Not Eating Pork (Biblical Reason?)
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Wow! First we were talking of a dietary ordinance. Hardly anything to get worked up over. Then out come words like blaspheme, sin and evil. Then resulting of accusing me of false prophecy and lying. I guess you don't want a civil discussion. I won't lower myself to your mindset. I'm am off this thread. 
If it is G-d's law...why would you conclude ..."hardly anything to get worked up about"....?
Do you feel that way about G-d's other commands?
What guide do you use to accept and follow...or.....reject?
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
In the Old Testament it was a physical covenant with physical blessings, so clean and unclean meat, in the New Testament it is spiritual so all meat is good, and can be eaten, if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer
God can heal a person for He understands the working of physical matter, so God can clean up any animal of any uncleaness, and if there was another reason for not eating pork in the Old Testament that reason does not apply now for it is spiritual.
The same as if a saint gets bit by a poisonous snake, or drinks poison, God can deliver them from the affects of it, but do not do it on purpose, for do not tempt the Lord thy God, which means do not put yourself in a dangerous position on purpose and then say God save me.
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
In the Old Testament it was a physical covenant with physical blessings, so clean and unclean meat, in the New Testament it is spiritual so all meat is good, and can be eaten, if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer
God can heal a person for He understands the working of physical matter, so God can clean up any animal of any uncleaness, and if there was another reason for not eating pork in the Old Testament that reason does not apply now for it is spiritual.
The same as if a saint gets bit by a poisonous snake, or drinks poison, God can deliver them from the affects of it, but do not do it on purpose, for do not tempt the Lord thy God, which means do not put yourself in a dangerous position on purpose and then say God save me.
-
1
- Show all
All that condemnation is sickening. insteas of edifying and guiding each other theres one attack and rock thrown after another. Yet ppl wont deal with their own log.
If someone doesnt want to eat pork, thats his business just as ppeople who do.
Just a food for a thought
Romans 14
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
If someone doesnt want to eat pork, thats his business just as ppeople who do.
Just a food for a thought
Romans 14
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
-
1
- Show all
"Most theologians assume that God’s laws regarding clean and unclean meats ended at Christ’s crucifixion. They suppose that the New Covenant removes the need for Christians to keep such laws. But is that what the Bible says?
The administrative change from the Levitical priesthood to the ministry of Jesus Christ did not void God’s expectations that His people obey His law of clean and unclean meats (or any other law) as part of their sanctification, or separation, as people of God (see Leviticus 11:44-47; Leviticus 19:2; Leviticus 20:7-26; Leviticus 21:8). Peter and Paul both speak of the continuing need for God’s people to be holy (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:14-16).
Some Bible scholars acknowledge that members of the early Church continued to observe the distinctions between clean and unclean meats. However, because of the common misconception that the New Covenant abolishes much of God’s law, many assume these food requirements were simply Jewish cultural practices that continued until the Church became more gentile in composition and outlook. Such preconceived ideas have influenced interpretations of many New Testament passages. In theological circles this is known as eisegesis, or reading one’s own ideas into Scripture.
Let’s examine the New Testament passages dealing with food. As we do that let’s practice exegesis— drawing meaning out of Scripture by seeking a thorough understanding of the background of a passage as we seek to apply it.
Food controversy in the Church
When reading through the New Testament, we do find references to a controversy in the early Church involving food. However, an examination of the Scriptures reveals the issue to be different from what many assume.
In 1 Corinthians 8 the apostle Paul discussed “the eating of things offered to idols” (1 Corinthians 8:4). Why was this an issue?
“Meat was often sacrificed on pagan altars and dedicated to pagan gods in Paul’s day. Later this meat was offered for sale in the public meat markets. Some Christians wondered if it were morally right for Christians to eat such meat that had previously been sacrificed to pagan gods” (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, “Meat”).
It is interesting, though not conclusive, to note that in Acts 14:13, the only passage in which the type of animal sacrificed to idols is mentioned, it was oxen—clean animals—that were about to be offered.
This controversy was not over the kinds of meat that should be eaten. Obedient Jews of the day, in accordance with God’s instruction, did not consider unclean meat even to be a possible source of food. Instead, the controversy dealt with the conscience of each believer when it came to eating meat— clean meat—that may have been sacrificed to idols.
Paul explained that “an idol is nothing” (1 Corinthians 8:4), clarifying that it was not intrinsically harmful to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol. That an animal had been sacrificed to a pagan god had no bearing on whether the meat was suitable for food.
Paul continued: “However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse” (1 Corinthians 8:7-8).
When a believer bought meat in the market or was invited to a meal at which meat was served, it was not necessary to determine whether anyone had offered it to an idol, said Paul (1 Corinthians 10:25-27). His concern was that the brethren be considerate of others who believed differently. He taught that in such cases it was better for them not to eat meat than to risk causing offense (1 Corinthians 8:13; 1 Corinthians 10:28).
The question of meat sacrificed to idols was a considerable controversy in New Testament times. It is the foundation of many of Paul’s discussions of Christian liberty and conscience. Unlike God’s law of clean and unclean animals, which was straightforwardly recorded in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures are not explicit about the matter of food offered to idols. But, in the first-century world of the New Testament, this issue varied in significance and importance to members according to their conscience and understanding.
The timing of Paul’s letters
The chronological relationship between Paul’s letters to the members in Corinth and his correspondence with those in Rome is another important piece of background information people often overlook.
Many believe Romans 14 supports the idea that Christians are free from all former restrictions regarding the meats they may eat. Romans 14:14, in which Paul wrote, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” is often cited as a proof text for this view.
This approach, however, fails to consider Paul’s perspective and the context of his letter to the Roman church. Many Bible resources agree that Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians around A.D. 55 and that he wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth in 56 or 57. As demonstrated above, the food controversy in Corinth was over meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul was writing to the Romans from Corinth, where this had been a significant issue, the subject was fresh on Paul’s mind and is the logical, biblically supported basis for his comments in Romans 14.
Understanding Paul’s intent
Those who assume the subject of Romans 14 is a retraction of God’s law regarding clean and unclean animals must force this interpretation into the text because it has no biblical foundation. The historical basis for the discussion appears, from evidence in the chapter itself, to have been meat sacrificed to idols.
Romans 14:2 contrasts the one who “eats only vegetables” with the one who believes “he may eat all things”—meat as well as vegetables. Romans 14:6 discusses eating vs. not eating and is variously interpreted as referring to fasting (not eating or drinking), vegetarianism (consuming only vegetables) or eating or not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Romans 14:21 shows that meat offered to idols was the dominant issue of this chapter: “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.” Romans of the day commonly offered both meat and wine to idols, with portions of the offerings later sold in the marketplace.
The Life Application Bible comments on Romans 14:2: “The ancient system of sacrifice was at the center of the religious, social, and domestic life of the Roman world. After a sacrifice was presented to a god in a pagan temple, only part of it was burned. The remainder was often sent to the market to be sold. Thus a Christian might easily—even unknowingly—buy such meat in the marketplace or eat it at the home of a friend.
“Should a Christian question the source of his meat? Some thought there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols because idols were worthless and phony. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up meat altogether, in order to avoid a guilty conscience. The problem was especially acute for Christians who had once been idol worshipers. For them, such a strong reminder of their pagan days might weaken their newfound faith. Paul also deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 8.”...........................
What rule do you follow in meat diet...for example...pork?
The administrative change from the Levitical priesthood to the ministry of Jesus Christ did not void God’s expectations that His people obey His law of clean and unclean meats (or any other law) as part of their sanctification, or separation, as people of God (see Leviticus 11:44-47; Leviticus 19:2; Leviticus 20:7-26; Leviticus 21:8). Peter and Paul both speak of the continuing need for God’s people to be holy (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:14-16).
Some Bible scholars acknowledge that members of the early Church continued to observe the distinctions between clean and unclean meats. However, because of the common misconception that the New Covenant abolishes much of God’s law, many assume these food requirements were simply Jewish cultural practices that continued until the Church became more gentile in composition and outlook. Such preconceived ideas have influenced interpretations of many New Testament passages. In theological circles this is known as eisegesis, or reading one’s own ideas into Scripture.
Let’s examine the New Testament passages dealing with food. As we do that let’s practice exegesis— drawing meaning out of Scripture by seeking a thorough understanding of the background of a passage as we seek to apply it.
Food controversy in the Church
When reading through the New Testament, we do find references to a controversy in the early Church involving food. However, an examination of the Scriptures reveals the issue to be different from what many assume.
In 1 Corinthians 8 the apostle Paul discussed “the eating of things offered to idols” (1 Corinthians 8:4). Why was this an issue?
“Meat was often sacrificed on pagan altars and dedicated to pagan gods in Paul’s day. Later this meat was offered for sale in the public meat markets. Some Christians wondered if it were morally right for Christians to eat such meat that had previously been sacrificed to pagan gods” (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1995, “Meat”).
It is interesting, though not conclusive, to note that in Acts 14:13, the only passage in which the type of animal sacrificed to idols is mentioned, it was oxen—clean animals—that were about to be offered.
This controversy was not over the kinds of meat that should be eaten. Obedient Jews of the day, in accordance with God’s instruction, did not consider unclean meat even to be a possible source of food. Instead, the controversy dealt with the conscience of each believer when it came to eating meat— clean meat—that may have been sacrificed to idols.
Paul explained that “an idol is nothing” (1 Corinthians 8:4), clarifying that it was not intrinsically harmful to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol. That an animal had been sacrificed to a pagan god had no bearing on whether the meat was suitable for food.
Paul continued: “However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse” (1 Corinthians 8:7-8).
When a believer bought meat in the market or was invited to a meal at which meat was served, it was not necessary to determine whether anyone had offered it to an idol, said Paul (1 Corinthians 10:25-27). His concern was that the brethren be considerate of others who believed differently. He taught that in such cases it was better for them not to eat meat than to risk causing offense (1 Corinthians 8:13; 1 Corinthians 10:28).
The question of meat sacrificed to idols was a considerable controversy in New Testament times. It is the foundation of many of Paul’s discussions of Christian liberty and conscience. Unlike God’s law of clean and unclean animals, which was straightforwardly recorded in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures are not explicit about the matter of food offered to idols. But, in the first-century world of the New Testament, this issue varied in significance and importance to members according to their conscience and understanding.
The timing of Paul’s letters
The chronological relationship between Paul’s letters to the members in Corinth and his correspondence with those in Rome is another important piece of background information people often overlook.
Many believe Romans 14 supports the idea that Christians are free from all former restrictions regarding the meats they may eat. Romans 14:14, in which Paul wrote, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” is often cited as a proof text for this view.
This approach, however, fails to consider Paul’s perspective and the context of his letter to the Roman church. Many Bible resources agree that Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians around A.D. 55 and that he wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth in 56 or 57. As demonstrated above, the food controversy in Corinth was over meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul was writing to the Romans from Corinth, where this had been a significant issue, the subject was fresh on Paul’s mind and is the logical, biblically supported basis for his comments in Romans 14.
Understanding Paul’s intent
Those who assume the subject of Romans 14 is a retraction of God’s law regarding clean and unclean animals must force this interpretation into the text because it has no biblical foundation. The historical basis for the discussion appears, from evidence in the chapter itself, to have been meat sacrificed to idols.
Romans 14:2 contrasts the one who “eats only vegetables” with the one who believes “he may eat all things”—meat as well as vegetables. Romans 14:6 discusses eating vs. not eating and is variously interpreted as referring to fasting (not eating or drinking), vegetarianism (consuming only vegetables) or eating or not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Romans 14:21 shows that meat offered to idols was the dominant issue of this chapter: “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.” Romans of the day commonly offered both meat and wine to idols, with portions of the offerings later sold in the marketplace.
The Life Application Bible comments on Romans 14:2: “The ancient system of sacrifice was at the center of the religious, social, and domestic life of the Roman world. After a sacrifice was presented to a god in a pagan temple, only part of it was burned. The remainder was often sent to the market to be sold. Thus a Christian might easily—even unknowingly—buy such meat in the marketplace or eat it at the home of a friend.
“Should a Christian question the source of his meat? Some thought there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols because idols were worthless and phony. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up meat altogether, in order to avoid a guilty conscience. The problem was especially acute for Christians who had once been idol worshipers. For them, such a strong reminder of their pagan days might weaken their newfound faith. Paul also deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 8.”...........................
What rule do you follow in meat diet...for example...pork?
-
1
- Show all
I really never knew that there were Christians that believed you couldn't eat pork and had to follow the dietary laws of the Old testament or you were sinning. If that is the case, then should a woman not be permitted to go to church during her monthly, and is every thing that she touches unclean during that time? What about a man if he hands her some Tylenol or something and accidentally touches her hand, is he unclean for 7 days and not even allowed to attend church...or what?
I don't really know much about the laws of the OT, but I can't understand how you could choose some to follow and not the others? I mean to me it sounds like if you are going to follow one, then you would have to follow them all...with exception to animal sacrifice, anyhow.
I don't really know much about the laws of the OT, but I can't understand how you could choose some to follow and not the others?
I mean to me it sounds like if you are going to follow one, then you would have to follow them all...with exception to animal sacrifice, anyhow.-
1
- Show all
L
I really never knew that there were Christians that believed you couldn't eat pork and had to follow the dietary laws of the Old testament or you were sinning. If that is the case, then should a woman not be permitted to go to church during her monthly, and is every thing that she touches unclean during that time? What about a man if he hands her some Tylenol or something and accidentally touches her hand, is he unclean for 7 days and not even allowed to attend church...or what?
I don't really know much about the laws of the OT, but I can't understand how you could choose some to follow and not the others? I mean to me it sounds like if you are going to follow one, then you would have to follow them all...with exception to animal sacrifice, anyhow.
I don't really know much about the laws of the OT, but I can't understand how you could choose some to follow and not the others?
I mean to me it sounds like if you are going to follow one, then you would have to follow them all...with exception to animal sacrifice, anyhow.
-
1
- Show all
LOL, honey...but yeah, I agree as long as it is the men that get the tent....hahaha
Oh wait, what am I saying...that would probably be a blessing for most men....
Seriously though, I would like to know how people who think they have to follow the dietary laws, view the other laws. Do they follow them or not? If not then, why not?
Oh wait, what am I saying...that would probably be a blessing for most men....
Seriously though, I would like to know how people who think they have to follow the dietary laws, view the other laws. Do they follow them or not? If not then, why not?
-
1
- Show all
L
LOL, honey...but yeah, I agree as long as it is the men that get the tent....hahaha
Oh wait, what am I saying...that would probably be a blessing for most men....
Seriously though, I would like to know how people who think they have to follow the dietary laws, view the other laws. Do they follow them or not? If not then, why not?
Oh wait, what am I saying...that would probably be a blessing for most men....
Seriously though, I would like to know how people who think they have to follow the dietary laws, view the other laws. Do they follow them or not? If not then, why not?
I think folks that mention such things can't keep them all either. lol
-
1
- Show all
Huh? Two food laws- abstaining from things strangled and from vllod. God gave Gentiles creeping things to eat, but not the blood. The apostles did NOT tell the Gentiles to keep kosher. They just had to keep the food laws for Gentile. The issues were blood and idolatry, not pork. Gentiles are allowed to eat even snakes and rats.
K
Hi Preston39,
Thank you so much for this well thought out post, very informative. It is in step with my researching this matter, and I've been persuaded for about a decade. Our bellies certainly have gotten us into a heap of trouble over the history of mankind, first in the garden, Esau sold his birthright, in the desert with Moses, Jesus was tempted with food...for goodness sakes looks like a light bulb would go off, but I suppose we tend to roll with the crowd far too often never asking enough questions. The Almighty Creator does not change. I'd much rather err on that premise than to read into the text what isn't there.
Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his counsel to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7
IN light of that, would you agree Isiah 43 is one reference, and that possibly as Peter was pondering his vision he may have remembered this prophecy?
~
Behold, I am doing a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert.
20The wild beasts will honor me,
the jackals and the ostriches,
for I give water in the wilderness,
rivers in the desert,
to give drink to my chosen people,
21the people whom I formed for myself
that they might declare my praise.
***************
The wild animals being representitave of Gentiles? Really like to hear your thoughts on this, thanks.
Thank you so much for this well thought out post, very informative. It is in step with my researching this matter, and I've been persuaded for about a decade. Our bellies certainly have gotten us into a heap of trouble over the history of mankind, first in the garden, Esau sold his birthright, in the desert with Moses, Jesus was tempted with food...for goodness sakes looks like a light bulb would go off, but I suppose we tend to roll with the crowd far too often never asking enough questions. The Almighty Creator does not change. I'd much rather err on that premise than to read into the text what isn't there.
Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his counsel to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7
IN light of that, would you agree Isiah 43 is one reference, and that possibly as Peter was pondering his vision he may have remembered this prophecy?
~
Behold, I am doing a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert.
20The wild beasts will honor me,
the jackals and the ostriches,
for I give water in the wilderness,
rivers in the desert,
to give drink to my chosen people,
21the people whom I formed for myself
that they might declare my praise.
***************
The wild animals being representitave of Gentiles? Really like to hear your thoughts on this, thanks.
Wow! First we were talking of a dietary ordinance. Hardly anything to get worked up over. Then out come words like blaspheme, sin and evil. Then resulting of accusing me of false prophecy and lying. I guess you don't want a civil discussion. I won't lower myself to your mindset. I'm am off this thread.
You don't have to lower your standards to reply to such as that. In fact, holding to who you are in Christ while that continues to flail in their way makes their point less impactful. And your example highly righteous and encouraging to any who may come here seeking to witness what it is to live the Good News .
i certainly don't want him to duck and run. i want him to continue to increase in the knowledge of God. his accusal of me calling him a false prophet or a liar is completely false - and as i said, i assume it's because he misread my posts. go back and read them and see for yourself. it's his position about Peter's vision in Acts 10 that i've been contending because it a position that dishonors God, making God about to be a tempter and deceiver.
i don't think Deade has thought this interpretation through - and the last thing i want him to do is plug his fingers in his ears and run off.
but, it's just as he told me his personal policy is, previously in another thread:
if he decides he's sniffed evil, he'll jet out. not his brother's keeper i guess?? but he misunderstood what i am trying to tell him, and in offense done what he had said he would do, which is to run from conflict.
i agree Lily; i also think that's not the wisest way to react.
i don't think Deade has thought this interpretation through - and the last thing i want him to do is plug his fingers in his ears and run off.
but, it's just as he told me his personal policy is, previously in another thread:
I don't condemn you or anyone else for anything. That is not my job or any man's job. Let us each be persuaded we are within our Lord's graces. If you are happy with your walk with Jesus, I will call you brother and be happy with you. If in fellowship and I notice evil about you; I simply will separate myself from you and leave you to God.
i agree Lily; i also think that's not the wisest way to react.
Okay, for you I will get back on. I have asked myself and the Lord why He established the dietary laws in the first place. His reply was "Why did I?" I was studying while in the bunk of my 18-wheeler on overnight layovers. He always got me digging further into the word.
About the dietary laws: I finally concluded they would not be there if they weren't for our own good. God would talk just enough to me to steer me where He wanted me. I eventually ended up in a mission in Oakland, California doing drug rehab during the crack epidemic from 1985-1992. The mission was non-denominational in its makeup. I ended up running the rehab homes for them.
I have believed the same for 35 years, and I don't judge others by my faith. The thing about religion: If anyone is doing things differently, they are implying others are wrong by inference. It is the nature of the beast.
About the dietary laws: I finally concluded they would not be there if they weren't for our own good. God would talk just enough to me to steer me where He wanted me. I eventually ended up in a mission in Oakland, California doing drug rehab during the crack epidemic from 1985-1992. The mission was non-denominational in its makeup. I ended up running the rehab homes for them.
I have believed the same for 35 years, and I don't judge others by my faith. The thing about religion: If anyone is doing things differently, they are implying others are wrong by inference. It is the nature of the beast.
-
2
- Show all
