Is Eating Pork Wrong?

[BobRyan]

You claim that SINCE Christ died on the cross we don't need to look at and obey Lev 19:19 the way we need to Look at and obey Lev 19:18.

I claim that NOTHING about the cross annuls or abolishes Lev 19:19

Originally Posted by BobRyan
What I said is that EITHER ANSWER would not solve your problem in Lev 11 because NEITHER is an exegetical review of Lev 11!

Obviously.

Christ did not die on the cross to change the nature of seeds or plants.

Obviously.

Christ did not die on the cross to change the nature of cloth --

Obviously.

Obviously - I keep going to that point and you keep saying I am beating around the bush.

Your argument is "WE DON't Keep every single commandment and WE MUST be right in some way ... so whenever we discover why that is really valid -- then maybe it will be valid to pick and choose our way through Lev 11"

Then you claim that you can not follow this point

Now, you've totally lost me.
We asked you for a SIMPLE YES or NO; not "going to that point". All you're doing is obfuscating the whole question so you can throw back some charge that we are "ignoring" parts of the Bible.

How in the world can you be confused when I address your own argument???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I claim we should READ Lev 11 AND follow it.

I claim we should READ the bible AND follow it.

I contrast this "READ AND ACCEPT Lev 11" idea with your own approach of "find an excuse with the seeds of Lev 19:19 to try and escape following Lev 11". And I summarize the flaw in your model this way --

Quote:

Your argument is nether exegesis NOR Bible study - it is wishful thinking regarding a pick-and-choose approach to scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

You then use a "blind debate tactic" -- pretending not to notice that myh "read and study and aCCPET Lev 11" is actually promoting Bible study, READING AND accepting -- Lev 11.

Eric said
No YOUR argument is not exegesis nor study, but dodging simple questions. You still have not given one single scripture teaching your ideas

How in the world can Lev 11 NOT be "one scripture " in favor of Lev 11??

How is Rom 3;31 NOT ONE scripture in favor of ESTABLISHING the Law of God by our faith?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Eric said
I see no other Christian keeping sacrifices. Should I still keep them because I shouldn't "ignore" them just because others are?

Try to follow your own argument for a second. You are basing acceptance or rejection of the Word of God on what others do.

But in my case you complain that I am honoring a part of God's Word that you would prefer to Ignore.


The point I was making in my responses is that this line of argument based on Lev 19:19 (a NOT LEV 11 topic) does NOTHING to support your turning a blind eye to Lev 11 No matter WHICH view you take of Lev 19:19 after claiming Lev 19:18 is VALID for us to read and obey!!

THE POINT is that you have NO biblical argument at all here - you just appeal to "people's desires to ignore texts of scripture".

AS IF your ignoring Lev 19:19 justifies someone else ignoring God's commands against taking God's name in vain.

AT BEST you have a kind of jelly doughnut argument of the form "he did it so we all can do it" which is NOT a form of exegesis - is NOT a form of Bible PROOF.

AT WORST you simply appeal to Lev 19:19 and I show you WHY God's idea was "CORRECT AFTER ALL".

But in NEITHER case does your argument stand!!

 

[BobRyan]

When a Christian comes along who believes in atheist darwinism and chooses to ignore Genesis 1 through 6 because it so pleases them -- do you THEN have an excuse to Ignore Lev 11 because it so pleases you??

I.e. If it is right to reject some part of the Bible without proof - simply by tradition or practice or preference - then it may be fine to reject any other part as it pleases you on the SAME basis.



Is that kind of argument exegesis? Is it Bible study at all?? Then why do you do it??

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

Is that kind of argument exegesis? Is it Bible study at all?? Then why do you do it??

Does your type size enlarge as does your frustration?

 

[Eric B]

And so... the place where God tells us that we can now eat humans, rats and bats (you know - all that He said is "not food" in Lev 11) is....??

No place?

Hmmm.. that is what I thought.

