I'm not stoning you to death my friend, I have reminded you of what YAHVAH GOD said was clean and unclean for us to eat.
Our Creator says it is unclean and that is all i need to abstain from pork.
Right Loveme, your not stoning me. Yet your logic makes stoning okay. You have reminded me that God once said certain meats are not okay to eat, before he changed the covenant, and now tells us that all meat is good to eat as long if we do it with thanksgiving.
In fact I have given you much evidence, and I have shown you passages that clearly imply pork, and other animal is not to be refused as sinful, and passages commanding Christians not to let anyone judge them on these things because they are nailed to the cross, and false teachers will try to bring you into bondage, with "touch not, taste not". yet you have ignored all this evidence because you dont see the word "pork".
It is not my job to keep showing you what you willingly ignore.
The HS choose certain words to convey his message to us concerning this matter.
He choose the word:
"EVERY Creature" and "Nothing to be refused" when speaking of what we can eat.
The definition of the words the HS chose for us, refute your teachings. If you look up these words in the Greek, or the English, we get the same definitions.
Every - means all inclusive, nothing excluded - Every creature, would mean all creatures none excluded.
Nothing to be refused, again - nothing excluded from the the command given concerning every creature none excluded.
Since it is you arguing with the rules of language and basic definitions of words, you have the bizarre interpretation. So the burden of proof lies with you, even though I have given you a mountain of proof.
You need to prove how "every creature" excludes pork, though it is not written there.
You need to prove how "nothing to be refused" means "except for pork" which again is not there.
You need to prove how "let no man judge you in food in drink" means "except in pork"
and you need to prove how when God said "what God has cleansed" did not include pork.
And since your logic of "it does not say specially pork", you need to prove how this logic does not make stoning okay since it is not specifically mentioned as a sin in neither the old and new testaments.
I am tired now of showing you evidence, and you ignoring it. you prove what your saying, otherwise, I am done here, I tried. I hope at the least you will not bind anything on anyone until you can deal with theses NT passages in a valid and reasonable way. Take care.