[geocentrism] Re: Meat.
- From: "John Roodt" <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:37:15 +1100
Hi Phil
I'm not sure it relates to "preaching" but in Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50
Jesus' disciples spoke of a man driving out demons in His name but who was
not one of "them". Jesus' response was that those who are not against us,
are for us.
I probably used the NIV (New International Version) although I am aware of
the issues surrounding many of the translations. If I was trying to make a
decision on doctrine I would consult all available translations -- I have
access to more than a dozen.
In this instance I wasn't trying to win an argument, just simply trying to
help by pointing to scriptures that were relevant. I am extremely grateful
to anyone who can bring truth to my attention. I have let go of many sacred
cows in my lifetimewhen scriptures have been brought to my attention.
"I'll be able to quote you in support of the need for Catholic sacred
Tradition"
I am happy with any tradition, as long as it concurs with the scriptures :-)
A friend of mine introduced me to "teachings" by David Eels (
http://www.americaslastdays.com ) and he has challenged my thinking in a
number of things but particularly with respect to "end times prophesy" and
how God is dealing with us during these past 6,000 years. I am now open to
the idea that much of what the Bible tells us can only be spiritually
discerned -- even though a literal translation still applies. I am treading
carefully, though, as my soul is at stake here.
Regards,
John
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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 <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
> *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 <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *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 <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *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:
