" food and what was not.  EGW, herself, considered oysters to be a clean food.   Well into the years when she advocated not eating meat, she considered oysters to be good to eat when she was ill.  This was something like it is today with people who advocate chicken soup for one who is sick.  NOTE:  One of  the examples of this may be found that in 1882 EGW was eating oysters and considered them helpful to her when sick.

 

Is this the response you (pastors in general) would give to someone that was interested in what the denomination believed and taught? That because of what EW stated over a 150 years ago, eating oysters isnt any different than eating chicken soup?  Or would it be beneficial to first consider those hypocrites that believe it is wrong? If there is something in their lives and there surely is does it make eating oysters a little less objectionable?

[GayatfootofCross]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Little agreement with the denomination:

 

 

Thank you. I really appreciate all your own stories and stories of others all over the forum.

We all are fearfully and wonderfully made and God looks upon each of us with no strings attached love and in that we are free to bring to the table our own individual fingerprints in our collective Spiritual Journey.

I have said this before somewhere else. All our stories should be told.

Thank you again for telling us yours.

A beloved Humanity!

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie:

As to what the SDA denomination has believed and taught, our history is of value.  I remind you that there is a large element in the SDA Church that promotes the idea that we should return to beliefs that we held in the formative days of our developing denomination.   

Further, for many years the SDA Church has attempted to be a "large tent" in which the denominational boundaries were quite broad, in contract to those who attempt today to draw them in a very narrow manner.

 

[GayatfootofCross]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Bonnie:

As to what the SDA denomination has believed and taught, our history is of value.  I remind you that there is a large element in the SDA Church that promotes the idea that we should return to beliefs that we held in the formative days of our developing denomination.   

Further, for many years the SDA Church has attempted to be a "large tent" in which the denominational boundaries were quite broad, in contract to those who attempt today to draw them in a very narrow manner.

 

The Hymn "There's room at the Cross for You" comes to mind.

[CoAspen]

Beans to oysters....who would have thought!!

[GayatfootofCross]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Little agreement with the denomination:

 

I believe the Hallmark of Gods Church (that will be fully realized as The Latter Rain fall) will be a self sacrificial love for others.

Where Love for God will be supreme and love for others (all others) will be impartial.

Affirming Gods unconditional Love for each other regardless of differences.

Sitting side by side in the pews or the caves.

Jesus and His Love for us is Thee Center of the Center ..everything else will be eclipsed in our hearts.

I believe it has been beginning cause knowledge has been increasing on what a Lovely God He truly is.

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

Now onto the elephant in the room.

Uhh ..I mean the duck!

The reason why I mentioned a duck earlier in the thread (thank Gregory Matthews for the oyster story) is cause I didn't realize it was a thing in some Adventist circles till a few Thanksgiving ago.

We were enjoying a vegie Thanksgiving at the Head Elders home. A bunch of us.

 And the topic came up on family Thanksgiving delicacies  of our sweet youth.

I myself didn't grow up in a christian home and shared my food memories.

Another chap (Sabbath School Teacher and son of a Conference worker) mentioned that even though the family was vegetarian all year round, at Thanksgiving they had Turkey!

Well he mentioned out of the blue .. Duck was unclean cause in Leviticus it mentions webfeet as a indicator of uncleanness.

(in The Christmas Carol there was a prized Christmas Goose hanging in the Window the size of Tiny Tim, I think )

Well it wasn't in there..just a list of  birds by name ..no webfeet mentioned.

Well since then I have kept my ears open listening if other SDA's believed that too.

Well sure enough.. Some others grew up with that notion too.

and some like me .. never heard of that.

Duck fat is prized in some culinary circles. So in keeping with the OP...

 

"Is there duck fat in my beans?"

 

 

 

[pierrepaul]

 

14 hours ago, bonnie said:

For me,I will stick with poor outdated and irrelevant Paul and the biblical instruction that is available to all.

So will I; especially Acts 15:28-29; Romans 14:5-6; Acts 10:15; Romans 14:14; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

[pierrepaul]

Yes - there's the duck debate; the tuna debate; the swordfish debate, and others.

