[geocentrism] Re: Meat.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:42:06 +1000
Thats a reasonable response Peter. But we do not know that the fruit of that
tree might not linger genetically in Adams offspring for several centuries.
Those closer to Adam lived longer.
Re Eden, well if the angels can keep mankind away from it by their supernatural
means, (swords of fire) evenas they do today, keeping it invisible, I see no
reason to suppose that this same power would keep it protected from the flood.
all supposition of course.
As for Babies and the rest..
Well we can speculate... The baptised babies have been saved ...The Church
says they go to Heaven.. But perhaps they go to Eden first. to be educated.
After all they have to face the ressurrection with us all.
this lot is not dogma. It is held by the fathers as speculation..
the unbaptised? by which they fail to earn salvation by Christ. they have
souls. It is speculated that they should not face Hell fire. Hence the idea of
Limbo. This is also the place many believe the saints of the old law were held
till the redemption. (not suffering, and a place of natural happiness, as
opposed to the supernatural happiness of seeing GOD. Is this Eden? or
someplace near Hell either way, Enoch and Elias are somewhere! Jesus said to
the penitent thief, "this day thou shalt be with me in paridise.. " That
cannot be in heaven, as Jesus has not ascended. He descended into "hell" to
comfort the saints of the old law.. Paradise? I think so.. and this was Eden
is called by some.
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: PETER CHARLTON
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:53 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Meat.
But only Adam and Eve had initially eaten from the tree of life which as you
rightly say, would have kept them alive forever.
Adams Children would not have eaten of this tree and they all lived a mighty
long time .
Edens no longer there after the flood so I dont think Enoch and the babies
would have gone there.
As for Babies, all babies have the inherited sin of Adam, that means as they
whereborn after Adam had recieved the death sentence, they shouldnt really have
even been born, let alone have the right to eat forever from the tree of life.
Just as death came into the world through one man, (Adam), so death will
leave the world through one man, (Christ), or something, whatever, even babies
need Jesus ransom sacrice.
Pete Charlton
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:44 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Meat.
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
Peter I read a commentator say that it was being deprived of the fruit of
the tree of life, which sustained Adam, and caused this decline.. Vegetarians
claim it is the meat diet that caused it... but I prefer the former.. Notice
also verse 24 which tells us Paradise garden of Eden is still there, entry
being prohibited. It is thought by some that this is where Enoch and Elias
reside till they return to do battle against the antiC. Kept busy it is said,
teaching and growing the babies who are murdered/or died before reaching
maturity or the age of reason.
9 And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to
behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise:
and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:
now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree
of life, and eat, and live for ever.
24 And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure
Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree
of life.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: PETER CHARLTON
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:53 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Meat.
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: