| Author |
Message |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 153
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:59 am: |     |
I was amazed at the lengths to which an SDA was willing to go in order to defend vegetarianism. The content of Scripture becomes meaningless for this SDA. He simply redefines Scripture to match his belief. Perhaps I shouldn't be that surprised, but I have never seen such a blatant example of re-writing Scripture.
http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=121&topic_id=33933&mesg_id=35752&page=
ric_b: Do you believe Jesus was a vegetarian?
sda: Yes.
ric_b: That He didn't share a breakfast of fish with His disciples after the resurrection?
sda: I believe that He ate with the disciples because that is what they ate. On His own I don't think that Jesus wanted to kill His creatures.
ric_b: That He didn't participate in the Passover meal?
sda: I think that He participated in the Passover meal. I don't think that He ate the flesh of HIs creatures when He was by Himself.
ric_b: Or are these merely my perceptions of truth?
sda: I believe that Jesus ate the best food available which was not animal tissue. I think that Jesus was free to interact in the best way that He felt possible to reach His children. I think when He was not haveing to prove something to the disciples that He ate in a vegetarian manner. What He orginally wanted His people to eat - fruits, nuts, grains. |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 236
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:51 am: | |
This doesn't surprise me at all. I even recall a teaching from the SDA's that Jesus really didn't drink wine but grape juice. That was to enforce the no drinking policy of theirs. Looking back, I can't believe how I actually believed the SDA doctrines at one point in my life. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 651
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 7:17 am: | |
Ric, I have had very similar conversations with B. He said he thought Jesus only ate fish and passover, but not otherwise...What kindof example does one thing in front of others and another in private?? So much of Jesus being our example.... |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:14 am: | |
I will share a story abot a SDA lady I know. She holds a very promiant position as foodservice director at one of the SDA colleges. Her job is dietition for the cafeteria food. She told me it is totally against the Bible to eat any meat at all. I pointd out that using Leviticus then after excluding the unclean meats the only restrictions are not to eat the blood or the fat. She told me that proves God intends for us to be vegetarian. That is Gods test on us so He is testing us to find out if we really will abide by His commands and we can obiviosley see we are not to eat meat because no matter how the animal is slauhtered and the blood is drained, no matter how much we wash the meat, no matter how thoroughally we cook the meat it is impossible to completely get all the blood and fat out. And, God says no blood or fat and He ment none at all. So, that text that says no fat and no blood is the prooftext that we humans cannt eat any meat at all. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:14 am: | |
Ric, how frustrating! The blatant refusal to deal with Scripture astounds me over and over. After the flood, God clearly gave humanity all things to eat--"everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (Genesis 9:3)
Even when He gave Israel the food laws, God didn't rescind permission to eat meat. How they can look at Jesus' example of eating fish and Passover and extrapolate that those were "special" cases and didn't reflect Jesus' practice I'll never know. Melissa's point about that if Jesus were one way in private and another in public, he would be a bad example is very apt.
I'll never forget hearing a relative assert that Jesus ate fish because the light of the health message hadn't been given yet. Now how does God Eternal, present on earth as a man, NOT KNOW the "health message"?
It's really such blasphemy. Any way you look at it, these arguments downplay the almighty, divine, eternal nature of Jesus.
Isn't it interesting that the person you're conversing with, Ric, resorts to arguments that sound rather like to today's environmentally consious people: "Jesus wouldn't kill his creatures in order to eat them." |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:17 am: | |
Colleen, read the post I put tht came out just above yours. We posted at the same time. |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 238
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:22 am: | |
The SDA's really hold onto what Adam's original diet was and try to live how he did. But we are not living in Eden and our bodies are prone to die. I tend to agree that the reason diet is so important to the SDA's is because they want to live as long as possible because they are afraid of death and just remaining in their belief of a darkened state for who knows how long. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:47 am: | |
Susan, what amazing reasoning--although it shouldn't surprise me!
I agree with your conclusions totally, PW!
