Meat Eating

@divegeester said
When God specifically directed Peter to go kill those animals and eat them, you are saying he didn’t mean go kill and eat those animals, he meant “don’t worry about food laws anymore“ when he could have said “you don’t have to worry about food laws”?

Presumably you also feel that God would have preferred Peter to abstain from killing and eating, when he said “go kill and eat”?

Right.

Everyone knows this is about dietary law.

Here is the passage in context:

10
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet held at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12In which were all manner of four-footed 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 anything that is common or unclean.
15
And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God has cleansed, that call not common.

@philokalia said
Right.

Everyone knows this is about dietary law.

“Right”

What? I’m right?

@philokalia said
Here is the passage in context:

The passage in context underlines the command to “go kill and eat”.

If you think God meant “DO NOT go kill and DO NOT eat meat” then I think you need to look harder or perhaps dig out something by St Penis of Antioch perhaps.

@divegeester said
The passage in context underlines the command to “go kill and eat”.

If you think God meant “DO NOT go kill and DO NOT eat meat” then I think you need to look harder or perhaps dig out something by St Penis of Antioch perhaps.

That passage has nothing to do with eating meat. It is a vision Peter had and later on in the chapter it is explained. Peter was of the opinion that the Gentiles were unclean and that God had rejected them. The vision was God telling Peter that through the death of Christ the Gentiles are now on equal footing with the Jews and are not to be considered unclean.

@rajk999 said
That passage has nothing to do with eating meat. It is a vision Peter had and later on in the chapter it is explained. Peter was of the opinion that the Gentiles were unclean and that God had rejected them. The vision was God telling Peter that through the death of Christ the Gentiles are now on equal footing with the Jews and are not to be considered unclean.

I have to say that after reading your opinion and scriptural justification on the beating of children, your unreferenced opinion on other scriptural inferences doesn’t carry any weight with me.

@divegeester said
I have to say that after reading your opinion and scriptural justification on the beating of children, your unreferenced opinion on other scriptural inferences doesn’t carry any weight with me.

Yes, we're still waiting for a reply on that one, and also whether he agrees with the bible teachings that homosexuals should be stoned to death. I don't think we're going to get a straightforward, coherent response, do you?

@rajk999 said
That passage has nothing to do with eating meat. It is a vision Peter had and later on in the chapter it is explained. Peter was of the opinion that the Gentiles were unclean and that God had rejected them. The vision was God telling Peter that through the death of Christ the Gentiles are now on equal footing with the Jews and are not to be considered unclean.

This is true. Visions in the Bible are frequently symbolic of a particular message the writer wants to get across. (And the message here isn't to go have a burger). Telling a Jew that God considered those animals clean (which were previously deemed as unclean) was in effect saying, that the law of Moses no longer applied.

"The moral of which command is, that he might now converse with Jews and Gentiles indifferently, and preach unto these also the word of life." (Matthew Poole - Bible Commentator),

@ghost-of-a-duke said
This is true.

No it isn’t. At least not completely.

The law God was liberating Peter from included the food laws and God specifically directed him to KILL and EAT.

The command is direct, specific and poignant. It shows that God does not in fact hold your personal views on vegetarianism.

Same as he doesn’t hold your personal views on the emotional and moral premise presented by the word “altruism”.

@indonesia-phil said
Yes, we're still waiting for a reply on that one, and also whether he agrees with the bible teachings that homosexuals should be stoned to death. I don't think we're going to get a straightforward, coherent response, do you?

I think any response from Rajk999 on that topic will be straightforward, coherent and totally biased.

@divegeester said
I think any response from Rajk999 on that topic will be straightforward, coherent and totally biased.

I'd still like a response.

@indonesia-phil said
Yes, we're still waiting for a reply on that one, and also whether he agrees with the bible teachings that homosexuals should be stoned to death. I don't think we're going to get a straightforward, coherent response, do you?

The instruction God gave to the Jews, was to stone homosexuals to death. Some countries practice that also today. I have no opinion on the matter.

If you are waiting and hoping for me to condemn a bible teaching, you will be disappointed.

@divegeester said
I think any response from Rajk999 on that topic will be straightforward, coherent and totally biased.

2 out of 3 aint bad.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
This is true. Visions in the Bible are frequently symbolic of a particular message the writer wants to get across. (And the message here isn't to go have a burger). Telling a Jew that God considered those animals clean (which were previously deemed as unclean) was in effect saying, that the law of Moses no longer applied.

"The moral of which command is, that he mig ...[text shortened]... es indifferently, and preach unto these also the word of life." (Matthew Poole - Bible Commentator),

Exactly. Peter himself was confused by the vision and did not simply think it was all about killing and eating. He knew there was some other meaning which only came to him when he met Cornelius. Then Peter figured it out

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Christians dont like this verse because it says clearly that God accepts all righteous people, not just Jews or Christians.

@divegeester said
No it isn’t. At least not completely.

The law God was liberating Peter from included the food laws and God specifically directed him to KILL and EAT.

The command is direct, specific and poignant. It shows that God does not in fact hold your personal views on vegetarianism.

Same as he doesn’t hold your personal views on the emotional and moral premise presented by the word “altruism”.

Your ignorance on this part of scripture is genuinely astounding.

I can only suggest you re-visit it in context. You are missing the important underlying message. (Just as you missed the core role altruism has in Christianity).

@divegeester said
No it isn’t. At least not completely.

The law God was liberating Peter from included the food laws and God specifically directed him to KILL and EAT.

The command is direct, specific and poignant. It shows that God does not in fact hold your personal views on vegetarianism.

Same as he doesn’t hold your personal views on the emotional and moral premise presented by the word “altruism”.

There are 2 key points here you really need to think about:

1. I have already provided biblical support showing man was originally created as a non meat eater and that God only gave permission to eat meat after the flood when man had become more like the animals and less in His divine image. - As God originally intended for humans to be vegetarian it is not unreasonable to assume that 'not' eating meat is His preference. (And that he 'does' share my personal views on vegetarianism).

2. Jesus died for the sins of humanity in the ultimate expression of altruism. As a Christian it is incumbent upon you to emulate this altruism, not deny such a thing exists.