[geocentrism] Re: Meat.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:10:05 +1000
this is good John.. You find Scripture easily too.. Yesterday i wanted to
find the scripture where the desciples ask Jesus about a group who were not of
this group but were preaching Jesus....and whether they should go and clobber
them, but He told them to leave them alone.. etc.. Maybe you can give me the
numbers..
Now for some more humourous inserts below..
----- Original Message -----
From: John Roodt
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Meat.
Hi Phil (You in green)
We were all vegetarians for the first 1,652 or so years. The animals too it
seems. That's why I take no pleasure in watching predators killing prey in the
wilds. It's just a reminder of our sin. seems like we are in agreement here..
But does not seem fair to make the animals suffer on our count.. At least He
gave us a friend... doG. which might be significant.
"Is His resurrected body glorified?
I'm not sure. And yet it is still marked and scarred.. Hope that does not
stay with me! Still we are in the dark as to what happened after He ascended..
Then how does He eat? If we eat in Heaven who has to be the dunnycart man?"
You're right. The bible does say in 1 Corinthians 6:13: "Food for the stomach
and the stomach for food' -- but God will destroy them both." maybe just a
reminder of the NEW ORDER New Jerusalem etc. stuff.
But consider also the "great feast" that God is preparing. In Isaiah 25:6 it
says: "On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for
all peoples, a banquet of aged wine -- the best of meats and the finest of
wines". Sounds very close to what the Muslims are promised.. doesn't it..
Only the virgins are missing..
Is this meant to be something like a parable? Does it have an explanation
that means there is no physical meat and wine as we've experienced in this
life? I'm not sure. John if you keep this up, I'll be able to quote you in
support of the need for Catholic sacred Tradition. .Grin!
"can his reason for eating the fish be obscure, or as I say to convince us of
His humanity"
That's a fair point. But in Mt 11:19 and Lk 7:34 Jesus is called a glutton
and a drunkard. I've never heard of a vegetarian being called a glutton.
Have you? :-) But those accusers were liars from the beginning.. See how
even a jew could quote from scripture , and be wrong..
But I am comfortable that the One who inspired this scripture in Romans 14:6b
would be comfortable to do either: "He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he
gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks
to God."
But here's the biggee, in Romans 14:2: "One man's faith allows him to eat
everything, but another man, who faith is weak, eats only vegetables".
Oops! :-)
OOPS indeed.. But in case you are faltering, don't present yourself to the
local RC church for an answer.... They is more protestant than protestant..
But you can see why Neville has dumped St. Paul from the bible.
But John, what devils bible are you using.. Here is Romans 14 ,, with more
sense..
The strong must bear with the weak. Cautions against judging and giving
scandal
1 Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you: not in disputes about
thoughts.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: but he that is weak, let him
eat herbs. We believe in fasting especially from meat, which enhances faith in
God. Thus this verse 2 could be an encouragement toward faith by fasting and
abstinence.. Notice the dividing colon in the middle.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not: and he that eateth
not, let him not judge him that eateth.
For God hath taken him to him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's
servant? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. And he shall stand: for God is
able to make him stand.
John and Philip.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:53 AM, PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Maybe the changes to the Earth once the water mantle fell where so
profound, that vegetation alone would no longer provide enough nutrients?
You would also notice that after the flood/removal of the water mantle,
when Earth was then exposed to the full impact of solar radiation, that mans
lifespan dropped from 900 odd years to the present.
Pete Charlton
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Meat.
In fact, if you read Genesis 9:3, God says to Noah: "Everything that
lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I
now give you everything".
Recall that in Genesis 1: 29,30 God made it clear that man would eat
seed-bearing plants and fruit and that the animals would only eat green plants.
John
Well there you go! I was sure Adam did not eat meat.. Which therefore
means eating meat is an attribute of FALLEN MAN . Can therefore it not be
ethically better to avoid it? But Jesus was not "fallen" but pure, so can his
reason for eating the fish be obscure, or as I say to convince us of His
humanity.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: John Roodt
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Meat.
One more thing, Phil. You say: "there is no injunction against using
animals as food"
In fact, if you read Genesis 9:3, God says to Noah: "Everything that
lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I
now give you everything".
Recall that in Genesis 1: 29,30 God made it clear that man would eat
seed-bearing plants and fruit and that the animals would only eat green plants.
John
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, John Roodt <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sorry, Phil
I don't understand how you can say: "We have to presume that Jesus
did eat fish.. even though the Bible does not say that He himself did."
What about Luke 24:40 (NIV). Here Jesus had already risen from the
dead and appeared to His disciples and you can read verses 40-43:
"When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while
they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, 'Do
you have anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he
took it and ate it in their presence."
?
John
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Neville.
Its been on the backburner of my mind for a few weeks since we last
mentioned eating meat. I realised my response then was rather insensitive, and
I intended to clear the air on it more fully.
As regards God and the church and the Bible, there is no injunction
against using animals as food. We have to presume that Jesus did eat fish..
even though the Bible does not say that He himself did. See how I always get
these ideas that show the "Bible only crowd", just how much they need to
presume from text.
However we cannot be sure.. Everything concerning Jesus in the
bible points to his compliance with the old laws and regulations .. Therefore
He must have eaten the lambs of the Pash.
But however again, from reason of scripture, we know that this was
not for pleasure or for sustenance , but as a sacrifice. Indeed people
sensitive to animals feelings may very much have suffered sacrifice in
participating. Cain couldn't and was exiled for his sensitivity. The pash was
to prefigure the The True Lamb who was to be sacrificed. Jesus knew this fully,
thus I can easily believe the commentator who said that He left the actual
killing of the "last Pash" lambs to others.
Ok, so yes I did say I love meat and Ham ... very appertising.. and
pleasureable, providing I do not have to kill the animal, or participate in its
processing. I cannot understand how any human being could be any different.
That reminds me of another pleasure, with similar restrictions. SEX. Now from
the Catholic perspective, and therefore I say Gods as well, sex is not for
pleasure, but to help the primary reason God put man and woman together , the
propagation of the species, and thus souls for God. ... Sex outside this
commitment and for pleasure alone, is an abomination before God.
From this , whilst I repeat we have no injunction on the matter of
killing for food, and so long as it might be needed for survival, it would be
essential, then it should be done, BUT NOT FOR PLEASURE.
All of our natural instincts are against killing anything, without
good reason. And food has never been an urgent reason in normal life. Every
single protein is available in our vegetable kingdom.. The cows give us enough
in milk.
I say this truly, when I eat my mince meat rissoles in the meal my
wife has prepared tonight, the pleasure I feel will be to me just as guilt
ridden as though I was to have illicit sex.. But the pleasure overides
everything, doesn't it?
On this matter of the animals... Neville may I ask.. Do you spray
the flies, ants and cockaroaches? Of course I am fanatical about keeping these
from my house, and keep a can of spray in several places.
But I'm convinced these little fullas are just as loving as a cow
or a dog or a lion or a crocadile or a snake can be. I once had an up front
confrontation on my desk with a little yellow spider no bigger than two
pinheads. I can say with absolute certainty that he was aware of me and looked
back up the magnifying glass at my eyes, as he fended off the tooth pick I was
teasing him with.. I was so impressed, I let him go.. hoping I did not walk on
him later, if he was silly enough to get down n the floor.
Philip.
Other related posts:
