Do pork-eaters go to hell?!

[BobRyan]

You would have us believe that God tempts us to sin. God did not tempt Peter to sin,

This was a vision not a real life scenario of tying up your oldest son and offering him as a human sacrifice on an altar of a high mountain - there were no real rats there for Peter to eat. Peter ate no rats.

Neither does Peter ever say in his THRICE given interpretation of the vision "God showed me how to eat sewer rats".

Neither does Peter ever say to God "OH NO Lord for I have never preached the gospel to gentiles" AS IF that was a test of faith or sign of obedience. No not even ONCE!

Finally it is clear that PETER did not take as from Chrsit "we are supposed to be eating sewer rats now".

NEITHER does Peter say "OH Lord your Son told me to start eating sewer rats but I have been unnable to obey on that point - please pardon me just for a bit longer while I try to adjust to the idea of eating sewer rats instead of beefsteak! Just a bit more mercy then I will get to eating rats I promise".

The twist and bend of scripture that those need who want to promote the rats, cats, dogs bats diet for Christians is entirely missing from the text!!

 

[BobRyan]

@ Bob

Did you answer my question if you never eat pork or if you only try to avoid it?
But what if you go for a pizza for example? Are you really able to only eat things which are absolutely 100% free from pork? What if there are a few pork molecules in the food and you are not able to remove them?

Pork molecules!!??:laugh: :applause:

Remember that the Tent of Meeting - the earhtly sanctuary had a ceiling in the desert of porpoise (unclean animal) and camel (unclean animal). Elijah wore Camel's hair clothing (unclean animal). Your dog and cat are unclean animas. No chewing on them for a late night snack!raying:

But in smelling them - you are taking in "animal molecules" sir.

If God wanted us to live in a world where the molecules of unclean animals were never inhaled -- taken in...(and humans are also unclean I remind you - no chewing on humans) - then we would have had to live in a very very different world than the one we live in.

 

[steaver]

This was a vision not a real life scenario of tying up your oldest son and offering him as a human sacrifice on an altar of a high mountain - there were no real rats there for Peter to eat. Peter ate no rats.

Neither does Peter ever say in his THRICE given interpretation of the vision "God showed me how to eat sewer rats".

Neither does Peter ever say to God "OH NO Lord for I have never preached the gospel to gentiles" AS IF that was a test of faith or sign of obedience. No not even ONCE!

Finally it is clear that PETER did not take as from Chrsit "we are supposed to be eating sewer rats now".

NEITHER does Peter say "OH Lord your Son told me to start eating sewer rats but I have been unnable to obey on that point - please pardon me just for a bit longer while I try to adjust to the idea of eating sewer rats instead of beefsteak! Just a bit more mercy then I will get to eating rats I promise".

The twist and bend of scripture that those need who want to promote the rats, cats, dogs bats diet for Christians is entirely missing from the text!!

That sure is alot of words to say nothing about YOUR previous words that..."#2. Peter continues to argue in the NT Acts 10 that he has NEVER eaten anything unclean and even refuses a direct command to do so as a test of faith and obedience".

#1) If you want to refer to Abraham, Abraham OBEYED God's seemingly strange command. Peter disobeyed God's seemingly strange command. If it was a test, as you say Abraham also received a test, then Peter failed rather than obeyed.

#2) You say Peter refused a direct command from God as a test and you say eating unclean foods is a sin which was part of the test. James says God does not tempt men with sin.

#3) If it was a test of obedience as you say, Peter was placed in a no win situation by God. Obey and sin by eating unclean, or sin by disobeying a direct command.

Your theory fails.

God Bless!

 

[EdSutton]

I wonder why BobRyan seems to ignore or conveniently forget that Abraham had no prohibition, in fact an OK for, his so-called "kitty sandwiches" or "mouse soup"? But Ol' Abe, like Noah, did have a prohibition against "blood".

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Bring forth abundantly in the earth
And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants[b] after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. 11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” (Gen. 9:1 - NKJV, my emphases to draw attention)

BobRyan, are you somehow suggesting that God "wised up"? Hmmm!

