| Author |
Message |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |     |
I have been watching Fox News. It's been about a family in Florida who for religious reasons are vegan. Sadly their baby died recently. The coroners report lists the death due to accidental malnutrition. The baby was given coconut juice and only a few other things. It is so sad. Especially because twice before, even one week before the baby died the social workers were out at the families home because of calls that the children were suffering from malnutrition and the social workers found nothing wrong. So, not only do we have negelant and incompentant parents we also have negelant and incompentent social workers which all led to the unnecessary death of a little baby. The news did not say the parents religion. Only that they are vegan for religious reasions. It's sure sad. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:12 pm: | |
I saw that too, Susan, but on ABC. This 6 month old weighed less than 7 pounds when it died and their lawyer was on Good Morning America this morning saying the parents had no reason to suspect anything wrong since they're a small family and all the children were small. Their lawyer absolutely would not give an inch that the parents should have noticed the baby's failure to thrive. The baby was allowed to have coconut milk, almond milk and one other component I missed which was mixed and put in a bottle. The lawyer blamed the child's nutrition issue on acid reflux and would all be clearly shown during the trial by their nutrition experts. I didn't know newborns got acid reflux. Anyway, they only allowed their other children raw foods and would give them enemas when they felt their systems were becoming "toxic" (their attorney's term). The lawyer claimed the kids were brainwashed to say the other negative things about their parents in the 28 months they have been in foster care.
It is very sad. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2754
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:55 pm: | |
As for acid reflux, babies do get it. I gather it's a fairly recent realization--our neighbor's grandson was on acid blockers (baby Zantac, I think!) for maybe a couple of years beginning shortly after he was born. Apparently there's now some thought that persistent crying attributed to "colic" might actually be attributable to acid reflux, at least in some cases.
As for the claim that the kids were "brainwashed" into saying negative things about their parents...that claim really threatens my blood pressure! As a counselor once said to me, young children's natural tendency is to cling to and defend parents even when the parents leave a lot to be desired. If a child repeatedly says negative things, there's probably something wrong.
OK, I'm done...!
Colleen |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 327
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:39 pm: | |
Colleen, working with young students every day I agree with you.
Richard
PS: lawyers do NOT want me on a child abuse case.  |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:25 pm: | |
#1: Has anyone heard the religion of those parents in Florida? #2: That text you wrote Raven about not eating meat with the blood in it. That is the text my SDA cousin says PROOVES the Bible says people have to be vegetarian. I asked her how she got that from that text and she said because no matter how completely you cook the meat you can never eliminate all the blood and all the fat from the meat so that text prooves God says we have to be vegetarian. I tell you, there is just no reasoning with those people! |
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:57 am: | |
well, why don't they print in the paper or put on the news all the other extreme--the suffering or death of people who eat whatever tastes good without considering nutrition and who get cancer, get heart disease, get high blood pressure, get diabetes, become obese, and eventually die from that? Is it any worse to malnourish your kids than to set them up for a life of medical problems by failiing to consider the "laws" of God in your diet? I am not talking about jewish laws--but natural laws like if you put in more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. laws like if you consume certain checicals and compounds it will increase chances of certain ailments. Both extremes are bad.
My father in law was a transplant patient and as such was required to make drastic changes in his eating habits post lifestyle. To help, the wise doctors put a support group together. Some of the things you have to give up are most meats, except fish, alcohol, smoking, pop, salad dressing, and the list goes on--basically anything with fat, sodium, sugar or cholesterol.(at least at that time with that medication--there is newer ones now) .
this was incredibly hard for these transplant patients--and i remember seeing my father in law weeping at the table because he could not eat what he wanted. The support group helped, but it was still hard. one guy shot himself--was it because of the diet issue or depression we don't know...but after about 5 years, one member decided to heck with all that--and went back to smoking and drinking. he died within the year.
My father in law workd really hard on it and lived 11 years, when the median life span at that time was 5 yrs. and his final death was related to pneumonia and some post surgical complications not diet.
anyway, I was reminded of Phil 3:19 where it talks about those whose god is their belly. I never want to be so enslaved to my apetite that i would choose death rather than adapt my eating habits...
and i am also reminded of 1 cor 6:12 where paul says "All things are lawful for me, but not all are expedient: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any"
I had the opportunity to test my convictions on this, when at age 46 my own dad was diagnosed with colon cancer. My research indicated that heredity, too little exercise, a type a personality, high stress, and a diet of red meat were prime indicators of risk of canceer--i met all criteria--and for this reason, I chose to give up red meat. Did it help? Should i have? only time will tell. was it easy? No. but I kept those two passages in mind and my conviction and God helped me.
then, i started looking at the meat processing industry and the use of hormones and antibiotics, diseases, etc. and realized that there were problems--lots of them. I decided not to expose myself to those problems by limiting myself to farm grown products or wild products...
about 2 years after this, we had a family reunion at a lake--and after fishing-a fish fry.
I decided to kill and prepare the fish myself that I would eat, having never done this before. It was very hard to kill the fish with my own hands. I am by nature a lover of life and animals, and I wept and vowed never again. I was reminded of how the native indian would pray over a fresh kill to the great spirit and to the spirit of the animal just killed, asking the animal to forgive it, and thanking both spirits for giving the life of another so that their life could be sustained. This is just me. not some theological argument about meat eating.
Later i looked into the milk and eggs issues and decided that it would be worth experimenting with to see if i functioned better without them.
I have now discovered some food allergies as well as hypoglycemia and so the refined sugar and preservaties are going or gone...
I am free because of Christ to do whatever i want with my body. However, I have had to make the tough choice--who will be god of my life--my informed reason or my belly. if i can choose to feel better, have more energy, etc. I will do so, even if I have to feel worse for a short time until my tastes are retrained--dont kid yourself, changing tastes is hard!.
overall, it is my opinion that my lifestyle changes have made a positive difference for me.
a well known evangelical--gary smalley, wrote a book "Food and Love" where he presents both scientific evidences and personal experiences which he has used to form the basis of his "informed" diet. This book confirmed for my wife and I the direction we were headed. Anyone who says their religion won't let them eat something is not facing the issues. The issue is what is your body going to let you eat?
neither of us are "rabid" about our diet. We eat out or in homes of others generally what is served--although more than 15 years of progressive reform, i've lost a desire for the tate of most meats. We are not defiled because some ___ or ___ got into our bellies, but we also don't knowingly consume massive quantities all the while thinking it is good for us, nor do we think that consuming small quantities will ruin us.
I remember a year after we gave up cheese, we were invited to an SDA friends house who probably did not know of our vegan status. After a lot of outdoor activity--they served supper to starving us. It was grilled cheese sandwiches and some kind of cheezey tomatoe soup.
We were hungry and gave thanks and ate lustily. all 4 of us--wife, 2 kids, me were up all night with stomach pains! Our bodies didn't know what to do with all that cheese! We never told anyone about this. but it makes the point.
In conclusion, i think the imporant thing is that each person do their own research on what they should and should not eat--and come to their own conclusions based on not only the body of science out there regarding nutrition--but also a knowledge of their own body (some people may eat only 2 meals--some need 5 or 6 daily. depends on your body condition and needs--some may need meat or milk, others may not). Experiment for a year or two with different diets and see how your body responds. And when you find a good combination--thank God and go with it. Encourage others to experiment with their bodies and diets too, and they may find something complete different works for them!
There are programs out there that treat everything from diabetes to ADHD with nothing but diet. Not all cases can be managed this way, but putting medicine into your body can also have negative side affects that nutritional and diet modification don't.
And it would be real nice if instead of other people trying to convince me their situation and diet is the best one for me, that others could appreciate what I am trying to do in my own body and encourage me in that direction. Just like it would be nice if I could encourage others in what direction they are going--and i will try.
I do feel sad when people are enslaved by their own apetites and choose to eat something they know is less than ideal for them--.
and we often don't know what enslaves us until we try to give it up.
One thing i do, which may sound strange to deal with this, is i rotate on and off the things i eat that might become enslaving. one example is smart balance butter substitue--i love butter!. I will choose to stop eating it for 1-2 weeks-eating my bread and potatoes plan-- every month or so just to prove to myself that I am in charge not my taste.
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 309
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:39 am: | |
The problem is when a person tries to make diet a moral issue (as EGW did) instead of the personal choice health issue that it really is.
I was raised a vegetarian whose family gradually went to vegan before being completely grown up. Once I left home, I immediately abandoned veganism. It was only a couple years ago, around age 40, that I've even tried any meat. My biggest complaint is that because of my restricted upbringing, I don't even have the free choice to experiment and see what works best for my body (well, maybe someday I'll experiment beyond fish and chicken...).
An early contradiction I came across at least ten years ago, is noticing in the Old Testament times, it would be impossible to be a Jewish priest and be vegetarian. God required priests to "eat before the Lord" certain parts of the meat to be sacrificed, and that was red meat. And of course Jesus ate fish. I've always thought the SDA paranoia of scrutinizing labels, making sure "seasonings" were meat-free, etc. was extremely overboard and that even nutritionally less desirable things taken in smaller quantities could in no way affect anyone's health physcially or spiritually.
While I would find it personally impossible to be the one to kill any animal for any reason, Who was it that instituted the regular killing of animals for sacrifice? If that went on in America today, I think all the animal rights activists would have a major problem with it. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:46 am: | |
Pauls, surely you're not justifying that family starving their child to death? Others may die from their food choices long term, but they usually make it to adulthood. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2760
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:53 pm: | |
Uh--yes, Melissa. Of course lifestyle and diet make a difference in one's health. But I also know from experience how destructive severe emotional stress can be, how health-destroying it can be to try to manage my life by managing my diet and exercise. Using just my own life as a reference point, I know that eating healthfully and carefully can be as much of a compulsion and as harmful and restricting overall as can gluttony and a devil-may-care attitude about health.
I became chronically ill with non-diagnosed ailments that tended to be endocrine in nature before, during, and following my divorce. No food supplements or diet could have undone the effects of that prolonged stress, anxiety, guilt, fear, and sense of abandoment. Indeed, my way of coping with my disintegrating environment was to manage my diet and exercise with a vengeance. I spent an inordinant amount of time deciding and planning what I would eat, how much, when, etc. My exercise also was excessive.
In spite of everything, I am generally healthier and feel much better now than I did 20 years ago. It's counterintuitive, but it's a testimony to the effects of experiencing and and surrendering to Jesus and to allowing love to change me. Frankly, although I'm still careful of what I eat, the biggest effect on my health has been giving up my micro-management of what I eat and surrendering my controlling grip on myself to Jesus.
Truly, it is not what goes into us that makes us "unclean"--it is what comes out of our mouths that makes us unclean! I'm convinced we can make ourselves equally unhealthy by restricting or by indulging. Obviously, discipline and information are essential. But we can be equally neurotic whether we are overeating or vigilantly monitoring ourselves.
Colleen |
Lisa_boyldavis
Registered user
Username: Lisa_boyldavis
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:09 pm: | |
I just want to share what I've experienced because of the Seventh day Adventist fixation on diet rather than Jesus Christ. I have a pre-diabetic condition called Insulin Resistance. The prognosis is terrible. Most with this condition have diabetes by 40 and serious heart problems by their 50's. The condition is directly related to diet. Carbohydrates cause insulin to dump into my system causing all kinds of medical problems including miscarriages (I had 4) and weight gain, depression, ect... (It's called PCOS)... anyway, we didn't have a lot of money as a kid, so our main source of food was potatoes and noodles, bread and apples. A perfect diet for getting this cycle going. We didn't have the money for vegi-meat except once in a while. We did eat beans but they are mostly carbs also. Now as an adult free from the food restrictions I can not down any form of meat at all as I've tasted it 3 times before and I'm 38 years old and can't get past the mental pictures I heard from my 60's SDA parents. I've done vagan, I've done the "WHO CARES", and everything in-between, but now I have to stick to less than 40 grams of carbs per day. Try it sometime without meat. It's very difficult, but I'm seeing changes PRAISE GOD.
I want to tell a story that reminds me of the malnutrition baby. I had just had our first born son and was attending an SDA Church. I had a friend who's husband was a doctor and the head elder and she had her masters degree in public health. They were steeped in EGW and also the teachings called Growing Kids God's Way which encouraged scheduling babies sleeping times. They put the package together and had their 3 week old baby and 6 year old son on TWO MEALS A DAY and the baby they woke up with ICE CUBES (THEY WERE VERY PROUD OF THIS) and used Tylenol to get the baby to sleep. They are leaders in that church (have the money ie influence) and are in the Gleaner a number of times per year for all the wonderful things they are doing. Their six your old son was having problems with ìpornî in the Sears Catalogue according to the mom.
THAT STORY ILLUSTRATES WHY GOD THROUGH PAUL THE APOSTLE MADE IT CLEAR NOT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF FOOD. Because we as humans can not handle it. We screw it up every time. But when JESUS CHRIST becomes everything He gives us BALANCE we are unable to achieve on our own. I'm healthier than ever because I'm not being healthy as an identifying feature of my beliefs, but because I'm Godís Girl and Heís Spoiling Me Rotten with Balance and LIFE ABUNDANTLY!!! The truth is that some of these issues are just not arguable. Youíve got to experience them to know what is being described. Kind of like true loveÖ. My thoughts on freedom and healthJ
Lisa
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2763
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 8:38 pm: | |
Lisa, thank you. You said that SO well!
Colleen |
Dt
Registered user
Username: Dt
Post Number: 67
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:11 pm: | |
Susan_2,
Your post reminded me of a study I saw a few years back in which a group used a laboratory to try and get every last bit of blood out of the meat. They could not do it. I was a True Blue SDA then and really took it to heart, giving thanks for the guidance we were given in EGW etc.
In reading your post, my thoughts went back to that study. Now I have to question the whole SDA obsession with the blood in meat issue. Given that God Himself gave the sacrificial lamb meat to the Priests to eat, did He deliberately set them up to sin?
How do you get all of the blood out of a fish? There are all of those tiny little vessels. You cannot process fish like red meat. Did Jesus himself set the 5,000 and the disciples up to sin? Jesus cooked fish on the shore for the disciples.
Watching SDA's perform verbal acrobatics to justify this would be funny if it were not so sad to see the abondment of Scripture in favor of EGW.
Excuse me, I'm going to waddle over and fix a juicy cheeseburger.
DT
|
Weimarred
Registered user
Username: Weimarred
Post Number: 85
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:28 pm: | |
Hi, it's been awhile. Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
First, I think the historical record is clear. Humans always have been omnivorous, and to teach or preach different is silly and can be dangerous.
Second, life is full of tradeoffs; diet is no exception. I can relate to so many of the above stories, especially yours, Lisa, as my brother, who can't stand the thought of meat, has some serious health issues that I think are related to the way we grew up with our diet and all.
When you go to one extreme, something else has got to give. We are what we eat, so that really applies.
Tom |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 215
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:51 am: | |
Doesn't even have something to do with our teeth? I wish I could remember more, but it seems like human's teeth, with the cuspids and the bicuspids, are designed for meat eating.
Carnivorously,
Hannah |
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:11 am: | |
wiemarred--how do you understand Gen 1:29 if humans have always been omnivorous?
Gen 1:30 seems to imply that even the animals were herbivorous, and Isa 65:25 seems to picture herbivorous animals like lions in heaven eating straw? and snakes eating dust?
I know that science has concluded man to be always omnivorous--but do we look at the bible through the lens of science--or do we look at science throug the lens of the bible--if God's Word is inerrant?
I know that Jesus death did away with the ceremonial laws, etc, and I am free to do whatever I want, but there were some laws that were not done away with--the law of gravity for instance--if i climb to a high place and ignore this law, i will get hurt killed. the law of momentum or of kinetic energy--if i drive real fast on a tight curve in wet weather--the law of momentum will put me in the ditch. And if i am killed for ignoring these laws, it is nothing--because my salvation is in Christ alone, and not my obediance to some law. but that does not cancel the law or the consequences (temporally) from my ignoring it...
these same class of scientists--who argue that man is omnivorous--also believe in evolution and discount the reality of God, have done some empirical health studies and i will share this with you. This is from a National Institute of Health report released in the first year of the Clinton Administration--so these were not bush conservaties here!--anyway, this is what they said:
The report identified the top 10 cancer causing agents in America:
1. pork and pork products
2. shell fish
3. margarine
4. nutra sweet blu paks
5. junk food
6. cofee
7. mayonaise
8. chlorine (found in most city drinking water)
9. alcoholic beverages
10. high fat dairy products
these guys have no doctrinal issues to push, so i thought it was interesting and helpful. i am sure you can find a report that says the opposite--but, if there is a question about whether or not a food is beneficial or harmful--some people will choose to eat despite the possibility of risk and some will choose to avoid the food and avoid the risk. that is your choice. All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. i cor 10:23.
everything that i do should be done to please and glorify God. 1 Cor 10:31. Not my taste buds.
