| Author | Message | ||
| Jenntooth Registered user Username: Jenntooth Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2004 |
My mom was telling me about a women's conference she went to yesterday where a woman spoke about upholding EW's health message. She said that it helps to keep your mind clear and focused on God. This woman said it will be especially important in the End Times so we can stay focused on God. I told her that I disagree, saying that yes, eating healthy is important but keeping these rules are not what is most important. It is God and God alone. I'm wondering if I should bother to pursue this and direct her to Galations 3 and Paul's other writings to the churches? When "End Times" come, is God really asking us to run for the hills? I believe that He asks us to stand for Him and not run and hide. We must stand up for what we believe even if this means persecution. Look at Paul and John the Baptist to name a few. Why are SDA's so intent on running away. I think they're scared because they don't know God. Any thoughts? | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 32 Registered: 12-2003 |
I got sucked down that wind pipe for awhile some years back after hearing a presentation along those lines. What it did for me was keep me SO distracted with extreme dietary practices that I had little time left to think about God. It's fine to maintain a healthy and moderate lifestyle but saying it is a neccesary requirement in our relationship with God (for 'clarity' of mind or whatever reason) is legalism. God holds onto us and keeps the connection open and active regardless of what we might eat or not eat. It is his spirit that gives us clarity and insight to understand spiritual things, not our diets. I get a little agitated by this kind of stuff as I know how consuming it can be when a person starts down that path. I would certainly try to direct your mother to Galatians 3, etc. to counteract whatever she's hearing. Do you happen to know who the speaker was? Just curious. | ||
| Jenntooth Registered user Username: Jenntooth Post Number: 4 Registered: 4-2004 |
Sorry, she didn't tell me the name. It is legalism, I agree. I get very worked up about statments like this from family and friends. My husband tells me to make sure I don't alienate them by telling them they are wrong, but if I don't say something, isn't it just as bad? I think I may have posted the first message in the wrong area. Sorry, I'm kind of new to the board. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 171 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jentooth, I would suggest you show your mom Galatians. You can be low key and non-pressured, but at least she should see it. The Bible never says we will run to the hills. In fact, the main mention of "hills" is when the wicked cry for the rocks to fall on them. As Richard points out, running to the hills would be pointless in the age of GPS systems and infra-red technology. Satellites can photograph the earth with enough resolution that people can read license plates on cars. Etc. Food just isn't going to give us spiritual discernment or even, necessarily, good health. In fact, I suspect that our spiritual/mental health may have as much to do with our general health as our diet. Just my thought. Praise God for holding our lives in his hand no matter what comes! Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 277 Registered: 7-2003 |
Besides that, if I read EGWs "health" message correctly, it deprives the body of very needed nutrients that would leave one considerably worse off...something close to dead. Now, I know we can get fortified everything, but I don't recall vitamins in her plan. But that seems to be the minor issue given she makes spirituality related to diet. I know B says he is "closer to God" because he is a vegetarian. And he insists those scriptures mentioned above and others that say there are no longer unclean foods are "taken out of context". I think it was in another thread where someone said that if someone doesn't want to see the truth, they won't see it ... and that is certainly true for B. | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2003 |
You are right about the 'EGW health message' causing nutritional deprivation. I have a friend who suffers from permanent nerve damage resulting from restrictive dietary practices (possible B12 deficiency) and another who was running into some B12 related problems but resolved them in time. I think anything extreme has the potential to be dangerous. | ||
| Conniegodenick Registered user Username: Conniegodenick Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2004 |
It's sad that SDA's make health/vegetarianism to be a sign of spirituality. Like the fellow who created the ellenwhite.org website (his name escapes me at the moment) I was once an ellen white devotee. I swallowed hook line and sinker the notion that we must be ever more vigilant about what we eat. I remember wondering if I was destined to spend the rest of my life making granola, bread, "fake" cheese and then even my own version of McKay's Chicken seasoning. I remember wondering if this was what life was all about! Praise God I have been delivered from all that nonsense. Do I still eat healthy? Yes, but not because I'm trying to earn my way to heaven. And when I DO eat something that might not be the healthiest I have ZERO guilt which for me is a sign of extreme maturation. I used to be known as one of the "health reformers" in the church to the point that if I met someone in the grocery store they would try to hide the contents of their cart. (Yes, I WAS judgmental--just following in good ole' Ellen's footsteps.) My biggest challenge is that I'm still vegetarian. No, I no longer thing that I won't be translated if I'm a meat-eater (how could Ellen have been THAT ludicrous?). But I'm psychologically programmed to feel a revulsion for meat and I can't overcome it not matter what. Funny thing is, I know of several ex-SDA's who are not agnostic/atheist who obviously no longer have a spiritual reason for not eating meat and they confess to me that they can't bear to eat it either. It would sure be easier to fit in if I COULD eat meat but so far, it's not even something I could contemplate. One of the many legacies that Adventism has left me. I'm proud of mly 17 yr old. She's tried chicken and sea food and liked it and I hope that she'll have an easier time than I. But my other 2 kids--no way! I managed to indocrinate them before my split with Adventism. Connie Godenick | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 33 Registered: 3-2004 |
Itís so interesting to note the many parallels among some of us here. I, too, remain a vegetarian but not for religious reasons. I donít believe Iím psychologically programmed because as a very young child I can remember having a great distaste for the meat my parents wanted me to eat. So if there is such a thing as a ěnaturalî vegetarian, I guess I was it. That said, I do believe Iíll be taking a temporary hiatus as Iíve been invited to join a mission team to an extremely primitive part of Haiti. Given the poverty there, Iím not quite sure what type of food Iíll be facing, but Iím certainly not going to pass judgment on what Iím served. That attitude at least is a huge improvement over my Adventist days. Praise GodÖ | ||
| Hallanvaara Registered user Username: Hallanvaara Post Number: 34 Registered: 1-2004 |
Fussing with food is just one more thing to draw our minds off Jesus. And there are several more in SDA church (clothes, jewelry, make up, position when praying, which sport and how much is suitable...) I hated those grain coffees (you were allowed to drink coffee if it was D-caf!)and soy sausages, corn flakes with juice soup and herb teas. Good foods they maybe are but when you MUST eat those you began to hate them. I eat nowadays anything but most vegetables, full grain bread, natural yoghurt and sometimes meat. I also take c- and b-vitamins and fish oil for getting omega-3 fat acid because I think the food in these days lack essential minerals. ItĄs so purified, refined and fields are getting so one-sided fertilizers. As Melissa said itĄs very amazing as a prophet of God she didnĄt say anything about vitamins. Vitamins, micronutrients and minerals are essential to people. Cutting so radical off most of basic nutritive substances is hazardous to health. So health reform can turn to health deform. Tuija | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 298 Registered: 1-2003 |
Ok, here is my delimma. I want to be a vegetarian for moral reasons...why should an animal have to die to feed me when there is pleanty of food around! But I see vegetarianism as a weekness now (forgive me Vegans...no dis' meant towards you). In other words...I feel SDAism has ruined it for me. I see lots of non-SDA vegetarians and they don't seem to have the baggage that we had as SDA vegetarians. Spirituality has been so tied up in eating and drinking that it is hard to separate and I must admit I have gone in the opposite direction to distance myself!!! Does this make any sense? I bought a book by Marilu Henner about no dairy and not combining foods and vegetarianism-she promotes this for weight loss and feeling better. But I cannot get past it! I remember people spending hours and hours worrying about eating dairy, supplements, etc. Angst and woe! So I don't want to get caught up in that. I do want to be healthy and slim, however. Another thing...Ellen didn't promote exercise either...I know many people in the SDA church who carefully guard what they eat, yet are obese because they don't exercise. One would think a prophet could have predicted the exercise craze!!!! | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 287 Registered: 7-2003 |
Pheeki, there may be a awful lot of reasons to choose to be a vegtarian, but I believe it is difficult to make it a "moral" issue. Why do I say this? Becasue I believe, along with C.S. Lewis, that apart from God there is no basis for morality. God Himself defines and *IS* Goodness, Righteousness, and Morality. It seems to me that if we insinuate that meat eating is in some way immoral we impune the God that told Noah he could eat every moving thing, Who commanded the Iraelites to eat lamb at the passover, and Who partook of fish (and no doubt lamb) during the incarnation. I am not suggesting that we are then called upon to eat or not eat meat. That's a personal choice. But upon what basis can we call a thing amoral? It is amoral if it is against the the character and command of God. Meat eating does not fit this category. Chris | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 300 Registered: 1-2003 |
I don't think it is morally wrong for anyone to eat meat...it is totally biblical to eat meat. I eat meat daily...in fact I am currently on Atkins. But it does bother me that the practices in the meat packing plants are so barbarian and that animals are born (have no life...put in crates) so they can die and be food. I am sure this is what God intended for them (To be food for us...Noah had no plants) but it still hurts my conscience. I think it is an individual thing. I was trying to convey that in no way shape or form do I think vegetarianism makes you a better person morally or Spiritually. This is what it boils down to...we eat by faith. Even vegetables can kill you! It isn't just meat I am concerned about, I also think refined products may be worse than meat eating for your health...I think I would probably do better cutting them out than meat even. My ultimate goal is thinness...I am not really trying to prolong my life because I know God has set a certain # of days and we won't live one day past it...but I would like to feel good and look good. Hope I explained it better. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 284 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'm curious where the idea that Noah had no plants came from... When he sent out the dove, it came back with an olive branch...right? But secondly, God sustained them on the ark all those months. He provided manna in the dessert. He didn't have to give them meat merely because they had no other food. I've heard it from B too, not just here, but it just seems weird to me to say or insinuate that the God who sustained the ark and its inhabitants all the days he did could not continue to take care of them once it landed so he had to allow them to eat meat. What am I missing? ....sorry to detour from the subject... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 187 Registered: 12-2003 |
Very good point, Melissa. I heard someone speculate once that perhaps God added animals to the human diet after the flood partly as a means to curb the length of human life. (Pure speculation, of course!) Before the flood, a life span was hundreds of years. After the flood, it dropped quickly and leveled out somewhere around 120 years, ultimately moving down to 80 or so. Evil people could probably accomplish 'way more evil if allowed to develop their ideas for hundreds of years than if they lived only 120 or fewer! I really have no idea of this theory has validity. Clearly vegans today do not seem healthier (or even as healthy) as people who eat animal products. Perhaps one of God's intentions (knowing that the flood did not eradicate sin and its twistedness) was to keep reminding humanity that people are NOT merely a different form of animal. It does seem that paganism tends to bring with it an out-of-balance concern for animals that places them in a category close (if not overtly superior to) man. I have a friend (former Adventist) who is a born-again Christian but has joined a more traditional, liberal church. I remember a few years ago that she began eating less meat and struggling more with the same concerns you expressed, Pheeki. Yet I believe Chris is right when he says that we can't really make killing animals for food a moral issue at any level. An emotional one, yes. Perhaps concerns about the treatment of animals should address slaughter house conditions, etc., but refusing to eat meat or wear leather for conscience' sake, I believe, puts things that are not God's will for us in a central position in our hearts. I fear I'm not explaining myself very well--it's just that we have such a human tendence to substitute concerns for social ills for a central allegience--even obsession--with the gospel of Jesus. I'm not suggesting, Pheeki, that you should eat meat or that you shouldn't have strong feelings about the treatment of animals. I believe, though, that our lives and devotion need to be shaped by the Bible and by the Holy Spirit. That shaping would not necessarily exclude great concern for social ills. I do think, however, that a concern for animals that requires that we care for them to the detriment of human welfare is misplaced concern and is even anti-Christian. I hope that all made sense! Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 285 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well, living in the mid-west, here's my take ... Noah got off the ark, built an alter, made a sacrifice....God smelled the aroma and thought "hmmmmm....BBQ....you've got to try some of this...." Okay, too much liberty. It's just a little humor really... :-) Very interesting speculation about meat as a life-limiting factor...doesn't that make eliminating it like building the tower of Babel, trying to get around what God set in place? What about the environmental factors in regards to lifespans? It is certainly speculation, but given the atmospheric conditions that have to exist for rain/not rain, if the flood was the first rain and they were able to grow things before without rain...didn't there have to be major changes?? Yet, we hear nothing about that, just meat. But I can't get away from the scriptures...God said he would limit man's years...Gen 6:3"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." That was before the flood. In Psalms 90:10 he says "As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years,..." Personally, scripture says GOD gave meat in the SAME WAY he gave plants.... God made the first animal clothes when Adam and Eve used plants. Why does it seem people come in behind and say he made a mistake? Like Colleen says, it seems to take focus off the gospel and Christ. Not to mention the divisions it creates.... | ||
| Leigh Registered user Username: Leigh Post Number: 74 Registered: 2-2003 |
Melissa, A while ago, I read a book that I think was called "in Search of Noah's Ark." It may have been written by someone from the Institute for Creation Research. (I borrowed the book a long time ago so I can't be absolutely sure of the title or author, sorry! ) The author's theory was that before the flood there was a canopy of water around the earth giving the earth a type of greenhouse effect. Temperature and humidity were stable all over the earth. This canopy was broken possibly by a astroid, and collapsed resulting in a horrific deluge. He speculates that after this canopy was gone, the effects of radiation from the sun shortened the lives of people and the resulting temperature and humidity changes killed off many species that were originally on the ark (dinosaurs). | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 286 Registered: 7-2003 |
Or maybe that canopy is what God broke in bringing about the rains of the flood???? That's interesting ... | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 290 Registered: 7-2003 |
A couple of speculations only....some are contradictory to each other as these are some random thoughts......maybe way way off on all..... 1) Gen. 6:3 may not be a decree to limit how old humans could become. After all, there were several individuals after the flood who lived longer than 120 years. Put in context of the larger passage, God seems to be saying, "I'm not going to put up with this forever. They have 120 years and then My judgment will come upon them." Also taking into consideration I Peter 3:20, 120 years may have been the time required to build the ark during which God was patient with the people allowing them time to repent. 2) Perhaps giving people the okay to eat meat wasn't a means to limit their life spans, but was allowed because their lifespans were already dramatically decreasing. If you only live to be a 100 or so, the heavy metals contained in meat will have basically no measurable effect, however if you lived to be nearly 1000 the accumulated heavy metals might be quite detrimental indeed. 3)Gen. 1:29 & 30 may not necessarily be an absolute command to vegetarianism. It may simply be explaining that the fruits and vegtables are for humans while the grass and other leafy plants were for the animals. This distinction would not necessarily limit other dietary supplements at some point in the future. 4) It seems likely that Adam and Eve and their children would have eaten meat because it appears Able was already tending a flock, there appears to already be some sort of sacrificial system using the fat of the animal (4:4), and God had already made clothes for Adam and Eve out of skins. It's hard to believe that Adam and Eve and the rest of the family would make clothes, sacrifice the blood and the fat and throw the rest of the animal away. 5) In my opinion, the canopy theory doesn't hold water (pun intended). Here's the problem the amount of water necessary for such a thing simply does not exist anywhere in the earth even if you combine all the aquifers, oceans, and atmospheric water. If there ever was that much water in the world, where did it go? There are also a number of other problems with light, heat transfer, atmosphere, etc. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 288 Registered: 7-2003 |
Very interesting, Chris. I enjoyed those thoughts....speculation or not. Someone at my church said, in effect, that they hoped God had big movie theaters in heaven where we could watch how he did all these things some day. I liked that idea too. | ||
| Conniegodenick Registered user Username: Conniegodenick Post Number: 12 Registered: 3-2004 |
Hi y'all, I was amused by Colleen's thoughts about meat eating shortening man's life. That was straight from Ellen White! Even after being "out" for a few years some of those thoughts are still there! I also agree with Leigh on the canopy theory. I also can't remember all the details but when I read them some years back it made a lot of sense to me. If there WAS a canopy of moisture, it would make the whole world into a more tropical climate and plants would be bigger. We wouldn't have the harmful effects of radiation from the sun because it would have been diffused/diluted by this moisture barrier. Anyway, I will always be vegetarian for psycohological reasons--just can't stomach the thought of eating meat. But, there are significant ecological reasons as well. In a day when natural resources are increasingly scarce, can we afford to keep feeding the planet based on old paradigms? I live in the East now but grew up out West and my parents still live in New Mexico. There's a severe water shortage in the West and raising cattle certainly doesn't help matters. It takes TONS more water to produce calores from beef than it does calories from plant foods. And, I have also been a student of nutrition for some 25 years. I'm very convinced that vegetarianism is a healthy way to eat--no problem with getting adequate vitamins and minerals (unless one is vegan when B12 becomes a concern.) I agree with fish oil however--lots of research to support that--and the reputable brands have no heavy metals or contaminants. (I get my Omega 3 fatty acids from walnuts or flax seed however.) For those of you who like to read, I suggest Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. At least 5 major food companies tried to keep this book from being published. It's well researched and even if you take it with a small grain of salt, it should make you think twice about what you eat. Neal Barnard, MD also has some useful information out about vegetarianism but his underlying agenda is PETA--people for the ethical treatment of animals--and I believe that that organization is a little extreme--sort of like the Branch Davidians of vegetarians!!!! I certainly believe that God gave us the earth to manage and use and that includes animals. But in this day of rapidly increasing population and scarce resources we might have to rethink the smartest way to do things. |