Go ahead, xdisciplex, enjoy your ham sandwich, if you so choose and if it does not go against your own conscience.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

All you pork eaters let me know, will you???? Joke!!!! ha ha ha

tastes like chicken

 

[EdSutton]

All you pork eaters let me know, will you???? Joke!!!! ha ha ha

tastes like chicken

Isn't pork "the other white meat"? And if it tasted like chicken, who would want a ham sandwich, in the first place? :laugh:

Sorry you are probably having to avoid such 'goodies', these days. But I too, know how that is.

Ed

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
This was a vision not a real life scenario of tying up your oldest son and offering him as a human sacrifice on an altar of a high mountain - there were no real rats there for Peter to eat. Peter ate no rats.

Neither does Peter ever say in his THRICE given interpretation of the vision "God showed me how to eat sewer rats".

Neither does Peter ever say to God "OH NO Lord for I have never preached the gospel to gentiles" AS IF that was a test of faith or sign of obedience. No not even ONCE!

Finally it is clear that PETER did not take as from Chrsit "we are supposed to be eating sewer rats now".

NEITHER does Peter say "OH Lord your Son told me to start eating sewer rats but I have been unnable to obey on that point - please pardon me just for a bit longer while I try to adjust to the idea of eating sewer rats instead of beefsteak! Just a bit more mercy then I will get to eating rats I promise".

The twist and bend of scripture that those need who want to promote the rats, cats, dogs bats diet for Christians is entirely missing from the text!!

Steaver said
That sure is alot of words to say nothing

I kinda wondered how long it would take you to post message that completely avoided every inconvenient detail highlighted above in the case with Peter in Acts 10.

Steaver said -
#2) You say Peter refused a direct command from God as a test and you say eating unclean foods is a sin

#1. Sorry to have to inform you of this - but I DID NOT Write Lev 11. So your "YOU say eating unclean foods is a sin" would only be true IF "I" was the author of Lev 11 -- and that would be GOD.

hmm - I think I am being flattered here.

#2. I never said Peter was being tested by God - I said Peter gives an ANSWER as though that is what he is thinking.

Note the inconvenient detail "HE does NOT SAY -- Oh NO Lord for I have NEVER witnessed to Gentiles" as IF THAt would considered a point of faithful obedience!

Apparently Peter "gets the obvious" just when everyone else pretends not to --

Steaver said -
#3) If it was a test of obedience as you say, Peter was placed in a no win situation by God. Obey and sin by eating unclean, or sin by disobeying a direct command.

I think this is where you pretend not to notice another "inconvenient detail" in the post I gave above - where I referenced God doing this very thing to Abraham. So Peter may well have been thinking this is what was happening.

But in this case - it is clear that God is showing Peter that the Jewish tradition that Gentiles are as unclean as GOD SAID unclean animals are - is a false teaching.

 

[BobRyan]

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,

EVEN AS the green planst are deadly poisonous in some cases and edible in other cases (as already stated here) God is CONSISTENT in not only telling us which is which in Lev 11 but also in showing us that this SAME DISTINCTION existed in Gen 6-7. You know JUST LIKE the plants - some poisonous and some edible.

Pretty hard concept - but if I repeat it 12 more times -- somebody is going to get the point - I just know it.:applause:

In Christ,

Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - having pointed out the obvious repeatedly on this thread -- one more obvious point needs to be made.

I did not bring this topic up.

 

[steaver]

(Bob)....I said Peter gives an ANSWER as though that is what he is thinking........

Apparently Peter "gets the obvious" just when everyone else pretends not to --

Well you got me there Bob, I did not know that you have special biblical exegesis as to what Peter was thinking. I can only go by what is written. You must be right then. You probably have a special gift, like Ellen was given to teach us all exactly what these Bible writers were thinking so we can all fully understand the correct interpretation and apllication of scripture.

Hey, if you don't want to eat pork then that is no skin off of my nose. But I'm pretty certain your doctrine teaching others that it is sin will vanish in the flames at your reward cerimony :thumbs:

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

(Bob)...I think this is where you pretend not to notice another "inconvenient detail" in the post I gave above - where I referenced God doing this very thing to Abraham. So Peter may well have been thinking this is what was happening.

And I will conclude that if Peter was thinking about Abraham's test and how Abraham obeyed and was called God's friend, then Peter would have obeyed the first time without hesitation believing God would stop him if it was really wrong.

I would drop the "thinking" angle :thumbs:

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

And I will conclude that if Peter was thinking about Abraham's test and how Abraham obeyed and was called God's friend, then Peter would have obeyed the first time without hesitation believing God would stop him if it was really wrong.

Lot's of IF and "Would have". The point is that Peter could NOT conclude that God would not ask for something that contradicted scripture in Lev 11 - as perhaps a symbol of something just as Isaac was a symbol of Christ - though the act was murder in contradiction to the Ten Commandments. This totally debunks the claim that Peter could never think that God was directing him to do something in direct violation of scripture - as a symbol for something else.

As for what Peter would DO when confronted by a direct contradiction of scripture - no need to imagine it -- WE SEE it in Acts 10 for what he did NOT do was EAT RATS though it was brought to him THREE time. He states at the end that he was trying to figure out why God was doing that - after he had refused the directive THREE times in obedience to the Word of God in Lev 11.

And we see that when HOLDING to the Word of God (in this case in Lev 11) He ALSO does not argue rebellion as a form of faithfulness by saying "OH NO Lord for I have NEVER given the Gospel to the Gentiles".

Thus BOTH of your arguments fail.

Not only does HE NOT eat the rats. He also DOES NOT argue that by not eating rats he must still reject Gospel evangelism going to the Gentiles!!

Rather - 3 times he repeats this as the lesson of gentile EVANGELISM and NOT as the lesson of "fat rat sandwiches".

Those who want to view this as just fat-rat-sandwiches continually avoid the primary POINT of the vision as Peter stated it. Peter never argues "I had to start eating fat rats before I could evangelize gentiles".

God's point to Peter was that Peter was viewing Gentiles the way that GOD SAID to view fat rats -- as unclean.

God pointed out that this was a wrong view of Gentiles. And presto -- instead of Peter immediately chewing on rats - Peter immediately witnesses to GENTILES!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hey, if you don't want to eat pork then that is no skin off of my nose. But I'm pretty certain your doctrine teaching others that it is sin will vanish in the flames at your reward cerimony :thumbs:

God Bless!

Your funny argument only works if I am the AUTHOR of Isaiah 66. Funny but I don't think God will get singed the way you seem to suspect for authoring that statement about those who EAT rats in Is 66!

I don't think he is going to singe anyone for BELIEVING what He said there either!

As always - it is left up to me to point out the obvious on the BB.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In this exchange STeaver claims that those are good who ignore the fire and brimstone warning of God in "Isaiah 66" regarding those who eat rats.

Steaver claims it is evil to actually pay attention to that Isaiah 66 warning .

And so he stands opposed to Isaiah 66.

But also- God addresses specifically the case of those who "call evil good and call good evil" -- and so Steaver goes from one error - on to the next error.

Having begun on the wrong path Steaver - it appears that you simply elect to proceed to new errors. Why not throw away that shovel now and climb out of that ditch you are digging?

(And of course it is simply obvious that there is NO SCRIPTURE predicting a fiery judgment for those who read and heed the warning of Isaiah 66 -- as Steaver claims)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

.......after he had refused the directive THREE times in obedience to the Word of God in Lev 11.

You have two problems with your exegesis that you ignore.

#1) He disobeyed God's direct command. Unlike Abraham, whom you say Peter must have been "thinking" about.

#2) You have God tempting Peter to sin directly contradicting James.

But maybe if you say it twelve more times folks will forget about these thorny facts.

Lot's of IF and "Would have".

