| Author | Message | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 3038 Registered: 5-2007  |
Before Adam and Eve sinned it seems apparent that they lived on a vegetarian diet although there is no mention of it as a command restricting them in this way. The only command mentioned in the Genesis account was with regard a vegetarian item they were restricted from eating. Now, reading Genesis 4:1-8, the question that has always been in my mind was why was Abel a ‘keeper of sheep’ as compared to his brother who was a ‘keeper of the ground’ if it wasn’t to survive and eat of the ‘fruit of his labor’. After all, the curse given to Adam in Genesis 3:17-19 was that the ground was now cursed because of his sin “by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread”. Cain was a farmer so he could eat. Abel was a rancher so he could eat. They both brought a portion of their labor as a sacrifice. Even in the days I was an Adventist I was a ‘meat eater’ and only felt commanded to restrict myself to the eating of ‘clean animals’. I come from a background of pioneers who were ‘homesteaders’ with large families who lived off of the land and lived on a diet of anything that could be found to eat including wild game when it could be acquired. Even as an Adventist, it seemed to me that a vegetarian diet was and is an utter bit of nonsense. My grandparents (dad’s folks) knew Ellen G. White personally and claimed to believe her to be God’s prophet yet they were ‘meat eaters’. What I find perplexing is if they really believed her teachings why did they not obey her? Or, put another way, if they didn’t believe her why were we Adventist? Fearless Phil | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14848 Registered: 12-2003  |
Wow, Phil...what good questions. I can't answer them...I have them myself. I've come to believe that there is a spiritual power behind EGW that most people don't recognize. Things that counter Scripture and twist our understanding of the gospel and of the Lord Jesus have an antichrist source. We know (Col 1:13) that there are two "places": the domain of darkness and the kingdom of the Beloved Son. What is not in one is in the other. There is no middle ground. I know that's a pretty intolerant-sounding statement, but I see no alternative to that worldview in Scripture. Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 3418 Registered: 7-2007 |
Phil; they would need clothes after Adam and Eve sinned and leaves just don't last very long. Perhaps Cain kept them for their skins? Colleen, there's definitely a very dark malevolent power behind Adventism! (And all the false religions!) | ||
| Iamfree Registered user Username: Iamfree Post Number: 16 Registered: 3-2014 |
Phil, have you read the Prophetess of Health book by Ronald Numbers? It is really interesting how it explains the health message and how she borrowed from other health reformers. The truth of the matter is that many people tried to follow her health teachings but many of them did not, or folowed somewhat as much as they were able. It was a continual source of frustration to her that people continued to eat what they wanted even after she had emphasized vegetarianism and other health reforms. They also did not necessarily see her in the light that she is portrayed in now. For instance, many Adventist see her as this amazing reformer with knowledge way before her time, when in fact she was just regurgitating information that was pretty much readily available. My hunch is that those around her knew the material she was sharing wasn't original so they didn't necessarily feel compelled to follow all her writings on food. The 1919 conference listed in the newer version of the book also talked about A.G. Daniels beliefs about health. He thought it was ridiculous that people were becoming fanatical about it. He said that you have to eat what is healthy for you and not follow a bunch of rules, as each person is different. So the original attitude of many people toward Ellen White (as expressed in the 1919 conference) was more of one as a inspired leader who was instrumental in establishing the church and getting the worldwide evangelism and education programs going but not necessarily and an inspired leader in history or other theological subjects. A.G. Daniels didn't even believe that doctrinal issues should be settled using her writings, but the Bible only. So if many of them didn't believe she should be settling theological issues, then I don't think they would become vegetarians just because she said so. I have felt for a while just like Colleen that there is a malevolent side to her writings. It is interesting how people who read her continually, actually lose spritual discernment and common sense. They will start subjecting themselves to all sorts of punishing regimens and spend hours preparing "nourishing food" to the neglect of relationships, time with God and begin to accept more and more radical diet and dress changes into their life, even if it is impractical (example - picking cherries on ladders in dresses). I can't make judgements for everyone but the people I know who base their every move on EGW have a difficult time making decisions about the most basic things and sometimes don't seem to catch on to regular conversation. I remember reading her writings and feeling a horrible oppression on many occasions. I felt it was because I was probably reading something that was pointing out sin in my life, but now looking back I can see that reading her writings is poisonous. Even when I read a few quotes of hers in order to counteract them with biblical truth, I can sense it. I think that part of the issue is the waffling back and forth. She makes all kinds of wonderful statments such as, Yes you are saved by grace, Jesus is death is all we need and then the next one says something along the lines of, You will stand before God without a mediator and must be perfect. I think that this kind of moving back and truth between error and truth will cause mental issues in anyone. I was talking about it with my husband today. I said "It doesn't matter to Satan if you are New Age, Buddist, Muslin, Mormon or SDA, as long as you don't believe that Christ's death was sufficient for your salvation, he has accomplished his purposes. I was thinking about the sheep, maybe they used the lamb's wool to make clothing and tents, as I assume that Adam and Eve were nomadic? | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 3045 Registered: 5-2007 |
Iamfree, Yes, I've read the book. It is in my library. It doesn't, of itself, explain how my grandparents could 'believe' Ellen White, serve on the mission field and live in Angwin so many years and also live the way we did. I live at Angwin myself at the time where these very topics were debated and ongoing in school and didn't myself realize the contradictions we were living. Fearless Phil | ||
| Iamfree Registered user Username: Iamfree Post Number: 19 Registered: 3-2014 |
Maybe your grandparents were smart people who believed they were saved by faith. My parents have always loved vegetarian food but have always eaten meat, my dad is a hunter. My mother reads EGW and believes she was inspired but she does not believe that how she chooses to eat is related to salvation in any way. So I suppose she ignores certain statments that she wrote. My dad just joked the other day that he had attended a vegan wedding potluck, he said he was so excited because now he knew he would go straight to heaven! It has been a joke at our house for a long time when I would take something cheesy to potluck, my dad would say in a horrified voice "what about the vegans". I think that many people with any common sense can see that getting caught up in the food debate is a no win situation because they realize that it is ridiculous from the very start of the arguement. So I would guess that your grandparents must have had some common sense, or maybe they tried a vegetarian diet and didn't feel good on it, as it the case with some people. | ||
| Jonasaras Registered user Username: Jonasaras Post Number: 22 Registered: 9-2012 |
All that vegan stuff is great with bacon! :-D | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14858 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hahaha, Jonasaras!  Colleen | ||
| Thalarian Registered user Username: Thalarian Post Number: 27 Registered: 7-2006 |
Was almost not willing to make a post. This subject is still sensitive to me, lot of the health problems have right now is fully the result of following the dangerous adventist health laws and regulations. When my parents moved us to Colledgedale, TN area back in 1976 we were meat eaters (no we did not eat pork) mother a old world adventist from Upstate New York and dad was recent convert to the adventist faith. In 1978 mother was convinced that it was a sin to be eating meat so she changed our diet due to peer pressure and without research into any side effects. (Mother was fooled into disregarding her old world beliefs about the OT health laws of the clean and unclean meats). 1990 we went back to meat eating but the damage already been done, my sister who had already married and moved to colorado went back to meat eating still has medical problems. I do not eat pork been allgeric to it since childhood, am allergic to fish as well. After reading the Bible on the Clean and Unclean Meats, and reading/researching EGW on the very subject. I begin to discover a glaring omission of errors... EGW totally disregards the Holy Bible of the Unclean and Clean meats after the great flood. She goes on and states that rule was done away with at the cross.. (a total lie). My own personal research indicates that the Unclean and Clean Meats WAS NOT DONE AWAY with at the Cross, it is not even part of the Moral Law. It is part of the Covenant God made with Man after the Flood. It is a part of the Word of God. It is still legal binding if mankind totally ignores it.. Res, correct me if am wrong. If a law is legally binding and a person still ignore that law, that person is guilty of violation of that legal binding? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14904 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thalarian, this is what Genesis 9:1-6 says,
God did not specify Noah and his descendants were to eat only "clean" meats. He specifically said "every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you." The clean/unclean restrictions on food came with the giving of the Mosaic law. The Israelites were forbidden to eat the unclean foods not because they were intrinsically bad, but because God gave Israel the law to keep them separate from the Gentiles. If Israel couldn't eat gentile food, they would be unable to socialize with them or intermarry with them. The restrictions were for the purpose of separating His people from intermarrying and becoming consumed by the pagan nations. He was protecting the "holy Seed" from which the Messiah would come. Later, Jesus taught the disciples that the rules of clean/unclean would be overturned. Look at Mark 7:14-19:
Jesus Himself declared all foods clean. Ephesians 2:14 and Colossians 2:14-17 further emphasize that there are no more food restrictions; Jews and gentiles alike have access to God through the Sacrifice of Jesus which was for all mankind. In Acts 10 Peter received that stunning vision of the sheet with unclean creatures and the command to "kill and eat". This vision came just as the representatives from Cornelius were approaching the house where Peter was staying. Because of that vision, Peter went with those men and stayed at Cornelius's house. No Jew was allowed to stay with a gentile—the house alone would have been defiling, and at any rate, no Jew could eat the food of a gentile. But Peter told Cornelius that God had shown him that no man was unclean, and he broke all those old ritual laws and stayed several days with Cornelius and ATE HIS UNCLEAN FOOD. The conversion of Cornelius and his family marked the entrance of the gospel going to the "uttermost parts of the earth", the gentile nations. The New Covenant trumps the laws. The fact that the Noahide laws were the only one required of gentile believers in Acts15—eat no blood nor the meat of strangled animals—was a provision that would allow Jewish believers and gentile believers to continue to eat together. Paul, however, said that we are to eat whatever is set before us without asking questions, and he says that if someone believes something to be unclean, it is unclean to him; if someone believes food to be clean, it is clean to him. "Nothing is unclean in itself." (Rom. 13:14). Also,1 Timothy 4:1-4 states that men would arise and teach doctrines of demons, including forbidding certain foods that God created for men to enjoy if they are received with thanksgiving. The New Covenant is NEW. The blood of Jesus has removed physical restrictions of "clean" and "unclean" meaning there is no lingering spiritual significance or benefit to eating or not eating certain foods. Now all foods are clean; the Lord Jesus has cleansed us and has removed the wall of separation (Eph. 2:14). Colleen | ||
| Thalarian Registered user Username: Thalarian Post Number: 29 Registered: 7-2006 |
Did you know that you can get colon cancer if you ate foods such as pork, some types of fish, lobster, shrimp, lobster, and shellfish? My father who passed away in 2011 had colon cancer and was fearful this year that could have had cancer of the colon due to his eating habits, turns out after several screenings do NOT HAVE COLON CANCER due to not eating the above foods. Now there is a medical reason to follow the teachings of the OT Bible standard of the clean and unclean meats and yet the NT where you quoted texts Colleen is confusing and conflicts with the OT of clean and unclean meats. Seems odd that GOD would have conflicts between the OLD and NEW Covenant's. Does not make sense to me. From a spirtitual viewpoint can understand that the NEW was doing away with the hinderances to those of different faiths, but the OLD was a set of guidelines that promoted HEALTH. | ||
| Islander Registered user Username: Islander Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2014 |
It's my undrrstanding that colon cancer is usually caused from lack of fiber. Animal products have no fiber. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 3044 Registered: 8-2004  |
I have family members who were careful vegetarians who ended up with colon cancer and others who ate only clean meats who ended up with colon cancer. The reasons colon cancer happens or does not happen may be related to food, but being vegetarian will not keep it away! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14996 Registered: 12-2003 |
The OT food laws were not about health. They were entirely about preserving the Israelites and the "holy seed" that would bring the Messiah. If the "unclean foods" were forbidden, people simply could not eat with gentiles. If you can't eat with people, you can't socialize with them. God gave everything that moves for food after the flood (Genesis 9:1-3). In Mark 7 Jesus declared all foods clean. In Acts 10, God gave Peter the vision of the sheet with the unclean animals and told him to "Kill and eat." Three times he told him that. We were taught that the vision was about gentiles, that he should not consider gentiles unclean. We were explicitly taught that vision had nothing to do with food. Wrong. Peter could not have gone with Cornelius immediately after that vision and stayed at his house for however many days he was there if he didn't eat his food. Considering gentiles CLEAN meant Peter had to consider their food clean as well. He had to eat with them. All the barriers of the law were broken down in Jesus, and in His body He created one man out of the two. No food is to be considered unclean. See Ephesians 2:14-17; Colossians 2:14-15. The OT food laws were not about health. They were entirely about keeping Jews separated from gentiles. Colleen |