In Christ,

Bob

Col.2:16 , Rom.14. Now go on and read your interpretations made to get around their teachings into it.:BangHead:

The rule states that whatever has a split hoof and chews cud is ok for food.

I am guessing that you must know some people have those features but you "guessed" that Lev 11 did not mean to include them as food "all by yourself" --

Well as much as you may want to avoid this additional inconvenient fact of scripture the same rule used in Lev 11 to say that bats and rats are "not food" also delcares all humans to be "not food" for humans.

My decision is to read and accept the Bible - instead of ignoring it.

11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which all of you shall eat among all the
beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parts the hoof, and is cloven footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that shall all of
you eat.

Is man considered a BEAST in the Bible? You, the great enemy of "evilutionism"; do you now call man an "animal"?

In Lev 11 even CLEAN animals that die of disease or of themselves are UNCLEAN in that dead decaying rotting form -- you say 'this is not a health issue because they are unclean".

How ridiculous!!


Quote:
That is ONE example of something that is "unhealthy"
What? You will allow one tiny spot in Lev 11 to show some reason? You are admitting that Christ the Creator actually knew what He was talking about on this tiny spec of fact listed in Lev 11 by HIM?

I applaud your step forward on this discussion!

Nice going.

After telling us that the terms clean and unclean in Lev 11 do not show us that it is unhealthy to eat "what is not food for humans" you are forced to admit that you are wrong?

I am truly surprised.

You did not even address all that I said there. I did not say "dead decaying flesh being unclean proves "unclean" is about health"; I said that was ONE EXAMPLE where God made something unhealthy unclean. Again, poisonous plants are unhealthy, but never declared "unclean". A cow with Mad Cow's disease is unhealthy, but it does not become "unclean" according to Leviticus. Look it up in the Hebew dctionary. "tame" mean "'foul' in a religious or ceremonial sense". Nothing about "health". Use the Bible's own definitions, not your made up ones.

Quote:
Then it contradicts all of the accusations of "ignoring the Word of God". Lev.23 ceremonies are still "the Word of God", yet you do not keep them. Are you "ignoring the Word of God"? No, you believe they have been superseded by Christ
This is the heart and soul of your error. You believe we can "make stuff up" about what is not valid or ended or does not apply EVEN without having any scripture to STATE THAT explicitly.

As in your "two kinds of seed changed at the cross" mythology.

As in your "Ignore Lev 11 even though scripture does not tell you to" arguments.

The example I give from Lev 23 is EXPLICITLY addressed by Heb 10 - nothing left to the 'imagination'. You can fully exegete Heb 10 and SEE it.

Regardless. You accuse anyone who doesn't keep a law you believe is still in effect of "ignoring the word of God", yet you do not keep Lev.23 because another scripture says it has ended. Yet the scriptures that say the other laws have ended you reinterpret to mean other things. Still, it is highly unfair to say that a person "ignores the word of God" because they believe a command is not in effect. They may possibly be mistaken, but then there are annual holy day keeping groups who say you are mistaken for "ignoring" the annual days, and who dismiss the NT scriptures you use to claim they are abolished.

You claim that SINCE Christ died on the cross we don't need to look at and obey Lev 19:19 the way we need to Look at and obey Lev 19:18.

I claim that NOTHING about the cross annuls or abolishes Lev 19:19

Again, DOES THAT INCLUDE MIXING FABRICS IN YOUR CLOTHES? You're apparently not even reading the whole verse!

Then you claim that you can not follow this point

How in the world can you be confused when I address your own argument???

You then use a "blind debate tactic" -- pretending not to notice that myh "read and study and aCCPET Lev 11" is actually promoting Bible study, READING AND accepting -- Lev 11.

I'm not pretending anything. You're talking in convoluted circles to confuse the whole discussion and get out of the question that was posed to you (which you have still not answered completely more than just "seeds" are mentioned in that verse) and turn the argument around and put us back on the stand (as usual).
Answer the REST of the question on Lev.19:19, already, and stop ducking dodging and twisting your way out of it!

How in the world can Lev 11 NOT be "one scripture " in favor of Lev 11??

How is Rom 3;31 NOT ONE scripture in favor of ESTABLISHING the Law of God by our faith?

LEviticus 11 is not its own proof of being continued in the NT anymore than Lev.23. Establishing the Law does not include it anymore than it includes Lev.23 either. You don't keep Lev.23, yet the Law is still "established".

Try to follow your own argument for a second. You are basing acceptance or rejection of the Word of God on what others do.

But in my case you complain that I am honoring a part of God's Word that you would prefer to Ignore.

The point I was making in my responses is that this line of argument based on Lev 19:19 (a NOT LEV 11 topic) does NOTHING to support your turning a blind eye to Lev 11 No matter WHICH view you take of Lev 19:19 after claiming Lev 19:18 is VALID for us to read and obey!!

THE POINT is that you have NO biblical argument at all here - you just appeal to "people's desires to ignore texts of scripture".

AS IF your ignoring Lev 19:19 justifies someone else ignoring God's commands against taking God's name in vain.

AT BEST you have a kind of jelly doughnut argument of the form "he did it so we all can do it" which is NOT a form of exegesis - is NOT a form of Bible PROOF.

AT WORST you simply appeal to Lev 19:19 and I show you WHY God's idea was "CORRECT AFTER ALL".

But in NEITHER case does your argument stand!!

When a Christian comes along who believes in atheist darwinism and chooses to ignore Genesis 1 through 6 because it so pleases them -- do you THEN have an excuse to Ignore Lev 11 because it so pleases you??

I.e. If it is right to reject some part of the Bible without proof - simply by tradition or practice or preference - then it may be fine to reject any other part as it pleases you on the SAME basis.

Is that kind of argument exegesis? Is it Bible study at all?? Then why do you do it??

Instead of answering our question, you just pulled another bait and switch tactic, which I went for, again. "what other people do" was not MY idea; YOU brought into the discussion; and I only took it and turned it back around. But of course, all you proceed to do is respond as if I was actually using that argument.

 

[BobRyan]

#1. It is fact that you introduced a convoluted "seeds and cloth" argument in Lev 19:19 when the point was Lev 11.

#2. It is a fact of this thread that You proposed that seeing someon ignore Lev 19:19 might ALSO give us the excuse to ignore Lev 11.

#3. It is a fact seen on this thread - that I consistenly claim that your SWITCH from Lev 11 to Lev 19:19 is a pointless tactic that does nothing ot prove your case in Lev 11 where you seek to ignore God's prohibition against eating humans, rats, cats, bats and yes even CLEAN animals that have died of disease.

What is amazing here is that in your own rabbit trail on Lev 19:19 you have to admit that Lev 19:18 IS TO BE OBEYED "Love your neighbor as yourself".

IF you could ever make the case that God WANTS us to ignore Lev 19:19 (and I don't think you have a text for that) you would STILL have no excuse for using THAT to ignore Lev 19:18 or even.... Lev 11.

I keep pointing out this glaring flaw in your argument - you keep ignoring it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Lev 11 only allows us to eat those animals that have a split hoof and chew the cud. Your argument that this does not apply to humans AS IF Lev 11 FORBIDS the eating of humans -- is really silly.

You are not supposed to eat humans -- do you reject the fact that Lev 11 provides a rule that would condemn cannibalism? Is it your claim that God's own rule AGAINST it - as good as it is -- must be ignored so we can appeal instead to your own inner-nature as LAW NOT God???!!

Let the Chapter stand as it is - read it as it is - accept it as it is. In times of extreme crisis the people of Israel DID eat unclean animals and even humans.

God condemned all of that in Lev 11.

You are so anxious to try to get God's Word in Lev 11 "to mean little or nothing" that time after time your argument is brought up short as you deny it promotes health and you deny that it prohibits cannibalism.

It not only says what we CAN eat - it also gives a FEW examples of what that rule implies that we must NOT eat. But it does not list EVERYTHING on the planet that does not "have a split hoof and chew the cud".

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Regardless. You accuse anyone who doesn't keep a law you believe is still in effect of "ignoring the word of God", yet you do not keep Lev.23 because another scripture says it has ended. Yet the scriptures that say the other laws have ended you reinterpret to mean other things. Still, it is highly unfair to say that a person "ignores the word of God" because they believe a command is not in effect

here you use reason and logic well. This is a great argument -- if only you were following the course of action you suggest here.

IF you were making an exegetical argument from some text in the NT saying we ARE to eat humans or we ARE to eat rats - we would be having a different discussion altogether.

But all you are doing its talking about one verse you don't like (Lev 19:19 that happens to be next to Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor") to justify ignoring another verse you don't like. Your "seeds and cloth" argument is being used against Lev 11 which says nothing about seeds or cloth -- rather Lev 11 is speaking against eating rats, cats, dogs and bats.

You have just GOT to ask yourself "why in the world did we flee some text in the NT that might actually say EAT RATS and latch on to the seeds debate" -- and there I would say "good question - why did you do it"?!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

Tragic,

Well what is sin?

Separation from God, or that which separates us from God.

 

[Eric B]

#1. It is fact that you introduced a convoluted "seeds and cloth" argument in Lev 19:19 when the point was Lev 11.

#2. It is a fact of this thread that You proposed that seeing someon ignore Lev 19:19 might ALSO give us the excuse to ignore Lev 11.

#3. It is a fact seen on this thread - that I consistenly claim that your SWITCH from Lev 11 to Lev 19:19 is a pointless tactic that does nothing ot prove your case in Lev 11 where you seek to ignore God's prohibition against eating humans, rats, cats, bats and yes even CLEAN animals that have died of disease.

What is amazing here is that in your own rabbit trail on Lev 19:19 you have to admit that Lev 19:18 IS TO BE OBEYED "Love your neighbor as yourself".

IF you could ever make the case that God WANTS us to ignore Lev 19:19 (and I don't think you have a text for that) you would STILL have no excuse for using THAT to ignore Lev 19:18 or even.... Lev 11.

I keep pointing out this glaring flaw in your argument - you keep ignoring it.

In Christ,

Bob

#1. You keep accusing us of "ignoring the Word of God" when we see a command in Leviticus we do not keep. But you do not keep every single command in Leviticus. You say you keep your seeds separate, but you have still not answered about mixed linens. If you do not keep that command, then you yourself prove that not every command in Leviticus that is not a sacrifice is to be kept.

#2. It is not "if I see someone ignore it". I don't even eat pork, remember! I don't plant seeds either. The point is, if you dont keep every command in Leviticus, then why are you here telling me to, basically? This is not about me, this time; the question was asked to YOU, which you keep dodging.

#3. Just like you switched from v.19 to v.18, which nobody mentioned. We all know there are some commands in Leviticus that are still in effect, and some that are not. The debate is on which. You answered part of the question; now answer the rest of it. Do you avoid mixed fabrics? Forget what you think I'm trying to do with Lev.11 from that. Just answer the question; THEN we can discuss how it affects other parts of the Law, and why.

Lev 11 only allows us to eat those animals that have a split hoof and chew the cud. Your argument that this does not apply to humans AS IF Lev 11 FORBIDS the eating of humans -- is really silly.

You are not supposed to eat humans -- do you reject the fact that Lev 11 provides a rule that would condemn cannibalism? Is it your claim that God's own rule AGAINST it - as good as it is -- must be ignored so we can appeal instead to your own inner-nature as LAW NOT God???!!

Let the Chapter stand as it is - read it as it is - accept it as it is. In times of extreme crisis the people of Israel DID eat unclean animals and even humans.

God condemned all of that in Lev 11.

You are so anxious to try to get God's Word in Lev 11 "to mean little or nothing" that time after time your argument is brought up short as you deny it promotes health and you deny that it prohibits cannibalism.

It not only says what we CAN eat - it also gives a FEW examples of what that rule implies that we must NOT eat. But it does not list EVERYTHING on the planet that does not "have a split hoof and chew the cud".

Obviously.

I would thin the reason we do not eat other humans is not because of a "split hoof" rule that most do not even follow anyway! There are some tribes that are so depraved that they have taken to that, but most people know not to eat other humans. Humans are to be given proper burials, if possible (and I forget if the Law instructed on that).
But again, we have another question you are dodging:
Is the Bible classifying man as a "beast"?

here you use reason and logic well. This is a great argument -- if only you were following the course of action you suggest here.

IF you were making an exegetical argument from some text in the NT saying we ARE to eat humans or we ARE to eat rats - we would be having a different discussion altogether.

But all you are doing its talking about one verse you don't like (Lev 19:19 that happens to be next to Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor") to justify ignoring another verse you don't like. Your "seeds and cloth" argument is being used against Lev 11 which says nothing about seeds or cloth -- rather Lev 11 is speaking against eating rats, cats, dogs and bats.

You have just GOT to ask yourself "why in the world did we flee some text in the NT that might actually say EAT RATS and latch on to the seeds debate" -- and there I would say "good question - why did you do it"?!!

Nobody's saying any of that stuff. Nobody wants to eat humans, cats, dogs and bats. I do not eat pork, why why do you keep talking about "which verse I do not like"? I'm already basically living according to Lev.11, so why would I not "like it"? For those who do eat it, they are not sinning, because the NT says not to judge on these things.
You keep turning the discussions back to these motives you assign me, and it has long been enough already! Deal with what I say, and answer the questions given you without turning it back on someone else for once.

 

[James]

Fine discussion, very fine indeed...............Think i'll go on out to the sty an ranse off a pig, shoot em twixt the eyes an have a good ole BBQ !

Ya'll keep up the good work, I'll be eating something God created for me thats good ifn properly seasoned.........Might even fry-up me some good old Catfish, not that old bassa stuff though, that's just nasty.:godisgood:

 

[LeBuick]

Fine discussion, very fine indeed...............Think i'll go on out to the sty an ranse off a pig, shoot em twixt the eyes an have a good ole BBQ !:

Hey, make them eat sauce first and see what that does to the meat... :laugh: :wavey: :thumbs:

 

[xdisciplex]

Once you've tasted lamb you'll never want pork again. Lamb is the best meat ever.
So delicate. :love2:

 

[BobRyan]

Is 66
15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh[/b], And those slain by the LORD will be many.
17 ""Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD.
18 ""For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.

Fine discussion, very fine indeed...............Think i'll go on out to the sty an ranse off a pig, shoot em twixt the eyes an have a good ole BBQ !

Rom 1 --

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.[/b]
20 For since [b]the creation of the world His invisible attributes[/b], His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [/b]
21 For even though they knew God[/b], they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations,
and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed
animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever. Amen.

The natural heart of man turns to it's own devices rather than the Word of God -- "no matter what the Word of God says to warn it away", but God says "they are without excuse" in doing so.

.........Might even fry-up me some good old Catfish,[/quote]

Sir you believe scripture to be abolished instead of established in faith. That is a critical error. The New Covenant writes the Law of God on the HEART - instead of rejoicing in rebellion it is the born-again new-creation joy to "Walk as HE walked" 1John 2:3-7


Rats, cats, dogs, bats and humans may be ok for pagans to chew on - but in Lev 11 God condemns these as "not fit for humans" to eat -- not edible.


Check it out.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ya'll keep up the good work, I'll be eating something God created for me thats good

That is the whole point!!

Is 66
15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh[/b], And those slain by the LORD will be many.
17 ""Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, will come to an end altogether,'' declares the LORD.
18 ""For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.



Rats, cats, dogs and bats (and humans) simply are not in that list of things that God approves as food for humans according to Lev 11.

That is why God reserves that future end for those who eat mice and destible things.

Such a hardship for some Christians to bear - and yet it is true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Once you've tasted lamb you'll never want pork again. Lamb is the best meat ever.
So delicate. :love2:

Now this is an excellent point on behalf of the Creator. Why turn from beef steak, Lamb, deer, salmon etc to rats, cats, human-flesh, bats, doggies, squid ..etc??

 

[BobRyan]

Eric said --
#1. You keep accusing us of "ignoring the Word of God" when we see a command in Leviticus we do not keep. But you do not keep every single command in Leviticus. You say you keep your seeds separate, but you have still not answered about mixed linens. If you do not keep that command, then you yourself prove that not every command in Leviticus that is not a sacrifice is to be kept.

I continually address this point - and you continually ignore it.

I keep saying that I could simply IGNORE Lev 19:18 OR Lev 19:19 and it would "PROVE NOTHING" from a doctrinal point of view. My practice is not "doctrinal proof" of something.

You keep arguing that my practice WOULD PROVE some doctrinal position on what is or is not to be kept in scripture.

I keep challenging you on that point - and you simply ignore it -- declaring that it is "PROOF" that we do not need to keep some part of the OT.

How can my PRACTICE be valid PROOF either FOR or against any doctrine???

Eric said --
#2. The point is, if you dont keep every command in Leviticus, then why are you here telling me to, basically? This is not about me, this time; the question was asked to YOU, which you keep dodging.

EVEN NT authors argue that ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiriation from God - AND IS profitable for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof. YOU argue "YES but if I ever catch you failing to submit to any point in all of scripture then you can never hold up scripture to Christians as something to be kept, honored and obeyed".

Are you sure you are totally comfortable with that as a doctrinal position against upholding the Word of God -- ALL the Word of God????

Is sinless perfection the prerequisite for every bible teacher, pastor, evangelist, parent, Christian neighbor???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

#3. Just like you switched from v.19 to v.18, which nobody mentioned. We all know there are some commands in Leviticus that are still in effect, and some that are not. The debate is on which.

I have given my answer on Civil laws - they only apply while the Theocracy - the government enforcing those civil laws - exists.

I have given you my answer on MORAL LAWS - such as the ten commandments that define what sin is -- they STILL exist!

I have given you my answer on ceremonial laws - such as the ANNUAL Sabbaths of Lev 23 based on animal sacrifices. When God states in Heb 10 that He has ended those sacrifices then the laws based upon them are completed.

I have given you my answre on the HEALTH laws of Lev (for example) where decaying flesh, humans, rats ,cats bats ets are forbidden as food for humans. I point out that christ did not die on the cross to alter the biology of rats making them FOOD for humans NOR to allow humans to eat human flesh. It is ALL not fit for food JUST as our Creator stated in Lev 11.

So if the argument is "WHICH do we keep and on what basis" I have given it - time after time after time.

In answer to Lev 19:18 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it. "Love your neighber as yourself"

In answer to Lev 19:19 - I have no text of scripture justifying someone who seeks to ignore it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I would thin the reason we do not eat other humans is not because of a "split hoof" rule that most do not even follow anyway! There are some tribes that are so depraved that they have taken to that, but most people know not to eat other humans. Humans are to be given proper burials, if possible (and I forget if the Law instructed on that).

The Bible says you are unclean if you touch a human corpse OR a CLEAN animal corpse. The Bible states that both clean and unclean animals are a health hazard if they are decaying.

Lev 11.

Also according to the rule of Lev 11 certain creatures are not fit for food -- and by the rules it states - that includes human flesh. This is obvious to the reader since the rule for land animals is "Divided hoof and chews the cud". There is no escaping the fact that humans "obviously" do not fet into that group.

One may choose to ignore it saying "well I would not do that anyway no matter what God says - so I have a higher authority here -- ME"

But in the case of Israel they DID resort to eating human flesh when food was scarce -- so the idea that "ME" is a better and higher authority than God on this -- is false.

In Christ,

Bob