I grew up being taught that tuna was "unclean". Then in university I roomed with an orthodox, kosher Jew. Tuna was a regular part of his diet. When I got regular internet access in the early 2000s, I did my own research and discovered that opinions differed.

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, pierrepaul said:

Yes - there's the duck debate; the tuna debate; the swordfish debate, and others.

I grew up being taught that tuna was "unclean". Then in university I roomed with an orthodox, kosher Jew. Tuna was a regular part of his diet. When I got regular internet access in the early 2000s, I did my own research and discovered that opinions differed.

This began  I assume as a simple question of curiosity. As is very typical  it didn't take long for it to go to "those others'.  I am not going to lose a lot of sleep over those that eat something I personally don't or believe we are told not to.  What does bother me is the almost immediate response of comments such as the this by those that are pretty consistent in their complaints of how they are treated or judged.

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.

No one should be shamed,shunned or treated in such a manner regardless of their lifestyle that they quit attending church. That also includes "those others' whose beliefs differ. Because I or others believe we are told to not do certain things somehow it is acceptable to make their beliefs suspect,hypocritical and self righteous. After all we do know even the "most righteous" among us has something. 

I have belonged to the same church since 1947 I am the last original member. In that time just about any issue you name has happened. Some serious and some just plain ridiculous. As many times as some self righteous person has caused a problem the same is true for those that yell the loudest about those awful christians that are so judgemental. By actual statements,snide comments or implication they are judged by the non judging crowd as  judgemental and self righteous..

If someone were to ask me what I believe the bible says about pork products my  response would not be based on  those that  I know that may have eaten chips. 

A few years ago I got blindsided by a triple whammy in church. All done by those that find the opinions of others to be unchristian judging.

Our boys are all scattered and rarely do we have all of them together in our home church.  One member that had not known my boys when younger  noticed the four. It is obvious they are brothers .One member made it her mission out of the blue to approach me and ask me if all of my sons were members of the church. When I said yes,she actually told me how surprised she was that someone like me could successfully raise four sons that all remained in the church.  Prior to that as I walked into the foyer a kind non judgemental lady reached over and attempted to pull the skirt of my dress lower.Letting me know I was a mother and about time I started dressing like one. My dress was no more than an inch above the knee,long sleeved and turtle neck. This was not one of the "stiff necked others"

Downstairs getting ready for potluck a lady I had known since childhood commented to me that it was so nice to see all my boys together. Adding that she was amazed that she had never been able to hear anything bad about my boys. Why should she try I have no idea but she was very sensitive about anything concerning her children.

Should any of that justify  me responding to others in that manner? Or let them know they are not quite the christian they attempt to convince others they are. Does it make some feel better about their lifestyle whatever it may be to focus on "those others" rather than simply  state their belief or opinion?

[GayatfootofCross]

2 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

Yes - there's the duck debate; the tuna debate; the swordfish debate, and others.

I grew up being taught that tuna was "unclean". Then in university I roomed with an orthodox, kosher Jew. Tuna was a regular part of his diet. When I got regular internet access in the early 2000s, I did my own research and discovered that opinions differed.

Tuna!

wow..I never heard that

I have seen tuna fish swimming in giant Aquariums that I have visited and pretty sure it has fins and scales.

I will from now on keep my ears opened.

[Gail]

When the Bible says:

Romans 14:17

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 

 

Why do we go on so about meat and drink? Especially when it is contrasted with righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Which are you most desiring? 

[bonnie]

14 minutes ago, Gail said:

When the Bible says:

Romans 14:17

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 

 

Why do we go on so about meat and drink? Especially when it is contrasted with righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Which are you most desiring? 

If that text can stand alone as the answer it probably would be best and more accurate to dispense any prohibition on any unclean food,alcohol,tobacco,etc. Most I think would say that they desire to be in the kingdom . Some would be greatly relieved it says biblically  that we can continue to eat,drink,smoke what we wish and indulge in whatever relational lifestyle we choose. and still be part of God's kingdom