So how can you best glorify God in your diet choices? i think that is the real question and not what is right or wrong.
|
Weimarred
Registered user
Username: Weimarred
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hannah, I think you're right, there is something to do with teeth, and how they're shaped in different animals. Of course, I suppose it's possible to read too much into it.
I still can't quite figure out PETA, because whether you beleive in a Godless evolution, a God-led evolution, or a strict 6-day creation, there is precedent in all 3 for humans eating flesh.
Tom |
Weimarred
Registered user
Username: Weimarred
Post Number: 93
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 2:04 pm: | |
Pauls, you raise an interesting point. I'll qualify my statement, in that Biblicallly, up until Genesis 9:3, humans were vegans. (Growing up, I was under the impresion that the kosher food laws were first introduced by God after the flood. Apparently, that's false. Don't know when they were first introduced. Anybody know?)
As DT mentioned, it seems to be impossible to get every last speck of blood out of meat. If we take this to heart, we have to ask about Genesis 9:4, where God forbids eating blood. Does this mean that God set us up for failure by giving us meat to eat in verse 3, but then by forbidding it in verse 4 by default? I doubt it! (Yes, my name is Thomas :-)
I think we have to be careful how we intrepret the Bible, and at least be open to the idea that our current understanding might not be th correct understanding. As an example, for centuries Genesis 9:20-27 was convoluted into an excuse for a repugnant racial superiority complex known as the Hemetic Theory.
Isiah 65 appears to describing the hereafter, or at least a Messianic age. It seems to be a return to the pre-fall type of diet.
I think life is a series of tradeoffs, balance, and decisions, and diet is no different. Some of us are gluttons, and/or are addicted to a particular type of food, thus creating an imbalance in our diet. Meanwhile, others of us are so caught up in details, that we lose sight of the bigger picture.
There's noghing wrong with a sober approach to diet. But on the flip side, in my humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with people who choose to ignore their diet because they wish to focus more exclusively on other things.
Many of the items on the cancer-causing list (is the correct term carcinogenic?) are good examples of tradeoffs. Some bring pleasure, others enhance existing foods, and chlorine, for example, has likely saved more than it has taken away. A clean drinking supply for millions is an acceptable tradeoff for the carcinogenic side effects (that is, until something better is found).
If we can afford to avoid some of these potentially bad things, while still maintaining balance in all things, then that's great!
Tom |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 714
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:36 pm: | |
Another proof of our omnivour status is the positioning of our eyes. Most vegetarian animals have eyes on either side of their heads. Animals that include meat in their diets have their eyes in the forward parts of their skulls.
There are Biblical statements that would lead one to believe that a carnivorous diet will one day disappear, and it seems that originally things were quite different, but quite clearly meat eating has been a part of man's diet since the Biblical flood.
It is a dead issue, however, because each of us has the ability to make up our own minds about what we will or won't eat, and the New Covenant gives us that freedom. You diet, and mine, will neither prevent, not cause our salvation. |
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:00 pm: | |
agreed, we are saved by faith in Christ alone and nothing we can do can add to that....so diet is not a salvation issue--its just about how you choose to live here on earth--so i totally agree with you. and because your dietary choices involve a lot of trade offs that only you really know what they are----finances, amount of time to prepare food, cultural location, geography and the types of food available. only you can know if you are responding to the call of God in this area of your life and therefore no one should judge you or me...
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2776
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:01 pm: | |
"The Spirit clearly says that in later tmes some will abandon the faith and follow deceivng 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 nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
Colleen |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:41 am: | |
I find it hard to believe God has different "requirements" for right and wrong, what is Godly and what isn't depending upon the region of the country or cultural norms or the current technology available.
I live in the midwest. By nature, and I presume God's design, I'm not to have bananas. They don't grow here. Same with oranges, mangos and kiwi. We can grow many vegetables in the summer and apple and pear trees survive the winters and the fruits cellar well. We grow lots of wheat ... did I say Kansas?? We don't grow many olives here. Most animals, however, survive our winters just fine. Now I realize some form of shipping has been around for many years, with more limited success for some items than others. But really, the abundance this country has available in diet is because of our ability to fly things in when it's 10 degrees outside or our ability to create greenhouses that will grow things in spite of the climate outside. Does God not get glory from the tribesmen in Africa who don't have a vegetarian diet readily available? Or what about natives prior to whiteman invading the land we now call the US? They didn't have markets to get all these varieties of fruits and vegetables so they could avoid meat. IF God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then I don't glorify God by what I eat unless it has only been possible in fairly recent history to glorify God and is still not possible in some lands because their primitive cultures, lacking manmade interventions to bring foods not native to their land.
Solely based upon the scripture quoted above (1 Timothy) and NOT on my tastebuds' lusts, I can ONLY believe that anyone teaching to abstain from certain foods is teaching doctrines of demons. I don't care what science says or what political party is promoting it.
Another possibility on blood: I always thought when something was mentioning "eating" blood, it was talking about liquid blood (like cooking meat until the juices run clear?)? And I heard some pagan religions/cultures actually drank blood? Just hearsay.
Can we inspect the context of Isaiah 65 a little better?
Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. And the things before will not be remembered, nor come to mind.
Isa 65:18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Isa 65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and I will rejoice in My people; and the voice of weeping will no more be heard in her, nor the voice of crying be heard in her.
Isa 65:20 There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old; but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised.
Isa 65:21 And they will build houses and live in them; and they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
Isa 65:22 They will not build, and another live in them; they will not plant, and another eat. For like the days of a tree are the days of My people, and My elect will long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 They will not labor in vain, nor bring forth for terror. For they are the seed of the beloved of Jehovah, and their offspring with them.
Isa 65:24 And it will be, before they call I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the food of the snake. They will not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, says Jehovah.
IF we are to believe this passage is talking about post 2nd coming heaven...do we believe there is death in heaven as verse 20 says an old man will fulfill his days and children will die at 100. Is age even a component of eternity? And are there sinners in eternity? Also verse 23 says we won't bring forth children "for trouble" in the NKJ or "doomed for misfortune" in the NIV...is there childbirth in heaven??? How can that be if there is no giving in marriage as Jesus said? So, you can hop to verse 25 where wolf and lamb are eating together and lions eating straw and "conclude" everything is vegetarian in the future, but to presume that is speaking of eternity raises all kinds of red flags in context to me. If death doesn't exist in eternity (as Rev. says it is destroyed), then no children die period. There will not be a "fulfilling of days", not even for "old" men (whatever that means in eternity). I do not pretend to understand many things in Isaiah, but based upon what is clearly taught in Revelation, I am convinced this cannot be talking about eternity, let alone the eternal diet. |
Mrsbrian3
Registered user
Username: Mrsbrian3
Post Number: 22
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:55 am: | |
I agree with Melissa. I don't think Isaiah is talking about post second coming heaven. Wesley's Notes and Matthew Henry's Commentary make more sense to me ...
65:25 The wolf, and c. - God here promises to take off the fierceness of the spirits of his peoples enemies, so that they shall live quietly and peaceably together. And dust - God promises a time of tranquility to his church under the metaphor of serpents eating the dust, their proper meat, Gen 3:14, instead of flying upon men: it signifies such a time, when wicked men shall no more eat up the people of God.
65:17-25 In the grace and comfort believers have in and from Christ, we are to look for this new heaven and new earth. The former confusions, sins and miseries of the human race, shall be no more remembered or renewed. The approaching happy state of the church is described under a variety of images. He shall be thought to die in his youth, and for his sins, who only lives to the age of a hundred years. The event alone can determine what is meant; but it is plain that Christianity, if universal, would so do away violence and evil, as greatly to lengthen life. In those happy days, all God's people shall enjoy the fruit of their labours. Nor will children then be the trouble of their parents, or suffer trouble themselves. The evil dispositions of sinners shall be completely moritified; all shall live in harmony. Thus the church on earth shall be full of happiness, like heaven. This prophecy assures the servants of Christ, that the time approaches, wherein they shall be blessed with the undisturbed enjoyment of all that is needful for their happiness. As workers together with God, let us attend his ordinances, and obey his commands.
Kim |
|
