Conference yukon::christian_v7

    My view is pretty basic and simple.
    
    1) The word says do not get drunk, besides there is nothing good about
    drinking alcohol. If you're thirsty drink something like lemonade or
    juice.
    
    2) I dont smoke because my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and
    again it has no positive benefits(healthwise)
    
    3) eating meat. I love eating meat, I dont see anything wrong with
    that. I believe Jesus declared all food to be clean, its just a matter
    of concsience as to whether to eat it or not.
    
    Well there you have it, 1 opinion out of many.
    
    Sylvain
    

Hello Sunil!

Good to see you around again! - I haven't seen you here recently.

� They seem to be very committed Christians and are totally dedicated to Christ.
� What have you got to say about the above.
						- Praise the LORD!!!!

Sunil, some Christians find that their walk with the LORD calls them to
throw aside some things that other Christians do not find any harm in. That
is the individual responsibility of each Christian - to hear the voice of
the LORD and obey.  And to realise that what he has to do isn't necessarily
what every Christian has to do in this respect.  Abraham was called on by 
God to come to the point of sacrificing his own son.  Not *every* 
Israelite, or *every* person called by God has to do that, in quite that 
way.  In fact, God Himself is the only other one I recall, and He didn't 
get the last minute reprieve that Abraham (and Isaac) did ...

Some of the personal convictions about 'way of life' are an individual
responsibility; some should be recognised as for Christians generally to
observe as they learn to walk closer to the LORD.  People differ as to
where they see the boundaries between these lie. 

� In terms of they don't drink, smoke or eat meat.  

I don't know if you want quotes on these, which would make a very long 
reply, and take more time than I have just now, but you're probably aware 
that Christians put different emphases on these.

� They don't drink as they want clarity of mind so that they are aware
� of God all the time.

� They don't eat meat because the Bible tells them not to.

I understand the New Testament (as well as the Old) to clearly support
drinking alcohol in moderation (eg Jesus turning the water into wine in
John 2:1-11, the encouragement to Timothy to use wine medicinally, in 1
Timothy 5:23, etc).  Some claim that any use of wine throughout the
Bible did not refer to anything alcoholic, but in context I do not find 
this to hold fluid...

The New (and Old) Testaments also make it clear that the meat of animals
are a valid source of nourishment.  The New Testament controversy over 
their use lay in the act that in the wider empire - especially in places like 
Corinth - the best meat and wine was available from the sales-fronts of
temples, where it had previously been offered as a sacrifice to idols.  For
some, who had recently left idol-worship, this was a severe problem to
their conscience, as the eating and drinking had been a part of their
worship.  For others, they saw the food as originating from God, and the
offering as void, as they returned thanks to the LORD for it as His
provision (1 Corinthians 10:30).  This is outlined in 1 Corinthians 8, and
1 Corinthians 10:23-33. 

However, the principle of not offending (or hurting someone who is
struggling to overcome a weakness in the area) is also represented in
Romans 14 (esp v. 21) and 1 Corinthians 8 & 10. 

The principle of being separated to a more careful lifestyle is represented
by the nazirite separation (could eat meat, but didn't drink alcohol or cut
their hair during the period of the vow).  And the Recabite family, who
observed total (alcoholic) abstinence, as a personal commitment to the LORD
(Jeremiah 35:6), as well as living as nomads in tents even in the land they
inheritted. 

ie - you listen to the LORD and live according to the liberty of His 
revelation.  You can have the liberty of drinking, provided you maintain 
the integrity of the body made in His image and do not use your advantage 
to hurt your others; you can also use your liberty to refrain from 
drinking, but equally do not have a mandate to force your personal liberty 
on everyone else.
 
� They don't smoke because they feel that they destroying God's gift of
� life.  It's like committing suicide as smoking decreases their life span.
It is generally recognised that smoking is harmful to the body, and as such 
is an unsuitable habit for a Christian to employ.  It is also addictive, 
implying damage to the mind controlling the body - giving another reason 
for the Christian to avoid it.  Most Christians do not smoke, but there are 
some who have either not realised its inconsistency, or still have a battle
to win to overcome an earlier addiction.  The issue here is clearer cut,
but care has to be taken in Christian growth not to force our position on
anyone else, but to let the love of the LORD woo us each one into ever
greater depths of His revelation and goodness... 

I hope this at least starts to help ... !
								Andrew

  Meat and diet.

  Seventh Day Adventist should be able to help with this one. 

  I believe the refraining from meat goes back to the way of life in
  the Garden of Eden. Our Father gave Adam and Eve the fruit of trees
  which contained the seeds within the pulp and "every herb" I dont 
  completely recollect the hebrew wording, but I believe it means that
  *only* the "above ground" part of the plant should be eaten.
  
  I think things like potatoes, carrots, onions, etc would not be proper, 
  although tomatoes are in the same family as potatoes (nightshade) they 
  would be technically ok because they are above ground and have seeds inside.
  Mushrooms (as good as they are) would not be allowed because it is a spore
  and not a true plant.

  It seems that the idea is the preservation of life. If you eat a carrot
  you destroy its reproductive opportunity. If you eat an apple and do "the
  natural thing" outdoors, then you actually enhance the apple trees
  reproductive opportunity (encased seeds survive digestion).

  This is called a fructarian diet and is much stricter than a vegetarian 
  diet. Many christains believe that since this is the way it was in the Garden
  that this is God's best diet for humanity. It certainly would prevent a 
  lot of diseases related to the intake of fat and cholesterol.
  Others eat tuber vegetables, dairy products and are still considered
  vegetarians.

  After "the flood" God gave the Noahide Covenant which allowed the eating of
  all animals as food including those that were classified as "creepers"
  (Snakes, bugs, spiders (blaaa!) etc) and the unclean (pigs, bears, etc) 
  blood was not allowed to be consumed (Blek!).

  Then came the mosaic Covenant which still allowed meat but only 1) ruminating
  split hooved mammals 2) fish with fins and scales 3) birds with gizzard.
  4) "leaping" insects (grasshoppers, locust (no thank you Lord).

  Acts 15 indicates that believers are now back under the Noahide Covenant 
  when it comes to diet. The only restriction is to refrain from consuming 
  blood (YEK!) and meat offered to idols.

  Diet for the christian is a matter of choice, some consider it a matter
  of conscience, others a matter of strict conviction.
  
  Hank  

The Bible shows in no uncertain terms that it is permissible to eat meat. 

  Acts 10:13-
    'Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not,
    Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
    The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God
    has made clean."

    1 Cor 8:8-

    'But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not
    eat, and no better if we do.'

    1 Cor 10:25-

    'Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
    conscience, for, the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it...If I
    take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced for
    something I thank God for?'

    1 Tim 4:1-

    'The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the
    faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such
    teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been
    seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them
    to abstain from certain foods which God created to be received with
    thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For
    everything God created is good, and noting is to be rejected if it is
    received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of
    God and prayer.'

Eating meat is VERY acceptible to the God of the Bible, whom we serve.
It was part of our God's passover ceremony.

There's a whole lot more scripture on the subject if you want them.

      Hi Sunil,
    
        I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist and I do not eat meat and I do
        not believe God wants me to eat meat.
    
        I think Andy's reply hits closest to the mark for me and I
        appreciated much of Hank's reply as well.
    
        To summarize why I don't eat meat...I believe we are in a
        very special time called the Day of Atonement (not a literal
        day so far as time span antitypically, i.e. in its spiritual 
        application).
    
        I believe God asks for more commitment on the Day of Atone-
        ment because He wants to accomplish something very special.
        In the O.T., people ate differently on the Day of Atonement
        than they ate any other time.  They didn't eat at all!  (They
        were called to fast.)
    
        The spiritual parallel to this, I believe, is a simplicity of
        diet so that we can be in optimal health so that all other 
        things being the same, we can enjoy clearer minds.  Thus we
        can (again...all other things being the same) enjoy a closer
        walk with the Lord, we can better hear His Spirit 'speak' to
        us.
    
        Mark brought up some good scriptures and as with many other
        topics where there is a lack of union among believers, there 
        seems to be scripture that supports his position and others 
        that seem to support my position.  In fact, we have a recent 
        topic that discusses seeming contradictions in the word.
    
        Daniel was an endtime prophet.  He benefitted wonderfully from
        eating a vegetarian diet.  He and his friends were far healthier 
        than those that ate from a more inclusive diet.  I believe Dan 1
        says they were 10 times healthier (or maybe it was smarter).
    
        Another thing I want to say is the impact of time.  Meat in the
        days of the Bible was quite different than meat today.  We all
        probably know of the shows (such as 20/20) where slaughterhouses
        are shown.  Things like flesh food riddled with cancerous tumors
        are shown.  Also revealed are the 'sub-anything' lives these poor
        beasts have just so they can satisfy the palate of some person.
        Chickens who are so crowded with each other that after few days,
        they are essentially neurotic and insane and their entire lives
        are so unlike what their Creator designed for them.  There is a
        litany of suffering of God's creatures that has turned many a
        person from flesh eating.  And again, there is the unhealthy
        flesh.  VERY unhealthy flesh.  So unlike the times of the writing
        of the scriptures.
    
        To summarize, I believe that in the Day of Atonement, a wedding
        begins to take place and God's people begin to be married to
        Christ.  In all things, they are returned to the image of their
        Creator.  Even their relationship with animals will more and more
        reflect the original intended pre-sin relationship.  It was one
        where there was no death.  
    
        The above is somewhat ideal.  I believe in exceptions.  For
        example, my father took me out to eat at a place where there was
        no vegetarian meals.  Rather than make him feel uncomfortable, I
        ate meat.  I believe there are other exceptions, but the above 
        is a very general summary of what I believe.
    
        Simply that it is the Day of Atonement and that the parallel to 
        fasting means (in part) a call to simplicity of diet because it
        is a time to afflict one's soul and to be made ready to see God
        face to face.
    
                                                   God Bless,
    
                                                   Tony
                                                            

>        Daniel was an endtime prophet.  He benefitted wonderfully from
>        eating a vegetarian diet.  He and his friends were far healthier 
>        than those that ate from a more inclusive diet.  I believe Dan 1
>        says they were 10 times healthier (or maybe it was smarter).
 
  Tony, this is a bit out of context.  Daniel was also a Jew and most
certainly ate the Passover Lamb.  The context of his vegetarian diet 
was in the land of exile.  Do you think he never ate meat that was 
NOT sacrificed to idols?  Do you think that he never partook of the
Passover meal after his exile to Babylon?  His "vegetarianism" was 
temporary and had everything to do with where the meat was coming from
and not that it was the flesh of animals.  Christ ate the Passover Lamb
and fish, too.

   Your next paragraph about the unhealthiness of meat is questionable.
I don't doubt some of the unhealthiness of some meats, but some of the
same meats can be clean.  In addition, we have done things with technology
that have (also) improved the healthiness of meat (prevention of spoilage,
refrigeration, etc).  Many people who eat meat live long healthy lives.
To say that it is unhealthy is akin to a lot of the "health commandos"
looking out to warn us of evil food.

  I don't mind your spiritual reasons for choosing not to eat meat,
but recognize that this is a personal choice.  Sampson the Nazarite
did not drink wine as part of his Nazarite vows.  It was not a spiritual
requirement of all Jews.  Neither is vegetarianism a spiritual requirement
or otherwise a requirement for Christians.  In fact, I think the Bible
condones meat eating rather than supports the opposite except (perhaps) 
for special and specific reasons.

Mark

Incidentally, I choose not to drink or smoke.
My reasons for not drinking are a bit different that Sylvains.

I do not find alcohol to be evil.  Mind you, I have never had alcohol,
except maybe in cough syrup.  I do find the abuse of alcohol to be evil.
The verses about not getting drunk apply here.

The reason I don't drink is more of a witness and a protection for me
and for others.  Let's say I can handle my liquor, but Joe cannot.  If
Joe sees me drink, he may think that it is okay, and wind up getting
drunk because of his weakness.  Indirectly, by my witness, I may have 
helped him to engage in an activity that would accost his weakness.
As for me, what if I had the weakness?  Does a recovering alcoholic
dare take even one drink?  Not by what my [RA] friends have told me.

On the other hand, there are perhaps some benefits to small amounts.
And the alcohol can kill many of the microorganisms in the water of
third world countries.  So mixing the wine into the water, it becomes 
a matter of safety instead of a matter of recreation.

Now about my Coca-cola habit....

Mark

    I think its important when looking at things that people do or don't
    do, to look at the REASON behind it.  Are they doing these things to be
    more acceptable to God, or are they hold these convictions because it
    is something that the Lord has revealed for THEM?
    
    The bible is very clear that we are saved by grace and that we are to
    walk in the liberty (or freedom) of that grace by abiding in Christ. 
    Romans 6:15-16 states, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you
    are not under law, but under grace.  What then?  Shall we sin because
    we are not under law but under grace?  May it never be!  Do you not
    know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for
    obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin
    resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?"
    
    Galatians 5:1 further states, "It was for freedom that Christ set us
    free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a
    yoke of slavery."
    
    Personally, I don't drink.  There is a distructive history in my
    family, which was fueled by alcohol and alcoholism.  I CHOOSE not to
    drink.  I also have many Christian brothers and sisters, who DO drink
    in moderation.  They are every bit as love and accepted by the Lord as I 
    am.  It is by HIS grace that I am acceptable and righteous in His sight. 
    Not from a righteousness derived from my own effort.  There is a command in 
    Ephesians 5:18 to not be drunk with wine.  The other part of the verse is 
    to [continue] BE [being] filled with the Holy Spirit.  This is a command, 
    not a law.  We are not accepted or rejected, based on our performance.
    
    We should be using the freedom He has given us to know Him and to abide
    in Him, allowing Christ to live His life through us to produce
    righteousness.  I think its important when seeking to know the heavenly
    Father through scripture that we neither add to or take away from God's
    Word.  I have paraphrased a section below from "Jordan's Crossing" by 
    Randall Arthur, which defines a literalist, a legalist, and a
    liberalist:
    
    A literalist - One who believes scripture is inspired by God. They
    neither add to, or take away from the truth of God's word.  They read and 
    study the scriptures to seek to know God.
    
    A legalist - One who believes scripture is inspired by God, but adds to
    it. (ie Christians can't go to movies, Christian women can't wear slacks,
    etc.).
    
    A liberalist - One who takes away from the word of God.  They pick and
    choose what they believe, based on what SEEMS right to them.
    
    Scripture points us to the Living Word- Jesus.  I believe it is very
    important to take a literalist view when interpreting Scripture.  We
    should allow the Father to speak to us and respond to Him in faith. 
    Rom 8:1 says that there is no condemnation for those who are His
    children.  We shouldn't put condemnation on other believers because
    they smoke, drink, or chew, or go with girls who do 8^)!  Its not
    obeying a list of rules that will allow us to live a victorious life,
    but its focusing on the One who came to bring us abundant life, and
    abiding [dwelling] in Him.  Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life!
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    
    Bing

    Andrew,
    
    Your replies so frequently stand out in my mind; yours here being no
    exception!
    
    Thanks for being obedient to Him such that rivers of living water are
    poured out through you, blessing those of us who stand in the path of
    His flow :-)
    
    Steve

Hello All,

I'm a Seventh-day Adventist, and here is my 2 cents worth:  The SDAs (may God
bless us all) seem to be famous for their list of "Do Nots": for example, when 
asked about their religion, the average SDA will likely respond with sentences 
beginning in "We do not....."   I'd like to change that, if I may.  :-)

1.  It's important to remember that EVERYTHING in the Bible can be taken out
    of context and taken to extreme.  Jesus was never extreme in anything.

2.  Your walk with the Lord is just that; YOUR walk with the Lord.  Don't let
    anyone tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing.  You should be
    reading the Word of God regularly to see what He wants you to do and how
    He wants you to do it.  

3.  Meat eating:  I eat meat.  I enjoy it.  I always have.  But the meat I eat
    now is not the meat I grew up eating.  I eat only what is considered 'clean'
    meat now.  God's original diet for man did not include meat.  After the 
    flood God said it was okay to eat meat but not every kind, and mans life 
    expectancy dropped dramatically.  Gods original purpose was that the earth 
    be cleaned by what we call 'scavengers'.  God has always maintained that 
    He didn't want these eaten.  Yes, I know that some of you believe that in 
    Acts 10 we were given permission to eat any kind of meat now, and after all,
    this is the New Testament.  But does it really say that?  Let's all look at 
    the line that people normally omit when quoting Acts 10:

 Acts 10:28 - And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing 
 for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; 
 but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

    Now, if we take this to it's logical conclusion, we now have permission
    to eat people since man is no longer consider unclean.  Please!!!!!
    It simply says that it is now lawful for the Jews to speak to Gentiles
    and worship with them and have them in their houses.  So they Gospel
    could go to the whole world.  Does this make sense?  Now with this in mind,
    do you think that this chapter says it's now okay to eat bats, camels, 
    hare, eagles, vultures, owls, swans, etc...?  Most of you don't eat bats
    and swans so the only real problem here comes when we reach the word swine. 
    We love our bacon don't we?  I used to.  And lobster & crab.  These things 
    are still scavengers and nothing else has changed.  But you may feel 
    differently about these things, and that is between yourself and the Lord.
    I am merely letting you see a different side to Acts 10.

4.  Smoking:  I smoked heavily for many years.  I was a Christian at the time.
    Go figure.  I enjoyed it immensely and it was very difficult for me to
    give up.  This is important:  I knew Jesus loved me even though I smelled
    like an ashtray and he died to save me even though I had a butt in my 
    mouth most of the time.  But I was getting a little sicker as each year
    went by, and I knew that He didn't want me to kill myself.  It's amazing
    how you think when you are addicted to something.  So I quit.  <- This is
    the short version.  Actually I tried to quit a few times before I was 
    finally successful.  The bottom line is I don't think Jesus wants us to
    smoke for loads of reasons,  Here are just 2:  It will kill you, and we
    will have a harder time getting people to listen to us when we try to tell
    them about the Gospel.  I don't think Jesus would have smoked.

5.  Wine:  This is a most touchy subject for many people.  After all, the Bible
    clearly says that you can drink a little wine but not get drunk.  Before I
    go any further here, are there any of you who really believe that the wine
    that Jesus made (turned from water) was capable of getting the guests
    drunk, i.e. alcoholic?  Think carefully here.  I used to love to drink.
    I remember how I felt after one glass, after two glasses, after 5 glasses.
    After carefully considering what "wine" really means in the Bible, I don't
    think that Jesus was getting the wedding guests sloshed in Cana.  Please
    do some research on your own for this because your mileage may vary.  I'd
    love to be able to point to a few Bible verses as I'm downing a glass of 
    Chablis and say with all sincerity "The Lord says this is okay as long as
    you don't get drunk."  But it doesn't really say that.  There is no 
    distinction in the Bible between fermented and unfermented wine.  
    Unfermented wine is grape juice.  Please consider this:  

  John 2:9-10  	When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was 
  		made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which 
		drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the 
		bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning 
		doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then 
		that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

This is the important point here: When we think of "the best wine" we tend to
think of the most expensive champagne, the best year, etc.  But this was not
so during Jesus' time.  Fermented wine was common because it was available all
the time.  Unfermented wine, freshly pressed grape juice, was only available
for a very short time because it could not be stored.  It still had all of it's
good qualities for drinking, it was sweet, had it's vitamins, and it could be
served to anyone at the wedding, man, woman or child.  You may disagree, but 
when I think of the Lord serving His friends and His mother alcohol, I get this
visual (STOP READING HERE IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED!) of a few hours later
when everyone there, including Jesus, is wasted, and they are all singing "Show
me the way to go home, I'm tired and I wanna go to bed..."  Is this your Lord?

Feedback is always welcome,
Janet Brown
	=============================================================
	 "Christianity is a thing to be practiced, like the violin."
        =============================================================

> Acts 10:28 - And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing 
> for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; 
> but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
>
>    Now, if we take this to it's logical conclusion, we now have permission
>    to eat people since man is no longer consider unclean.  Please!!!!!

I beg to differ.  The context here is "Jew..keeping company...with other
national people."  Not about eating.  The eating thing was a parallel, not
a logical progression.

> 15  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath
>cleansed, that call not thou common.

This verse in Acts 10 is key.  What God has cleansed (whether it be food,
meat, or people) don't call it "common."  There were many things sanctified
for tabernacle use, but they all weren't used for the same thing.  So too,
are these things all not for eating.  God is saying that "if I cleanse the
meat, it's okay to eat it; and if I cleanse the people, it's okay to
keep their company."  There is no logical progression, but a parallel of
thought; the link being "what God has cleansed...call thou not common."

Mark

      re: -1
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        I wonder if the imagery of clean and unclean food was symbolic
        of different peoples, i.e. Jew and Gentile.  For example, Daniel
        and Revelation are fraught with imagery.  Is the imagery to be
        taken as symbol only or as symbol + what the imagery actual is?
    
        I have incorporated into the context, what Peter's response
        actually is.
    
        1) Does Peter sit down to a breakfast of bacon and eggs?
    
        2) Does Peter include Gentiles as recipients of the good news
           of the gospel?
    
        3) Does Peter sit down to a breakfast of bacon and eggs and
           include Gentiles as recipients of the good news of the 
           gospel?
    
        Peter did #2 and when context includes Peter's response to the
        vision he received, it suggests to me that the intent of the
        vision is to not exclude Gentiles from the good news of the
        gospel.
    
        This conclusion doesn't really surprise me because I don't think
        the visions of beasts in Daniel include something that will happen
        in real life with actual beasts _and_ something that will happen
        in real life with that which the beasts symbolize.
    
        Its really not far-fetched to consider visions only from the
        perspective of that which they symbolize.  Indeed, it is highly
        scriptural!
    
                                                      Tony
                                             

	Bing, as always, another great note. 

    re: .11
    
    
    > -< other than this... good note! >-
    
    Many thanks!
    
    Please don't be offended if I just stress at this point that I believe
    you are incorrect in the rest of your post.  Just consider what
    happened after Acts 10:28.  Everyone didn't start eating unclean things
    because that was the new way, did they?  No.  The Holy Spirit was
    poured out on the believers, Gentiles included (Acts 10:44-45)!
    
    Warm regards,
    Janet

Offended, me?  Hah!

Apparently I wasn't as clear as I should have been, because I agree
that the REASON for the vision was to demonstrate that the gentiles
were accepted by God as were the Jews.  We have agreement, Janet and
Tony!

But it does not negate the fact that God told Peter in his vision to
rise, kill, and eat - EVEN IF IT ONLY WAS TO SHOW A PRINCIPLE.  God 
certainly would not tell someone to perform a sinful act to get a point
across.  Would God say "rise, kill, and eat..." even in a vision if
he did not mean it to be okay to do?

And again, what about Christ eating the Passover lamb and fish?
Both were meat items the last I checked, so the Acts item is but
one example of many.

MM

� I believe the radiation is what decreased the life expectancy.

I too, Bob.  I also believe that this is what made it unsafe to marry a 
close relative.  Prior to the flood, it would have been ok - and even 
afterwards for a brief time (Abraham married his half-sister, and Amram 
married his aunt Jochebed), however, this is subsequently forbidden in the 
laws given through Moses.  Genetic flaws resulting from radiation dominate
when present in both parents, resulting in downs syndrome type handicaps.  
Obviously these can occur from unrelated parents, but are almost inevitable 
between close relatives.

Ah!  Apologies for the diversion...

							Andrew

    Re: .16
    
    > We have agreement, Janet and Tony!
    
    That's always good.
    
    > But it does not negate the fact that God told Peter in his vision to
    
    No facts are negated.  God does not blow hot and cold.  If he says
    something is not good for you (He made them, He knows) He means it,
    and He never changed it.  I'm sorry, but you do not have permission to
    eat any critter you want.  You may eat what you like, but you don't 
    have permission.
    
    That vision was designed to shock Peter.  Not change unclean animals
    into clean animals.  Remember, since everything that God made was good,
    then the unclean animals are good too.  This doesn't make them clean.
    They do just what they were intended to do: scavenger/clean up.
    
    Warm regards,
    Janet

> bib -s"meat" matthew john

Matthew 3:4  And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a
leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

Matthew 6:25  Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put
on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Matthew 9:10  And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold,
many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

Matthew 10:10  Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes,
nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Matthew 14:9  And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and
them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.

Matthew 15:37  And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the
broken meat that was left seven baskets full.

Matthew 24:45  Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath
made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Matthew 25:35  For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and
ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Matthew 25:42  For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty,
and ye gave me no drink:

Matthew 26:7  There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very
precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

Mark 2:15  And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many
publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for
there were many, and they followed him.

Mark 7:19  Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and
goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Mark 8:8  So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken
meat that was left seven baskets.

Mark 14:3  And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at
meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very
precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Mark 16:14  Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and
upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they
believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


Luke 3:11  He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him
impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Luke 7:36  And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him.
And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
 37  And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that
Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of
ointment,

Luke 7:49  And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves,
Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

Luke 8:55  And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he
commanded to give her meat.

Luke 9:13  But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have
no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for
all this people.

Luke 11:37  And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him:
and he went in, and sat down to meat.

Luke 12:23  The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

Luke 12:37  Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall
find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make
them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

Luke 12:42  And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward,
whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion
of meat in due season?

Luke 14:10  But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that
when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with
thee.

Luke 14:15  And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things,
he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

Luke 17:7  But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will
say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to
meat?

Luke 22:27  For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that
serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that
serveth.

Luke 24:30  And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,
and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

Luke 24:41  And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said
unto them, Have ye here any meat?

John 4:8  (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

John 4:32  But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

John 4:34  Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent
me, and to finish his work.

John 6:27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which
endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for
him hath God the Father sealed.

John 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

John 21:5  Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They
answered him, No.


Number of occurances of search: meat  -  37.

>    That vision was designed to shock Peter.  Not change unclean animals
>    into clean animals.  Remember, since everything that God made was good,
>    then the unclean animals are good too.  This doesn't make them clean.
>    They do just what they were intended to do: scavenger/clean up.

Then let us look again to the Scripture:
    
 11  And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it
had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
 12  Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
 13  And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
 14  But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is
common or unclean.
 15  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath
cleansed, that call not thou common.

God says to kill and eat.
Peter says, there are unclean and common animals.
God says, whatever I cleanse is not unclean.

I beg to differ again that this did not make [all the animals listed] clean.  
Indeed it did, because God cleansed them.

MM

1Corinthians 8:8  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat,
are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1 Timothy 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;
  2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
iron;
  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.
  4  For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be
received with thanksgiving:
  5  For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
  6  If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a
good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good
doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
  7  But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather
unto godliness.

Mark 7:19 has in parentheses :

	"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean".

Tha's the NIV; the KJV has this as :

	"purging all meats"

 - which is a little obscure but the derivation becomes clear...

								Andrew

 Alcoholic wine was unavoidable in Jesus day and thats what made it good.
 The alcohol in the wine acted as an antiseptic and preservative and killed 
 any unfriendly critters who took up residence in the juice. The naturally 
 fermented wine of Jesus time had less alcohol content than that of the 
 modern wines (less than 5%). Some modern wines have 10-20% alcohol. In the
 book of Acts Peter says (to the effect) how can these be drunk seeing it is
 still morning/ One had to drink all day to get drunk on naturally fermented
 wine. Also wine was used as a natural medicine. Remember the Good Samaritan
 who poured oil and wine into the wounds? "take a glass of wine for thy
 stomach's sake and thy often infirmities"? Many modern medicines which 
 teetotaling christians take (cancer chemo-therapy, for instance) are far
 more toxic and deadly than the strongest alcoholic beverages. In addition
 mild wine has been found to be of benefit in the digestion process, especially
 after fatty meat is eaten as it has the effect of denuding the fat molecules
 of an acidic sticky substance which causes arteriosclerosis by the building up
 of "plak" on the walls of veins and arteries.