That's funny, like your special insight telling us what Peter was "thinking" in order to prop up your errors. :wavey:

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

In this exchange STeaver claims that those are good who ignore the fire and brimstone warning of God in "Isaiah 66" regarding those who eat rats.

Steaver claims it is evil to actually pay attention to that Isaiah 66 warning .

And so he stands opposed to Isaiah 66.

But also- God addresses specifically the case of those who "call evil good and call good evil" -- and so Steaver goes from one error - on to the next error.

Having begun on the wrong path Steaver - it appears that you simply elect to proceed to new errors. Why not throw away that shovel now and climb out of that ditch you are digging?

(And of course it is simply obvious that there is NO SCRIPTURE predicting a fiery judgment for those who read and heed the warning of Isaiah 66 -- as Steaver claims)

In Christ,

Bob

Slandering the truth of what I really said does not make you more believeable. People can actually read what I really said you know? It just makes you look desperate. Does it feel like your in quick sand as your theory goes up in smoke? Just reach out brother and we will pull you out of there! :thumbs:

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by steaver

Hey, if you don't want to eat pork then that is no skin off of my nose. But I'm pretty certain your doctrine teaching others that it is sin will vanish in the flames at your reward cerimony :thumbs:

God Bless!

Your funny argument only works if I am the AUTHOR of Isaiah 66. Funny but I don't think God will get singed the way you seem to suspect for authoring that statement about those who EAT rats in Is 66!

I don't think he is going to singe anyone for BELIEVING what He said there either!

As always - it is left up to me to point out the obvious on the BB.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jerome]

same for the commandment against taking God's name in vain.

It is for all humans. You can not sidestep this issue by saying that God's people were the Hebrews in the OT not the Philistines. God STILL was "UNCHANGING" and God still "SO LOVED THE WORLD" and God STILL had MORAL LAW for mankind defining sin.

Notice that Isaiah 66 does not condemn eating rats - just for Jews. In fact in Isaiah 66 regarding the Sabbath "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

God's Law regarding sin has always applied to MANKIND.

Paul makes the same point in Romans 3 showing that ALL MANKIND is held accountable and sinners by that same law.

In Christ,

Bob

How does the SDA church explain:

Deut. 14:21 "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. . ."

I Kings 17:4-6
"And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. So he went and did according unto the word of the LORD: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook."

 

[BobRyan]

You have two problems with your exegesis that you ignore.

#1) He disobeyed God's direct command. Unlike Abraham, whom you say Peter must have been "thinking" about.

#2) You have God tempting Peter to sin directly contradicting James.

But maybe if you say it twelve more times folks will forget about these thorny facts.

As I said - your argument #2 is equally applied to Abraham. Maybe if I say it twelve more times you will respond to that point.

But further - since Peter NEVER said he HAD eaten rats AND in his thrice repeated interpretation of the vision never says he DID eat rats (as your point 1 observes) it is clear that the LESSON Peter was taking from this (by his own explicit statement) was the lesson of GENTILE evangelism NOT the lesson of eating rats.

You admit Peter never eats rats in this scenarion. It is therefore instructive that God never says to Peter "you have failed Me - 3 times
-- what am I going to do with you?"

IN FACT when the 3 men show up at Peter's door God says "go with them" and Peter immediately goes! Peter does NOT say "OH NO Lord for I have NEVER ministered the Gospel to Gentiles!".

The lesson is immediately ACCEPTED by Peter.

As usual here Steaver - your insighs are pretty funny. Thanks for sharing sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

How does the SDA church explain:

Deut. 14:21 "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. . ."

I Kings 17:4-6
"And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. So he went and did according unto the word of the LORD: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook."

#1. No example given here is an example of eating rats.

#2. IF you are asking about eating diseased animals that die of their disease and whethr it is morally conscionable to give such poor food to others - that is a different topic altogether. I know of no SDAs that give diseased meat to strangers. But even in that case God is not pointing to eating "rats that die of themselves".

#3. I think the point of Isaiah 66 still holds -- God is predicting a real fact of the future judgment - not "make believe".

As the OP points out

Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

In Christ,

Bob