[geocentrism] Re: Meat.

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:44:03 +1000

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: