| Author |
Message |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:45 am: |     |
Well, we laughed last weekend about food because.. Not to be risque, but if I rub some chicken across my lips, he will eat it off. But he won't dare take a bite! whatever! lol!
But one time I mistakenly gave him a shrimp eggroll and he tore it up! hahaha! And so last Friday we went back to that same chinese restaurant and I said "Hon, having another shrimp eggroll" And then I hollered laughing. I mean he TORE it up.. and then he had a second one the next day at lunch. I told him that it was just hilarious b/c now I understand that they taught you that it's "unclean" (we had just read about what goes into the mouth defiles not b/c it doesnt go into the heart) and the irony of it all now that I had full understanding of him eating shrimp.. I couldn't stop laughing. he was like "Aw, shut up -- it's not THAT funny!"
I am understading the humor myself a little bit.
He didn't order another. |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
I have a friend who is an SDA pastor and we were talking about the "food laws". He made a very interesting comment. He said, "We made a mistake when we started talking about clean and unclean meat" kinda took me back having been an adventist all my life, he continued,"If we are going to say that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, we can't be selective and pull some of it off the cross. We should have been saying more healthy and less healthy rather than clean and unclean" Unfortunately, most adventist haven't thought this one through. The might even begin to see the Son emerging from the clouds that have shaded the gospel. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 170
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
What I realized the other day is, why do they even talk about clean and unclean meats, or how pork is sinful, when EGW said that ALL meats are sinful??
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Your friend is right. I remember that when I was teaching at Gem State Academy in the late 70's, John Brunt, who was then on the religion facult at Walla Walla College, wrote an article that appeared, as I recall, in the NPUC Gleaner. It was an essay discussing the very fact your friend mentioned, Goldenbear. He made the point that those food laws were part of the ceremonial law nailed to the cross.
I've pondered that fact many times, and I'm amazed at the blindness of so many Adventists who just don't think about this very obvious fact. I know that I've heard various Adventist try to defend this inconsistency by saying the food laws had real health truths in them, so the ceremonial law aspect of them is irrelevant. Of course, they can't prove the health concerns either, but that's the argument.
Colleen |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
At least for most SDA's, saying that avoiding unclean meats is about health is really not being forthright. If it was about "health" would there be such a panic about consuming some small bit of "unhealthy" meat that might be included in a dish? Would someone REALLY need to worry whether the baked beans being served at someone else's house might have been made with pork? Of course not, these small amounts would NEVER truly impact someone's health. The very actions, particularly of SDA who eat clean meats, shows that it is completely about believing that eating something unclean has a morally unclean aspect to it. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
Back to the food issue. I have spent time as an Adventist with people who behaved as though food, and not Jesus, was what would save mankind. Jesus hit it on the head when he said that food is consumed, passes through the body, and then out. It is fuel--nothing more. Eat what you like and what agrees with you. Turn your eyes upon Jesus and forget the lentils! |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
I frequently do searches on the web for news related to Adventism, and particularly those who are leaving adventism. Ironically belvalew, lentils were introduced in Washington state as a crop, by an Adventist missionary. I also found that it isn't a very lucrative crop, but does restore the soil.
We were talking with a local adventist several weeks ago, and they emphatically stated that they had never had a piece of meat in their mouth. In fact when we have been in resteraunts they have asked whether the rice was made with chicken stock. I believe that folk like this believe that this abstinance from meat is a witness. The concept of a peculiar people is something that adventist pervert to their mind as being different from everyone else in relation to doctrine.
Many years ago I heard Dallas Holmes speak about being a peculiar people, his point was not on what we ate or did, but on our love. Radical accepting love - Jesus' love... We didn't deserve it, but perfect love gave it anyway... Praise the name of Jesus. |
Bb
Registered user
Username: Bb
Post Number: 45
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Amen Goldenbear. That is the kind of "peculiar" I want to be, not the weirdo who can't do this or eat that. I think showing the love of Jesus is the only witness we need. |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 829
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
I second that AMEN Goldenbear. I can now be with other Christians and non Christians and not feel like a weirdo because I do not eat this or that. But I can and do love Jesus and am willing to tell anyone who asks. I really like loving people just because they are God's creation. Jesus is all we need. He is awesome.
Diana |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Another Amen.
It is so sad that people can miss the substance of how we should be "peculiar". Let Jesus be our example in this too! I pray that we would all show even glimpses of the radical love that has been so undeservingly lavished on us. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 75
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
I love you people, you really get It!
Belva |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 174
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Actually, "peculiar" is not even a good translation. The word means possession. The NASB says, "A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION," and the NIV says, "a people belonging to God." The New King James Version says, "His own special people." Young's Literal Translation says, "a people acquired."
Jeremy |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 831
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
WOW! That really tells me what and how God wants us. "His own special people". "A people for God's own possession", "His own special people", and " A people acquired". I like those better than a "peculiar people". Thanks for those translations, Jeremy.
Diana |