Colleen |
Bb
Registered user
Username: Bb
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:53 am: | |
An SDA that I know says that when God gave the Israelites quail in the wilderness it was because they whined and begged and were not happy with the same old manna every day. Now I know the Israelites whined a lot, but was that from the Bible or EGW? |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 215
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:47 am: | |
That is from the Bible, and that was actually the second of two quail events. Notice that the SDAs never talk about the harmlessness of the first event.
And Susan, SDAs love to say (because EGW said this herself) that God forbade the eating of the fat. This is not true. Jews know this and still abide by the kosher rules very carefully, and kosher meat is full of fat.
So, it's just another EGW fable that they like to repeat.
Here are the details from a Jewish web site:
quote:"A certain kind of fat, known as chelev, which surrounds the vital organs and the liver, may not be eaten. Kosher butchers remove this. Modern scientists have found biochemical differences between this type of fat and the permissible fat around the muscles and under the skin."--http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Details
Just taking a quick look at the results on Blue Letter Bible, it appears that God forbade the eating of the fat of the animals which were sacrifices. But He certainly did not forbid the Jews from eating all fat from animals, as SDAs say. And if He had then why would it be ok for SDAs to drink milk, eat eggs, etc? Also, Jesus talks about the father killing the fattened calf for the prodigal son! Also notice that he gave his son a ring. 
Jeremy |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 239
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:36 pm: | |
Ah, yes... the ring from the father. That one doesn't fare well with the anti-jewelry belief they cling to. Surely they dismiss it and spiritualize it somehow. |
Madelia
Registered user
Username: Madelia
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:39 am: | |
This thread reminded me how struck I was with Colleen's Proclamation article on "Breath". When I read the part about vegetarianism helping a person think more clearly, it was an "aha" moment for me! I realized that is where my husband gets his ideas about fasting and eating only fruits and vegetables and how he claims he can think more clearly. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 94
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:41 am: | |
In the story of the prodigal I was always taught that the ring given by the father symbolized authority because the ring was a signet that was used to authenticate legal documents. See, they escaped the ring as simple decoration by giving it a purpose beyond that. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:16 am: | |
So, Melissa, if Jesus had a secret private life than wouldn't that make Hi the #1 hipocrit of all? And, Jesus said to not be like the Pharases and hipocrits. I still think the SDA stance on foods, especially meats is regioal. When we lived n Hawaii my family one visited a local SDA church. It was a way out-back church, very tribal, most the adults who attended there were illerate (I thought that was too bad because then they were totally at the mercy of the pastor to tell them the truth. And, they were all convinced the SDA was all truth and all other churches were all error so the minister could teach just about anything and the congreation would know he was speeking the truth.) Anyway, the potluck after the service included alot of fish dishes. I have attended several different Asian SDA churches here in CA and there always are chicken dishes at the potlucks. I think it is often cultural and ethncally tolerated of the SDA denomination about meat. In a recent Review was an article about a group of people in a far-away country in witch many became SDA. The interviewer asked this new SDA man what is the one truth in his learnng the truths of Adventism that most impacts his life. His answer was that he no longer eats pig. He did not say that he no longer eats meat, but that he no longer eats pig. So,I guess the SDA's over there are still eating other meats. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:34 pm: | |
Yep, I heard that too, Belvalew! Maybe it was a symbol of authority--but a ring would never be a symbol of any Adventist's authority! Just look at what a hard time they've had accepting the symbol of the wedding ring! Now if there were ever a symbol that was significant and saved much embarrassment and represented its wearer in a most positive, loyal light, I would think the wedding ring would be it.
Perhaps they were uncomfortable with being tied to that statement of loyalty and commitment...?
Colleen |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 150
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:43 pm: | |
Of course it was okay for the prodigal son to be given a ring as a symbol of authority--they didn't yet have EGW's counsel! |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 895
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:17 pm: | |
Raven,
I had to laugh at your statement.
Diana |