 Solar distilling was know in biblical days and the result of the distillation
 was "strong drink" 50% or more of alcohol content. This was not used the way
 whiskey and other strong drink is used today. People would take it on a trip
 because of the extensive animal pollution of local water supplies. some strong
 drink was added to water that was suspect to "drive out the bad spirits"
 People did drink it straight however and the Bible indicates that it is 
 unwise to do so. Many christians appeal to the bible for practising abstinence, 
 but the Bible only condemns drunkeness. Moderation is allowed. The Bible also 
 says "you shall eat no manner of fat"  Think about that the next time you eat 
 a bag of potato chips, check out the grease on your fingers when you are done.
 Fat has been found to be just as detrimental to our health as alcohol.
 Alcohol will let you know about your sin RIGHT AWAY as you "hug the bowl".
 Fat will let you know of your overindulgence when you have your first stroke
 and die. On a 60 minutes show, heart disease was comparatively studied 
 (USA vs France). The greatest incidence of heart disease in America is in 
 the "Bible Belt" where large amounts of meat are eaten and little alcohol
 consumed. In france up to four times the amount of fatty foods are eaten
 but they have only 10% of the incidence of heart disease and stroke than us. 
 The  conclusion: the difference was attributable to the natural wines that 
 they consume at every meal. Our problem with alcohol is intemperance.
 
 Tap water is deadly :
 It has also been found that the Chlorine halogen ion is highly carcinogenic.
 Studies are being done to determine what that translates into as to the 
 number of deaths caused by colon cancer after several years of drinking
 "safe" chlorinated water. 

 Drink no longer water only but take a glass of wine...etc was good advice 
 after all.

 Hank

    Re: .23
    
    Lets see now, Mark 7 is talking about eating bread, right? (Mark 7:2)
    What does this have to do with eating meat from an unclean animal?
    Please look at it again:  Mark 7:1-23
    
    Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the
    scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
    And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is
    to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
    For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands
    oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
    And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not.
    And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as
    the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
    Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy
    disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread
    with unwashen hands?
    He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you
    hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their
    lips, but their heart is far from me.
    Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
    commandments of men.
    For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of 
    men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like 
    things ye do.
    And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
    that ye may keep your own tradition.
    For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso
    curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
    But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is
    Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be
    profited by me; he shall be free.
    And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
    Making the word of God of none effect through your
    tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
    And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them,
    Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
    There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can
    defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that
    defile the man.
    If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
    And when he was entered into the house from the people, his
    disciples asked him concerning the parable.
    And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye
    not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the
    man, it cannot defile him;
    Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and
    goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
    And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
    For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil
    thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
    Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil 
    eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
    All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
    
    Where does this say that meat from an unclean animal is okay to eat?
    "Meat" is a common term used to mean food in the Bible.  What is being
    disucssed in Mark 7 is 'holding the tradition of the elders' by washing
    a certain cerimonial way before eating (Mark 7:8).  Corban is also
    discussed.  Nothing here indicates that God said it was okay to eat
    meat from an unclean animal.
    
    Warm regards,
    Janet

> Tap water is deadly :
> It has also been found that the Chlorine halogen ion is highly carcinogenic.
> Studies are being done to determine what that translates into as to the 
> number of deaths caused by colon cancer after several years of drinking
> "safe" chlorinated water. 

I wonder if Coca-Cola kills the nasties, too?  :-}

As for the fat... well, you've hit below the belt, Hank (what hangs over
it that is).  Ouch!

      Hi Mark,
    
        I do believe the entire vision experience was symbolic.
        That is, God telling Pete to kill and eat meant to go
        out and witness to Gentiles.
    
        I don't really want to continue this not because I think
        the dialogue has been unfriendly (its been great), but
        only because I don't consider diet a weightier matter of
        the law.
    
        I personally see little basis for vegetarianism outside the
        context of an antitypical Day of Atonement and its call to
        fast.  This would include the attendant principles of wearing
        sackloth and ashses, supplicating oneself, etc. so as to be
        prepared to inhabit Mount Zion where everything that can be
        shaken will be shaken.
    
        Janet, your exit message is wonderful!  I like it so I'll use
        it here!
    
                                                 Warmest Regards,
    
                                                 Tony

Hi Sunil, 

As you can see, there's quite a spectrum of understanding on this issue,
many views held very vehemently.  They have also been discussed in this
forum before (and by the same people!), so I don't think there is much
profit in repeating it from that point of view. 

I hope this gives you the perspective you wanted on what you asked!

The key thing you should see is that we're looking for what God teaches in
the Bible for our basis, and that gives our personal scope of freedoms.

							God bless
								Andrew

  Re  .25 unclean meat...

  Read Acts 15 We are NOT under the mosaic law. Only blood is a no-no.
  The Noahic Covenant ALLOWS unclean animals. Read Genesis 9. This 
  covenant is still in effect for gentiles.

  Goodness, grascious. 

  .26 MM

  I know all about dunlap's disease.
  My belly dunlaped over my belt.

  Of course my problem is genetic.

  Hank

>    A literalist - One who believes scripture is inspired by God. They
>    neither add to, or take away from the truth of God's word.  They read and 
>    study the scriptures to seek to know God.
    
    Agreed
    
>    A legalist - One who believes scripture is inspired by God, but adds to
>    it. (ie Christians can't go to movies, Christian women can't wear slacks,
>    etc.).
    
    Need you to further define this.  When you say i.e., can't go to movies
    or women wear slacks, what do you mean?  Are we talking standards
    versus salvation???? or it is required for salvation?
    
    
    
>    A liberalist - One who takes away from the word of God.  They pick and
>    choose what they believe, based on what SEEMS right to them.
    
    Agreed
    
  

    Well, this has certainly been fun!  I like to see people who can stand
    behind their beliefs and I like to shake up those who can't.  Just
    because we are not all in one accord (Honda: the favorite car of the
    apostles!) on this issue of food is no big deal.  It will certainly not
    affect anyones salvation.  Personally speaking, I choose not to eat 
    scavengers.  I believe our bodies work better if we put the proper fuel
    into them.  But, in an emergency, like if I'm stuck on a deserted island, 
    I will gladly eat them if that's all that's available.
    
    Re: whatever, I lost count....
    >Read Acts 15 We are NOT under the mosaic law. Only blood is a no-no.
     The Noahic Covenant ALLOWS unclean animals. Read Genesis 9. This
     covenant is still in effect for gentiles.
    
    The Mosaic Law ended when Christ came and died on the cross for us. The
    rest of the laws (gravity, nature, 10 Commandments, etc..) are still in
    effect.  Scavengers are still scavengers and they still eat dead stuff.
    Uh-oh!......did I just open another can of worms?  :-)
    
    Warm regards & God Bless,
    Janet Brown
    
    P.S. Feel free to contact me off-line at TOLKIN::JBROWN if you feel the
         need.

    >A legalist - One who believes scripture is inspired by God, but adds to
    >it. (ie Christians can't go to movies, Christian women can't wear slacks,
    >etc.).
        
    |Need you to further define this.  When you say i.e., can't go to movies
    |or women wear slacks, what do you mean?  Are we talking standards versus 
    |salvation???? or it is required for salvation?
    
    It was just an example.  Many times churchs take on man's traditions
    and make them doctrines.  In the Baptist church, a classic example is
    dancing.  I went to a Baptist college.  To get around the "no dancing"
    thing we ended up having "mixers" off campus.  It became a legalistic
    thing.  In Randall Arthur's other book, "The Wisdom Hunter", the main
    character's daughter ends up rebelling and running away from home.  The
    main character was a legalistic pastor and ended up putting excessive
    restraints on his family.  There is a series of catastrophic events
    which cause this pastor's belief system to crumble, so basically he
    starts all over searching for Truth.  We can make a law of anything and
    then try to make everyone else submit to that same law.  Quiet times
    can become legalistic, for instance.  So, God can speak to me that I 
    shouldn't go to "R" rated movies, which he has.  I believe the reason he 
    would have me not go to those movies is to protect my mind from being 
    poluted by garbage (Philippians 4:8), not to make me more acceptable in His 
    sight, and not to make it a law that other Christians have to have for 
    themselves.  Maybe He's more concerned with another area of their life
    at the moment.
    
    If God speaks to us about something, such as going to movies, then we
    should simply respond to Him in faith.  I think a lot of it, which I
    believe I stated way back, is the order of things.  First love for God
    (Actually we have to let Him love us first), next dependance upon God, and
    3rd obedience to God.  If we get to the 3rd step, without the first two
    if becomes drudgery.  It becomes something we do FOR God, rather that
    Him doing through us.  I believe it leads to spiritual burn out.
    
    Paul said that "More than that, I count all things to be loss in view
    of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I
    have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in
    order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 3:8).  I've heard this taught that
    once we get rid of "things" in our lives that we will grow closer to
    Jesus.  I think the order is the opposite.  When we focus on and abide
    in our loving Savior, the "things" will lose their importance to us.  
    As the hymn goes, "Turn your eyes upon Jesus.  Look full in His wonderful 
    face.  And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, in the light of His
    glorious grace."   
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing
    
    ps- A long answer to a short question!  8^)

 Hi Janet ,

 We get into these doldrums and like to "quarrel" in a sibling sort of way.
 If you want to see bloodshed go over to PEAR::SOAPBOX.
 wear yur armor.

 Hank

    Then I would disagree with your definition on legalism.
    
    Legalism would mean adding to salvation, not standards.
    There are many churches that have "standards" or guidelines for those
    who "serve" in the church, i.e., dress codes, etc., but that has
    nothing to do with salvation.
    
    A person can be saved and never set one separation standard in there
    life and still go to churches that have standards.
    
    IMHO,
    Nancy

    Hi Hank,
    
    Thanks for the warning.  :-)  Seriously though, I am enjoying this.  
    I am usually just a read-only here but I had to get into this one. 
    I've met a few fanatics in my day, people who get obsessed beyond 
    reason about this stuff. It's silly.  I've even had one gentleman
    shout in my face about the 'sin of mayonnaise' (it clogs the arteries,
    you know, and this is a sort of suicide which is murder).  I think we
    take ourselves far too seriously sometimes.  
    
    Warm Regards,
    Janet

I'll buy that, Janet.

P.S.  I hate mayonnaise, anyway.  :-)  I have other artery-clogging substances
and hope that genetics are on my side.  My great-grandfather lived to his 
90s eating eggs nearly every day.  I think genetics and lifestyle have a
greater (though not sole) influence on the health of one's body.

P.P.S.  I also agree with Nancy.

    My doctor has repeatedly told me that the most important thing you can
    do for your longevity is not diet, exercise, rest or hard work - it is
    to pick your parents wisely!
    
    This has been a good string and I complement the responders.  My mind
    was not changed, but they made me think.
    
    In His love,
    
    Daryl

re<<< Note 563.37 by SIERAS::MCCLUSKY >>>
>    do for your longevity is not diet, exercise, rest or hard work - it is
>    to pick your parents wisely!
    
I always heard that the best thing to do  for longevity was not to die.

Chele

    In that case I'm doomed! :-)

�    In that case I'm doomed! :-)
Unless yuo're raptured.... ;-)

							&

      Or translated...

My mother's parents died at 57 and 60.  My father's parents are still 
living (90 and 93).  I don't think you get to split the difference.
My mother has passed her parents' age, but just.  I think technology
can have a little affect.  For example, Grandma Johnson died of a stroke 
>after< "successful" open heart surgery in 1967.  Since then, open heart 
surgery has had more time to become less risky.  Mom had gall bladder
surgery and was shopping the next day (because the procedure is so
much easier these days.

How many people die in their sleep?  Grandpa Johnson did.  But a lot of
us will have our number called in many different ways.  What you eat
may improve your chances of longer life.  Imagine taking all precautions
possible (without being a recluse) to prolong your life, and then
have a comet fall from the sky and kill you.  Understanding that we
don't have control over how long we live, doesn't mean we should seek
ways to destroy ourselves, but it should help us to relax and enjoy
what is good for us - and the occassional [box of] Oreo(s).  ;^9

Even so, Lord Jesus, Come!  Exit, stage up.

    G'day All,

    I live in an area where we have a very large community of Seventh Day
    Adventists in Sydney.  They run courses on health, cooking, the Bible
    etc.  They also have a Hospital were the surgeons are Ministers of the
    Church and they only food you get is vegan.  They also have Sanitrium a
    health food company and they make many popular brands of cerels and
    other foods.  The people in this church tend to be very friendly and
    have something different about them, in terms of they are always bright
    , fully of colour and peaceful.
    
    Having spoken to them they do tell us not to eat egg, fish or meat and
    not to drink or smoke.  Reading the replies it implies that the Bibles
    tells us that those people who try to restrict you in this manner are
    not "true belivers" !!!  I looked again in this conference and found a
    note on SDA and it looks like Elain White who founded this church is
    false etc.  So I don't really know what to say, I guess I am a bit
    confused by all of this, just as I was finding Christians who I thought
    were easy to get along with.
    
    At the health seminars the Ministers quoted the Bible to give reasons
    why meat shouldn't be eaten.  I was impressed by them and they seemed
    to have a great deal of authority. I guess that you can be mislead by
    people and the quotes in all the relies here suggest that what was
    being said was not true.
    
    My wife also mentioned that in France the word "meat" ment food and not
    flesh.  My wife is French and is a linguist she gave me a explaination
    of how the word "meat" ment food in French back many years ago.  I
    could get the history from her but I guess I am a bit lazy, as she goes
    into alot of details as she has a Masters in Linguistics.
    
    Thanks for your input at least I have the story from both sides.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil
    
    PS - I went to their Spring Service and I met people from so many parts
    of the world, there was singing and the music was great.  I had a great
    time it was a very joyful event and the food was very tasty.

    Re: Note 563.43 by GIDDAY::SETHI
    
>   Reading the replies it implies that the Bibles
>   tells us that those people who try to restrict you in this manner are
>   not "true belivers" !!! 
    
    I think you read more in those replies than is there, Sunil.  It really
    depends on what you mean by "true believers".
    
    I would encourage you to continue going along to their meetings, if you
    find them acceptable.
    
    James

    Sunil,

    I agree with James.  There can be quite lively discussion and well,
    argument in here over points like this, but these are not the import-
    ant issue.  The important issue is faith in Jesus, loving God with
    all your being, and loving your neighbor as yourself.  Just because
    we do not agree with a group of people over the issue of food, does
    not mean that they are not true Christians.

    Leslie

    Re:  .43  
    
    Hello again Sunil,
    
    What you read in the SDA note here (#416) may not necessarily be the
    truth.  Please read 416.72, 416.73, and 416.74 again.  I only wish that
    I had known about this note when the topic was still fresh and I could
    have responded for our church in a more timely manner.  A lot of things
    needed to be said at the time but it's probably too late now.  If
    people are interested in the truth, they must do their own research,
    not just read a note by Mike Heiser.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet Brown
    
    

Sunil,
  The church of the Nazarene has doctrines and then it also has special rules
that it asks its body of believers to observe because the collective body has
decided that based on Christian >principles< certain behaviors can be 
harmful or damaging to oneself, or worse, the Christian witness.
  To someone in another Christian church (indeed to not-a-few Nazarenes),
some of these guidelines are a bit restrictive.  To her credit, the
Nazarene church is somewhat general in its approach to some things: "We hold
specifically that the following practices should be avoided: entertainments
which are subversive of the Christian ethic.  Our people should govern
themselves by three principles.  One is the Christian stewardship of leisure
time.  A second principle is the recognition of the Christian obligation
to apply the highest moral standards to the Christian family.... The third
principle is the obligation to witness against social evils by appropriate
forms of influence, and by the refusal to patronize and thereby lend influence
to the industries which are known to be purveyors of this kind of 
entertainment...."
  One of these specific rules in our church prohibits "intoxicating liquors
as a beverage, or trafficking there in."  Yet, we know that the Bible simply
says "do not get drunk."  
  The "rules" are given to be followed "as guides and helps to holy living.
Those who violate the conscience of the church do so at their own peril and 
to the hurt of the witness of the church.  Culturally conditioned 
adaptations shall be referred to and approved by the Board of General
Superintendents."
  What our church is recognizing is that there is LATITUDE for the "do's
and don'ts" of a church organization, a church region (culture), and
a church (local).
  And this is the point I'd like to make about Christian churches (generally),
that in many things there is LATITUDE in such issues as food.

  Now, I know that you once entered a note that claimed eating meat was
a sin.  It is no surprise that this SDA group you've found more closely
agrees with your understanding about eating meat.  If this is a "rule"
they choose to follow, and to provide scriptural principles that
encourage (and do not discourage) this behavior, then it is an acceptable
expression of Christian behavior.  However, if they teach that to eat
meat is sin, and this is a *doctrinal* (as opposed to behavioral) issue,
then we have "a horse of a different color."

mark

      Hi,
    
        I just want to say that I really appreciate the recent
        replies here in this topic.  People haven't done anything
        remotely close to bashing Adventism and I just want to
        say thanks.  James, Leslie, Mark, thank you very much.
    
        I also want to reiterate the one main point I have made.
        It is strange to me for Adventism to promote vegetarianism
        outside of the context of the Day of Atonement/cleansing
        of the sanctuary.  How Adventists feel they are called to
        eat, dress, and other 'outward' things are good things, but
        the core from which these outward things emanates really
        is Adventism's unique beliefs regarding the Day of Atonement/
        cleansing of the sanctuary.  It is my own deep and personal
        conviction that to discuss these outward things without the
        context of the Day of Atonement is to discuss them from an
        'Adventism-less' perspective.  That's how strongly I feel about
        the impact of the sanctuary to the identity of the church.
    
        The uniqueness of the Adventist church is the sanctuary doctrine.
        All other 'uniquenesses' emanate from this.
    
        Sunil, I strongly urge you to read what Mike Heiser writes.  You
        need a balanced view.  I believe Ellen White to be a prophetess
        and in striving for that balanced view, if you ever decide it to
        be important to you to know for yourself who Ellen White was, you
        would then owe it to yourself to read some of what she wrote.  I
        recommend 'Steps to Christ', 'Desire of Ages', 'Mount of
        Blessings', 'Christ's Object Lessons', 'Great Controversy' to name
        a few.
    
                                                       Tony
    

    Re: .47
    
    I agree without reservation.  "Meat", as I and Sunil mentioned, meant
    food of all kinds.  This tends to muddle things a bit for some.
    
    The SDA church has, basically, the same approach as yours, Mark.  We
    have general & specific guidelines/beliefs for living in a way that we 
    believe Christ would have lived on earth in the 1990's.  But we are not
    REQUIRED to do or not do any of these things.  We also have a few 
    members who want to be lead around by the nose, with a list of do's 
    and don'ts so that they don't have to think about these things 
    themselves or draw there own conclusions.  I imagine every church has
    at least one or two of these.  God loves us all, but He wants us to
    search the Scriptures to see what He is all about and to find out what
    we are supposed to be doing.  As an SDA, I am free to eat any creature
    on God's earth.  But not every creature is good for me to eat. I am
    also free to drink anything that is in a liquid form, but every liquid
    is certainly not good for me to drink.  For example:  since all things
    are clean, logically I could take two pieces of bread with some mayo
    (for those of you who hate mayo, please try Miracle Whip) and a little
    lettuce and load it up with cockroaches or maggots, and give thanks to
    God for it, and eat it.  Or your children could reasonably tell you
    that they wanted a big banana split for breakfast, and since it is okay
    for everyone to eat one, they would be justified.   But as a responsible 
    parent, you would never take this argument from your children.  We are 
    God's children and He has specified what is good for His humans to eat.
    And what not to eat.  
    
    I used to eat bacon and I never died.  I assume if I eat some bacon now
    I will not die.  But scientists have reported some interesting things
    about what pork fat does in the human body, and just like the warnings
    on the outside of a pack of cigarettes, these should probably be
    heeded.  
    
    God Bless & happy eating,
    Janet

    All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.  All
    things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.  Food
    is for the stomach and the stomach is for food; but God will do away
    with both of them.  Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the
    Lord; and the Lord is for the body.
    				1 Corinthians 6:12-13

>   "Meat", as I and Sunil mentioned, meant
>    food of all kinds.  This tends to muddle things a bit for some.

Not surprising.  I just did a spin through Strong's concordance.

In the Hebrew, the first meaning of the word "meat" is "food: -
consume, devour, eat, foot, meat."  (Heb. 402, which is a derivation
of 400.  There are scores of OT references to "meat" with this
meaning and another for food.

In the NT, Greek 5160 refers to "food, meat", 5315 "eat, meat", 4370
"something eaten in addition to bread i.e. a relish (spec. fish; 
comp. 3795): - meat"  1033/1034/1035 "meat"

In some cases, it refers to food in general, but in all cases, meat
was understood to have meat as part of the concept.  Some of these
refer to meat restricted by Jewish law, some referred to....
well, when we say meat, we can mean a whole bunch of things, too,
like bear meat, fish, other animal (generally muscle tissue) meat,
and the meat of a walnut.  The walnut isn't the flesh of an animal, 
but we call it meat.  In general, meat does mean all kinds of meat
which is food, but it is not necessarily food of all kinds, as in
cereals, confections, and so on.

Mark

    Remember when looking back, that when "Meat" = "food" in meaning, that
    meaning was derived from what "food" generally meant in that day. 
    Which would relate to the usual diet of that day.  From many historical
    references, we know that "food" included meat of fish, fowl and larger
    game as well as some domesticated animals.  I would guess that the
    meaning attached may well have recognized the Jewish prohibitions.
    
    One must be very careful when considering meanings of words from other
    times and societies.

    Re:  .52
    >>Remember when looking back, that when "Meat" = "food" in meaning,
    that meaning was derived from what "food" generally meant in that day.
    
    Uh.... not really.  What about Genesis 1:29?
    
      "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
       which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which 
       is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
    
    In Christ,
    Janet

    re: 53  Genesis 1:29 was not written down at the time of Adam and Eve. 
    It was written using the words of the time it was recorded.  You pick a
    very specific two person example and I was using a much broader
    description, "...what "food" generally meant...".  I do not know when
    Genesis was recorded, except that it was after the actual occurrance,
    and I don't know what was the accepted vernacular - I was just using
    experience and common sense.  Words change in meaning significantly in
    a short period of time; for example, the meaning of "gay" today is
    totally different from when I learned to use it in elementary school.
    Geography means a lot also, as we discuss the automobile is it the
    "top", the "bonnet", the "hood" and this is all in the space of less
    than 100 years(this does not mean that I went to elementary school 100
    years ago).

    Okay, I'll buy that.
    
    :-)
    Janet

    That it wasn't a hundred years ago that I went to grammar school?  And,
    if so you should also believe that the grey is from talcum powder I use
    in my hair to make me look distinguished...

    Hi Janet,

    RE: .46

    >needed to be said at the time but it's probably too late now.  If
    >people are interested in the truth, they must do their own research,
    >not just read a note by Mike Heiser.

    But this could be said of anything and it's a fact that people must do
    proper research.  Having seen that note and apart from the SDA's
    putting forward their arguments I that the rest of the people agreed
    with Mike, hence my comments about the SDA's are not "true Christians",
    I came to the conclusion based upon what was argued in the topic on the
    other hand the last reply didn't do much as it appeared there was a RC
    .v. SDA stand off !!!  So you can't say that I didn't try to follow the
    arguments.  In this note thing have changed where people are now saying
    or implying that SDA's are Christians after all, I am a bit confused.

    I have by the way seen and read parts of Ellen G. Whites books I think
    one I have at home is called "The Garden of Eden" and some other books. 

    In any case I do see a diet that is vegetarian and abstinence from
    alcohol and smoking being important.  Especially when we see so many
    people going without basic food to feed them around the world.  Grains
    and land go wasted as we indulge in satisfying our tongues and others
    starve in 3rd World countries. Basically I did discuss this in the
    previous conference but was told that God had made provision for people
    etc.  I don't want to go into that argument yet again I understood very
    well what was said and disagreed as I do to this day.  Except for the
    SDA's and some friends I would not really have paid much attention to 
    Christianity for many reasons.
    
    Thanks for your input it has been good to read all those replies.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Re: Note 563.57 by GIDDAY::SETHI
    
>   In this note thing have changed where people are now saying
>   or implying that SDA's are Christians after all, I am a bit confused.
    
    Sunil, I don't think that is what I said.  If you "imply" something,
    then that data comes from your brain, and not mine.  Read literally
    what I say rather than trying to deduce what I am not saying.
    
    James

    Hi James,

    Re: .58,

    I know that you replied in note .44 and I certainly was not pointing
    the finger at you as your note was not of that nature.  The only thing
    I have to say is that going to the SDA does not mean that I am
    attracted to the "Faith" I am attracted to their way of life which I
    can relate to.  I do not go regularly as I tend to spend more time at
    the Temple then the Church, it's more out of interest that I go rather
    then any faith driven desire.
    
    I did meet SDA's in England and went to Country Life a resturant that
    is on Regent Street in England, I enjoyed the food.  It was very hard
    to get information about SDA's and I got the feeling that was because I
    was an outsider but to my suprise in Australia the attitude was very
    different.
    
    To round off the contrast between the attitude in note 416 and this
    topic is vastly different towards SDA's.  I wonder why, I guess i am
    being cynical ;-) !!!!
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil
                          

>    To round off the contrast between the attitude in note 416 and this
>    topic is vastly different towards SDA's.  I wonder why, I guess i am
>    being cynical ;-) !!!!

There is often a difference between doctrine and the people who hold the
doctrine.  When we come to Christ, no one is perfect, and we come with
some encumberances, traditions, misunderstandings, prejudices, biases,
and a whole sloug of other problems.  Philippians 1:6 says to these people,
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work 
in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

I have vigorously argued against what I believe to be erroneous doctrine
in Adventism, as I have argued that the Hindu God and the Christian God are
not the same God.  But a difference in my arguments is that I have not
argues that the SDA God is different than the Christian God.  The arguments
instead have been about what the Christian God has to say about certain
doctrines (fundamental understandings of faith).

It is within this context that we can say to a brother, "I think your
head is screwed on wrong" (your concept of doctrine is in error) and yet
still be brothers in Christ.  There are certain fundamental doctrines that
are insoluable - such as Christ's deity, for example - which may separate
some churches who proclaim christianity.  Dietary considerations isn't even
close to being one of them.  One might think you'd want us to foam at the
mouth and declare all adherents of Adventism to be damned to hell.  The
fact that SDAs don't believe in hell in another story.

Tony and I have been around the maypole a number of times on several topics
where our doctrines conflict.  At the most heated moments, I have never 
condemned Tony, although I have been a strong opponent of some of the 
doctrines.  Never once have I implied that Tony is not a "true Christian."

I wonder, Sunil, if you have ever attempted to understand what a true 
Christian really is?  It isn't the Nazarenes, Catholics, SDAs, Baptists,
Lutherans, etc. (even if some sects claim it).  It is a person who believes
Jesus, the Son of God, to forgive their sins *and* keeps His commandments;
a follower of Christ.  Now, you can do that and still hold onto some errors.


Mark

P.S. About error:  Hebrews 11:6 says that God rewards those who >diligently<
     seek Him.  This and other Scripture often help to bring people out of
     error, in God's time, because He will "perform the good work in us 
     until the day of Jesus Christ."  And at the reunion in heaven, He'll
     correct the errors and tell us which ones were not worth arguing about.

      Real nice reply Mark.
    
      There are even Christians who have never heard of the cross
      or of Jesus Christ.
    
      Creation was a sufficient revelation of love such that faith
      could work by it.  (Romans 1/Gal. 5:5,6.)
    
                                                   Tony

    Re:  .60  
    
    >  The fact that SDAs don't believe in hell in another story.
    
    I would like to point out that SDAs do, indeed, believe in Hell, as we
    believe in everything the Bible has to say.  Tony, I'm surprised you
    didn't mention this.  Oh, well......
    
    God Bless,
    Janet
    
    

>    >  The fact that SDAs don't believe in hell in another story.
>    
>    I would like to point out that SDAs do, indeed, believe in Hell, as we

I retract my hasty generalization and apologize.

Mark

    Thank you, Mark.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet

    Janet,
    
    I don't believe Mark's comment was completely out of line.  Tony has
    continually said that Hell means destruction and is not eternal to the
    condemned soul.
    
    While that believe doesn't preclude Hell, it is in direct contrast to
    most Christian faiths.
    
    Nancy

    Hi Mark,

    I know where you are coming from and as you know we have differing view
    points that all.  Having started this topic it has bought forth a
    number of issues that I didn't expect it would.

    For example it was mentioned that false religion will tell you who to
    marry and what to eat etc. (I am just paraphrasing that all).  Well I
    remember when I was a student my fellow student was came from Cyprus
    and belonged to a Church (Christian) and to my surprise she said that
    they had arranged marriages and also abstained from certain food, at
    this point I can't recall all the details this happened about 12 odd
    years back.  Now she would be classed as belonging to a "False
    Religion" if we go by the literalists point of view.  I just bring
    forth this point as to the difficulty that I am presented with when
    trying to see who is a "True Christian" and who is not.  I don't just
    mean that at a personal level but at the level of the Church.
    
    >I wonder, Sunil, if you have ever attempted to understand what a true 
    >Christian really is?  It isn't the Nazarenes, Catholics, SDAs, Baptists,
    
    You may have your own opinion about my lack of understanding or see fit
    to judge me as you wish but I am not really affected by it.  The way I
    see things God is the best judge and I am asking you all questions to
    get a better understanding of your faith and how you as people tick. 
    One could say that Christ told the rich man to give up everything and
    follow him and that was his commandment to him we don't see that
    happening too often.  At most I see the "Christian world" meaning the
    people rather then the faith being very selfish and least likely to
    share anything that's not a good example to anyone.  Maybe it's the
    nature of the culture.
    
    Let me say that I am not judging SDA's in terms of if they are "True
    Christians" that's not for me to judge.  Going by the replies one is
    lead to believe they are gone away from the path and are lost, that's
    the feeling I get.
    
    By the way I still follow my Faith and will do so no matter what, I
    have Faith in God and I will not let anything get in my way.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Sunil,
    
    After your previous note I must question your motivation for noting in
    here?  Are you seriously trying to reason and understand or be
    provocative?
    
    Nancy

      Hi Nancy,
    
        It would have been accurate for Mark to say that SDA's
        believe in hell, but that their belief in hell is quite
        different than what many others believe.
    
        I mean its one thing to deny a hell of any kind and quite
        another to believe in hell, but to have a different under-
        standing of what it is.
    
      Hi Janet,
    
        Yeah, maybe about as surprised as I was that you have yet to
        mention the Day of Atonement/cleansing of the sanctuary as
        partial context to diet!  Oh, well...
    
                                                      Tony

    Re:  .68 
    
    Hi Tony, Hi Nancy, Hi Anyone who is still reading this:
    
    This has diverted rather too far from the topic I think, but then again
    I don't spend too much time in Notes, so you may have a different view
    of this.
    
    Tony, did you mention to these nice people that what you believe
    about certain things doesn't actually go along with SDA teaching, and
    that we have discussed this before?  I want them to understand that you
    do not speak for the SDAs, at least all the ones I know, and that you 
    may be giving people the wrong impression when you answer as an SDA
    when what you are giving them is your own opinion, not our teaching.
    Don't get me wrong, I value your opinion, but not when it can be
    misconstrued as SDA doctrine or teaching.  Not that it's all that
    important, but it might go a long way in avoiding such sweeping
    generalizations as "the fact that SDAs don't believe in hell is 
    another story" or that people would get the wrong idea that we talk 
    about the Day of Atonement/Cleansing of the Sanctuary all the time.  
    You are the only one I've come across so far that does this. 
    
    Truthfully, I have no idea where you came across some of the beliefs 
    you have, and the people in our church that I have discussed this 
    with have no idea either.  No offense intended Tony.  I just want 
    them to understand.
    
    Call me if you want to yell at me.  I'm not going to mention this here
    again. 
    
    Your sister in Christ,
    Janet

    .69
    
    Uh yes, Janet I know this about Tony, but only because as I stated my
    roots are in SDA.
    
    

The rest of us do not have SDA roots, though, and like it or not, we
do represent our churches when we speak.  It is important, where possible
to state our opinions that differ from our church's doctrines so as not
to cause such confusions.

Mark (Nazarene) Metcalfe

    
    Dan (Christian) Yackel :-)

>    Dan (Christian) Yackel :-)

Smart alleck!

Mark (Christian-first, Nazarene-second) Metcalfe

    Mike (Christian-first, Christian-second) Heiser

    Name droppers
    

    wise guys.

    :-) :-)

      Hi,
    
        I'll try to be careful when I discuss what I believe as
        to whether or not it is in line with SDA.
    
        Nancy, I'm bewildered!  I recall you talking to me because
        you wanted to better understand SDA.  (???)
    
        As per hell.  I think Janet that its mention in your note
        was inaccurate.
    
        As per cleansing of the sanctuary/day of atonement...I'll
        try to post a couple things regarding this.  My own belief
        is that SDA has largely withdrew from its sanctuary doctrine
        (at least from the standpoint of emphasis).
    
        I personally believe that to speak of diet with complete 
        absence of from a day of atonement perspective is far from
        representative of SDA and would better be classified as
        opinion.
    
        Perhaps more later.
                                                   
                                                 Tony

    Awww but Tony, my Aunt Minnie and my Grandma was different than you and
    that was my curiousity. :-)

    RE:  .71
    
    >The rest of us do not have SDA roots, though, and like it or not, we
    >do represent our churches when we speak.  It is important, where
    >possible to state our opinions that differ from our church's doctrines 
    >so as not to cause such confusions.
    
    Yes, Mark, that is it in a nutshell.  No flames against Tony, just a
    'truth in advertising law' reminder. 
    
    
    Re:  .79
    
    Hi Nancy,
    
    I would love to hear more.  I am taking a vacation day on Thursday but
    I would like to take this off-line and hear of your background and your
    beliefs now.  Talk to you on Friday!
    
    In God's Love,
    Janet

    Hi Nancy,
    
    >After your previous note I must question your motivation for noting in
    >here?  Are you seriously trying to reason and understand or be
    >provocative?

    Firstly I clearly stated that I am trying to understand because some
    people have bought up different opinions from other church's that differ
    from what has been said.

    My motivation was clearly to seek if the SDA's were Christians because
    they did not eat meat, eggs or fish nor do they drink or smoke.  When I
    was in England I was told by Christians you to could be free and do all
    of the above.  I see a lot of contradiction at times mostly from peoples
    interpetations so I question them, if this is being "provocative" so be
    it.

    Since this conference is "The Christian" conference as opposed to the
    other one, meaning it gives facts rather then speculative answers, I
    asked the question in here.  I guess it's not appropriate to ask
    questions if they get a bit too hard, it's best to be nice and allow
    myself to speculate as to what is and what is not Christians.  Thanks
    for your generous input and warm welcome, I wouldn't have expected
    anything less.
    
    My questions still stand based upon my experience and having travelled
    a bit and meeting people there appears to be a difference of opinion. 
    I wonder if Margrete did have an arranged marriage in Cyprus in a
    church !!!
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Sunil,
    
    My purpose for asking the question was the intonation of your note. 
    You asked a question, I've seen it answered several times, then you
    deny the answer.
    
    Sunil the most important question isn't if SDA's are Christians but if
    you are a Christian.  When judgement comes you will not answer the SDA
    church's members, you will be before God on your own behalf.
    
    I've prayed for you before, I've given you the plan of salvation before
    as per the Bible, not me and I still have a burden and love for your
    soul.  
    
    I'll gladly help you through this again, if you ask.  
    
    Nancy

	Sunil, your view on a true Christian is very interesting. A church is
one influence that can lead to people not eating certain foods, etc, so I have
to agree with your view that the church level has something to do with it. I
also think it goes a little further and DOES deal with the people themselves. I
don't know if you read the other note topics in here, but Kent described his
search for a church that would suit his families needs. After a few, he found
one. The other churches were his denomination, but he chose a certain church,
and appears quite happy. This is something I don't think is unique to Kent, but
something I would venture most people do. So this is why I think People play a
lot into who is defined as a true Christian.

	About the selfish part and sharing. I agree partly with this. I think
it does not happen until you're <insert label>. And I don't think this is done
by ALL Christians.




Glen

| <<< Note 563.83 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| Sunil the most important question isn't if SDA's are Christians but if
| you are a Christian.  When judgement comes you will not answer the SDA
| church's members, you will be before God on your own behalf.


	Nancy, isn't this being a bit presumptuous? Maybe I missed something,
but whatever reason(s) Sunil has for wanting this information are his. So far I
have seen him curious about it. The reasons could be from an informative view,
to maybe he would like to see if his friend really is saved, with a whole host
of reasons inbetween. 

    Sunil,

    Just as there can be a wide variety of thoughts and beliefs within
    any group of people, such as say, Democrats, or Native Americans,
    or people from India now living in Australia, so there can be and 
    is a tremendous range of ideas amongst those who call themselves
    Christian.

    A Christian is a person who believes there is one God, having a triune 
    nature, who manifested Himself on earth as the person Jesus of Nazareth, 
    allowed Himself to be crucified for the atonement of the sin of everybody
    who comes before God and accepts that this Jesus is their atonement and 
    the Messiah promised in the Bible.

    That's it.  Christianity cannot be measured in terms of views on diet,
    or anything else, except the above.  There are things that a majority 
    of Christians hold to be true, there are areas of theological and 
    doctrinal discussion and debate.  Naturally, everyone thinks their view
    on an issue is the correct one, because if they didn't think it was
    correct, they wouldn't hold that view :-}.  And naturally, some people
    are right, and others are hold mistaken views.  Probably all of us are
    mistaken on at least one issue.  But these things do not define what it 
    means to be a Christian.

    So maybe trying to figure out who is a true Christian is not a question
    that a person should be struggling with.  Maybe, the important questions
    are Who is God? What is God like? What does God want from me? (Not from 
    John, Joe, Patricia, Jan, or Peter, but what does God want from one's self)

    Leslie

    Oh, and I should have added to my definition that Christians believe
    that Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection, having returned to
    life from the dead, and He is now enthroned in heaven, but will come
    again to be the triumphant Messiah as promised in the Bible.

>>    A Christian is a person who believes there is one God, having a triune 
>>    nature, who manifested Himself on earth as the person Jesus of Nazareth, 
>>    allowed Himself to be crucified for the atonement of the sin of everybody
>>    who comes before God and accepts that this Jesus is their atonement and 
>>    the Messiah promised in the Bible.

    Leslie

      A Christian is a person who has faith which works by a 
      revelation of God's love of which the Bible says even
      creation is sufficient revelation.

 Re Tony



 I'm not sure that's what the Lord had in mind in Acts 11:26, when the
 disciples were first called Christians.



 Jim

I Timothy 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;

I Timothy 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I Timothy 4:3
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe an know the
truth.

I Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received
with thanksgiving:

I Timothy 4:5
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

I Timothy 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good
minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good
doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

   Hi Tony,

   However a person comes to 'faith', I think the important issue is
   what/whom they have faith in.

   Leslie

    Hi Nancy, Leslie and Glen,

    Firstly Nancy I will say that I do not mean any harm to anyone I have
    questions that are important to me in that I want insight.  This
    extends to not only God but his creation and my culture which is Indian
    encourages me to question, I do not accept things blindly.

    I feel that Glen is quite right in his understanding as in note .84.
    I believe that just quoting from the Bible and not seeing reality is
    not right.  There are not only Christians but Jewish people I have met
    who believe that God intended people to not eat meat, drink or smoke
    and that it is *a part* of the package if you like.  To them to
    refrain from the above reminds them God and Jesus.  Further different
    people have different needs and attitudes and they are attracted to
    those things.  Just look at yourself and you will know what I mean and
    I don't mean that in a nasty way, I look at my needs and see them as
    being different to others.
    
    Now I have different needs I am not a Christian but I believe in God
    and I fully understand your positions.  It's an act of faith on my part
    and on yours in accepting what the "religion" of your choice or maybe
    there was not a choice.  To me the argument about my God and your God
    is just a waste of time and will not get anyone anywhere, because we
    all have our belief based upon our personal experience and values.  As
    stated their is a difference of opinion but the basic belief is the
    same.  I have come across Christians in very Conservative places who
    saw people who didn't eat meat as rejecting God gift and told them that
    it was not Christian !!!!
    
    I could write about personal values and alot of other things but I
    think that you understand my drift.  I hope the SDA's have it easier in
    here, they are a good bunch of people taht I can relate to most of the
    time.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

      re: .91
    
      Hi Leslie,
    
        Creation is a manifestation of the word of Jesus Christ.
        If anyone responds by faith to creation, they are responding
        by faith to Jesus Christ for it is a revelation of Him (His
        love) which their faith is working by.
    
        It may be possible that 99% of their theology is off the wall.
        I am not referring to any aspect of their walk which is not
        truth, I am referring only to that theology which is truth.
        And again...if faith responds to the word of God, that is faith
        responding to a revelation of Jesus Christ.  And creation is a
        part of a revelation of Jesus Christ.
    
        Its just a smidgeon's worth of revelation!  ;-)
    
                                                        Tony
                                             

    "It is true we refrain from eating certain articles, . . . but not 
    because the law of Moses had any binding claims upon us.  Far from it.  
    We stand fast in the liberty with which God has set us free"
    
    "Questions on Doctrine", General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 
    Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1957, pg. 623
    
    
    "Our health teaching is not a matter of religious taboos; in fact, it 
    is much more than careful selection in diet.  It is, to us, the 
    following of a well-balanced health program.  We feel it to be our 
    Christian duty to preserve our bodies in the best of health for the 
    service and glory of God.  We believe that our bodies are the temples 
    of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), and that whether 
    therefore we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do, we should 'do all to 
    the glory of God' (1 Cor. 10:31)"
    
    "Questions on Doctrine", General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 
    Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1957, pg. 624
    
    I came across these quotes the other day.  They are typed as read.  If
    someone has the whole book, I would be interested in the context.
    
    Kent
        

    Hello Kent,
    
    I believe this is what you were looking for.  
    
    God Bless,
    Janet Brown
    =======================================================================
    
(The following is taken from "Seventh-day Adventists Answer QUESTIONS ON
 DOCTRINE")

Question 47

	Do Seventh-day Adventists believe that foods such as lobsters, crabs,
    pork, et cetera, all forbidden under the Mosaic law, are still forbidden, 
    binding upon the Christian, and hence not to be eaten under penalty of sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This query opens up an important question - that of the relationship of the
Christian to the law of Moses.  It is an old question, and as is well known,
it has been debated from time to time through the ages.

Answering first the second part of the query, we regard the Decalogue as being
distinct from the law of Moses, though we hold that both are revelations from
God.  But one was the expression of eternal principles, while the other was,
in the main, made up of laws pertaining to the ceremonial, or sacrificial,
system, which pointed forward to the great antitype, Jesus our Lord.  We 
believe the the law of commandments contained in ordinances - the ceremonial 
and sacrificial precepts - met its complete fulfillment in Christ on Calvary,
as is explicitly emphasized in Ephesians 2:14,15 and Colossians 2:14-17.

The law of Moses also contained counsel on human relationships, on civil 
judgments, on health questions, and on many other vital principles of faith
and practice.  That many of these important counsels were carried over and
made an integral part of the Christian faith can be seen in the following:
	1.  That we should love God with all the heart, and our neighbors
	    as ourselves (Deut. 6:5, 10:12, 30:6; compare Matt. 19:19, 22:39;
	    Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14).
	2.  That we should "be holy," for "I am holy" saith the Lord (Lev 11:44,
	    19:2, 20:7, et cetera; compare 1 Peter 1:15,16)
	3.  That we are to know sanctification of life (Ex. 31:13; Lev. 20:8;
	    Eze. 20:12; compare numerous texts in the New Testament).

These truths formed a vital part of the law of Moses and certainly were not
abolished at the cross of Calvary.  Rather, they were re-emphasized in the
teachings of Jesus Christ, and thus became the norm of our life today in and
through Him.

The same principle applies to the dietary laws given to Israel of old.  It is
true we refrain from eating certain articles, as indicated in the query, but
not because the law of Moses has any binding claims upon us.  Far from it.  
We stand fast in the liberty with which God has set us free.  It must be 
remembered that God recognized "clean" and "unclean" animals at the time of
the Flood, long before there was a law of Moses.  We reason that if God saw 
fit at that time to counsel His people against certain articles of diet,
these things were not best for human consumption; and since we are physically
constituted in the same way as are the Jews and all other peoples, we believe
such things are not the best for us to use today.

To us, the whole matter of unclean foods is primarily a question of health, 
for we believe that
	"God is as truly the author of physical laws as He is the author of
	 the moral law." - Ellen G. White, Christ's Object Lessons, p. 347

Our health teaching is not a matter of religious taboos; in fact, it is much 
more than careful selection in diet.  it is, to us, the following of a 
well-balanced health program.  We feel it to be our Christian duty to preserve
our bodies in the best of health for the service and glory of God.  We believe
that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor.
6:16), and that whether therefore we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do, we
should "do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).