Transfusion and Eating – no difference?
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#141 Nov 20, 2012
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
I was going to let this go..because I find you argumentative..but when I realize your calling Paul an apostate..it made me feel a revulsion for what you are prepared to do, to justify your stance..its sickening
20 But that we write unto them, THAT THEY ABSTAIN FROM POLLUTIONS OF IDOLS, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
29 THAT YE ABSTAIN FROM MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye wel'
The only other thing Paul told us we could do, was if we were invited to the house of unbelievers we were to eat what was set before us, asking no question...making no inquiry where it came from
The moment someone stated that it was meat offered to idols..Paul tells us not to eat it.
so he was true to the commandment.
Its just like Paul we know idols are nothing and have no power..but silly people think they do, so once it is stated that the meat was sacrificed to idols..thats the end of any eating of it for us...because of the conscience that others have.
and we still keep the commandment to abstain from things offered to idols
neither Paul nor ourselves disobey that command .
Paul has never contradicted the commandment
Little Lamb...

Show us that Poul explicit forbide Christians to eat meat which has been used in and as sacrifices to idols, the only reservation was if it would hurt anothers consciense and the person would stumble... then Paul would abstainfrom eating meat.. not in opposite case...?

He stated clearly that Gods Kingdom was not a question of etings..

What told Jesus his follower not to eat when they pay visits in idolaters and Gentiles homes... Any precorsions or prohibitions in the Scripture... Luke 10:8..?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#142 Nov 20, 2012
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
taking you on face value you state
"What you present presumes that lack of express permission should be taken to mean a prohibition. My question asks where were humans prohibited from eating meat and blood prior to the flood"
The very fact God gave permission AFTER the flood, shows there was no permission prior to the flood.
If there was permission BEFORE the FLOOD
There would be no need to give permission AFTER the flood.
Little Lamb...

Tell us all whether God has changed His mind or not... during the history of mankind...?

A yes or no will be suffcient...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#143 Nov 20, 2012
-

From post 139[1]:
little lamb wrote:
taking you on face value you state
.
"What you present presumes that lack of express permission should be taken to mean a prohibition. My question asks where were humans prohibited from eating meat and blood prior to the flood"
.
The very fact God gave permission AFTER the flood, shows there was no permission prior to the flood.
If there was permission BEFORE the FLOOD
.
There would be no need to give permission AFTER the flood.
Again, thanks little lamb for continuing this line of discussion. It is important, and it is also much appreciated by me and I’m sure by other readers too.

I see two problems with what you propose:

1. The permission God issued after the flood had to do specifically with living animals and not of meat in general. What I mean is that edible meat was/is readily available from two sources and not just one. One source was to use meat on the hoof as a food source. The other source was meat of animals found dead of natural cause. But the Noachian Decree addresses only the former (i.e., meat on the hoof) and not the latter (i.e., meat dead of natural cause).

Hence it is false to think that God addressed permission to eat meat and blood in general after the flood. After the flood God addressed meat and blood from one of two sources, and ONLY of one of two sources.

2. Given that God addressed meat on the hoof as a food source to Noah (i.e., living animals), since apparently God wanted Noah to have and use this as a food source there was A NEED for God to address this SPECIFICALLY because prior to this permission God had given Noah strict instruction to preserve alive the animals taken through the flood to seed the earth with animal population.(Gen. 6:18- 7:3)

In a nutshell, without God’s EXPRESS permission to kill animals as a food source Noah would have been left in a quandary about whether he COULD kill animals as food because going into the flood event God had told him not to kill animals. The Noachian Decree gave that EXPRESS permission to kill animals as a food source. But, unlike anything known before, NOW when humans killed an animal as food their was a consequent, a prohibition: they could not eat the blood of slaughter.

Again, I much appreciate your review and thoughtful comment, and nothing said above it intended as contention or otherwise to be disagreeable.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 139: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
little lamb

Saint Albans, Australia

#144 Nov 21, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 139[1]:
<quoted text>
Again, thanks little lamb for continuing this line of discussion. It is important, and it is also much appreciated by me and I’m sure by other readers too.
I see two problems with what you propose:
1. The permission God issued after the flood had to do specifically with living animals and not of meat in general. What I mean is that edible meat was/is readily available from two sources and not just one. One source was to use meat on the hoof as a food source. The other source was meat of animals found dead of natural cause. But the Noachian Decree addresses only the former (i.e., meat on the hoof) and not the latter (i.e., meat dead of natural cause).
Hence it is false to think that God addressed permission to eat meat and blood in general after the flood. After the flood God addressed meat and blood from one of two sources, and ONLY of one of two sources.
2. Given that God addressed meat on the hoof as a food source to Noah (i.e., living animals), since apparently God wanted Noah to have and use this as a food source there was A NEED for God to address this SPECIFICALLY because prior to this permission God had given Noah strict instruction to preserve alive the animals taken through the flood to seed the earth with animal population.(Gen. 6:18- 7:3)
In a nutshell, without God’s EXPRESS permission to kill animals as a food source Noah would have been left in a quandary about whether he COULD kill animals as food because going into the flood event God had told him not to kill animals. The Noachian Decree gave that EXPRESS permission to kill animals as a food source. But, unlike anything known before, NOW when humans killed an animal as food their was a consequent, a prohibition: they could not eat the blood of slaughter.
Again, I much appreciate your review and thoughtful comment, and nothing said above it intended as contention or otherwise to be disagreeable.
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:
1. Post 139: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
Your a clever fellow Marvin and I don't accept your reasoning

Because God was quite clear to Noah " Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you , AS IN THE CASE OF GREEN VEGETATION I DO GIVE IT ALL TO YOU."

Meaning that God acknowledged he had previously given permission for green vegetation...

your reasoning that it wasn't so Noah would be in a quandary about eating the animals he had been commanded to save, would only be valid if God had not add the words " AS IN THE CASE OF GREEN VEGETATION I DO GIVE IT TO YOU."

LOL..according to you God should have said " As in the case of green vegetation "AND MEAT PREVIOUSLY "I do give it to you "

You've assumed too much and want people to assume thats what God meant.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#145 Nov 21, 2012
-

From post 144[1]:
little lamb wrote:
Your a clever fellow Marvin and I don't accept your reasoning
.
Because God was quite clear to Noah " Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you , AS IN THE CASE OF GREEN VEGETATION I DO GIVE IT ALL TO YOU."
.
Meaning that God acknowledged he had previously given permission for green vegetation...
your reasoning that it wasn't so Noah would be in a quandary about eating the animals he had been commanded to save, would only be valid if God had not add the words " AS IN THE CASE OF GREEN VEGETATION I DO GIVE IT TO YOU."
.
LOL..according to you God should have said " As in the case of green vegetation "AND MEAT PREVIOUSLY "I do give it to you "
.
You've assumed too much and want people to assume thats what God meant.


Thanks again for responding. My remarks are not intended to be clever, and I no more want others to accept assumption than I wish to make assumption. I like to have hard reasons for what I believe, and there is so much to gain by interacting with other individuals such as yourself with convictions.

I try hard to avoid assumption and based on what you write above I can’t say I understand the reason you see for rejecting what I’ve presented. Regardless, the fact that you disagree is completely respected by me.

Given the fact of God telling Noah to preserve the animals alive, insofar as I can see what you’ve cited above is no more than God telling Noah ‘You can slaughter and eat animals I told you to abstain from killing as you can eat vegetation that I’ve never told you to abstain from.’ There is nothing in your presentation that would have me think otherwise as though that were not even a possibility.

More to the point of this discussion is that at no time prior to the post-flood period do I see where humans had reason to think they should abstain from eating the perfectly good food of animal flesh dead of natural cause. For that matter, I see no reason to think humans had any reason to think they should abstain from killing animals and eating the meat. Why would they have thought this? Because God offered them vegetation as food and didn’t mention meat? Well God didn’t mention milk or water, either. Does that mean humans were not to eat water or milk? I can’t see it.

And what about all the meat eating going on that agrarian humans could not possibly be ignorant of? All that meat was being eaten by animal who God had likewise offered vegetation to as food.

Ultimately the question I asked was that you show me from the Bible where pre-flood humans were PROHIBITED from eating meat, and blood too for that matter. I guess my question now is: Do you think you’ve proved a PROHIBITION existed prior to the flood?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 144: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#146 Nov 21, 2012
-

little lamb,

There’s one more thing about this discussion that is, to me, a stand out.

God did actually express a food prohibition to pre-flood humans. That prohibition was to abstain from eating of the tree of knowledge. That prohibition was not to abstain from eating meat and blood.

Best I can tell, to say pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating meat appears to be adding something to what we find in the Bible.

Do you think you’ve proven from the Bible that pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating meat and blood?

Thanks again for taking the time. Again, none of what I write above is in the least said as condescension or sarcasm, or anything of the like.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
little lamb

Australia

#147 Nov 21, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 144[1]:
<quoted text>

Given the fact of God telling Noah to preserve the animals alive, insofar as I can see what you’ve cited above is no more than God telling Noah ‘You can slaughter and eat animals I told you to abstain from killing as you can eat vegetation that I’ve never told you to abstain from.’
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:
1. Post 144: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
The only problem is Marvin ..he didn't say the above

You've added a few extra words like " You can slaughter and eat animals THAT I HAVE NEVER TOLD YOU TO ABSTAIN FROM'

The words in capital are your added words.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#148 Nov 21, 2012
-

From post 147[1]:
little lamb wrote:
The only problem is Marvin ..he didn't say the above
You've added a few extra words like " You can slaughter and eat animals THAT I HAVE NEVER TOLD YOU TO ABSTAIN FROM'
.
The words in capital are your added words.
Thanks for sharing your observation.

The paraphrase I offered was to put words into God’s mouth. It was offered as an understanding of what the words you quoted could mean. If there is an alternate meaning to something said, then it is unsound to demand that alternate meaning is invalid without proof that is the case.

If we want to talk about what God has not said then we can start with this:

- There is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of meat.

In the absence of such a statement from Jehovah then on what premise do we soundly conclude pre-flood humans were forbidden from eating meat?

Again, your input is much appreciated.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 147: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#149 Nov 21, 2012
-

Oops…

“The paraphrase I offered was to put words into God’s mouth. It was offered as …”

Should read:

“The paraphrase I offered was NOT to put words into God’s mouth. It was offered as …”

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
little lamb

Australia

#150 Nov 21, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
little lamb,
There’s one more thing about this discussion that is, to me, a stand out.
God did actually express a food prohibition to pre-flood humans. That prohibition was to abstain from eating of the tree of knowledge. That prohibition was not to abstain from eating meat and blood.
Best I can tell, to say pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating meat appears to be adding something to what we find in the Bible.
Do you think you’ve proven from the Bible that pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating meat and blood?
Thanks again for taking the time. Again, none of what I write above is in the least said as condescension or sarcasm, or anything of the like.
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
Yes I believe scripture proves what they were allowed to eat, preflood

Because we have the written record , at the same time as is recorded the restriction on the tree of knowledge of good and bad..he also recorded his permission on the fact they could eat from every other tree...and as said before , meat wasn't on the menu...You have to presume it was on the menu..but according to the record it records fruit trees and vegetation for sowing ..but not meat..

Looks like we are just going around in circles..

So I will let it go now , however all periods of time have restrictions on what we can or can't eat, by people who desire to do Gods will.

The whole human descendants are under the command given to Noah

They can eat meat and vegetation...but they are forbidden to eat meat along with the blood.

The old covenant had many food restrictions ...

but in the new covenant Jesus gave the word, all food is clean' but a restriction on blood was broadened out... to refrain from blood...and blood has never been a "food' ever ever..so when Jesus declared all foods clean..in the new covenant he mediates..the covenant arrangement upholds the sacredness of blood.

In all the dispositions of time, the sacredness of blood, has been reiterated.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#151 Nov 21, 2012
-

From post 150[1]:
little lamb wrote:
Yes I believe scripture proves what they were allowed to eat, preflood
.
Because we have the written record , at the same time as is recorded the restriction on the tree of knowledge of good and bad..he also recorded his permission on the fact they could eat from every other tree...and as said before , meat wasn't on the menu...You have to presume it was on the menu..but according to the record it records fruit trees and vegetation for sowing ..but not meat..
.
Looks like we are just going around in circles..
Respectfully, little lamb,

1. Milk was not on the menu. Does this mean pre-flood women were prohibited from letting the infants suckle milk from their breast?

2. Water was not on the menu, either. Does this mean pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating water?

3. The menu given for animals did not include meat. Yet creation testifies that animals have been eating meat from the very beginning.

I don’t see this discussion going in circles. I see lots of unanswered questions that caste heavy doubt on your conclusion based on the absence of God speaking expressly of eating meat. Why are you not attempting to resolve these questions since in each case they run counter to the conclusion you assert, that pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating blood?

Finally, it is one thing to say what humans definitely had permission to eat. It is something else altogether to say what humans were prohibited from eating. A parent who tells his child he can eat apple pie is not issuing a prohibition against eating green beans. The parent is only telling the child what he CAN eat; not what he CAN’T eat.

I love learning, and I’m trying hard to learn in this discussion. But where do you see a PROHIBITION on eating meat for pre-flood humans?
little lamb wrote:
So I will let it go now , however all periods of time have restrictions on what we can or can't eat, by people who desire to do Gods will.
.
The whole human descendants are under the command given to Noah
.
They can eat meat and vegetation...but they are forbidden to eat meat along with the blood.
.
The old covenant had many food restrictions ...
.
but in the new covenant Jesus gave the word, all food is clean' but a restriction on blood was broadened out... to refrain from blood...and blood has never been a "food' ever ever..so when Jesus declared all foods clean..in the new covenant he mediates..the covenant arrangement upholds the sacredness of blood.
.
In all the dispositions of time, the sacredness of blood, has been reiterated.
As you observed earlier, it is important not to put words into God’s mouth. Jehovah told Noah not to eat blood of animals he slaughtered. Other than abstaining from eating this blood where was Noah required to treat the substance of blood as sacred? Other than not eating it, was Noah ALSO prohibited from USING this blood for purposes OTHER THAN eating? There were many practical uses of blood available to Noah, and most of them were nothing resembling sacred. Yet so far as I can tell, Noah was free to use blood for these secular purposes. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 150: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#152 Nov 21, 2012
-

little lamb,

So it’s not overlooked, I’m hoping our discussion can continue. But if it does not I want to thank you for taking the time you did and for engaging the subject to the extent you felt comfortable doing so.

Thanks.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
little lamb

Saint Albans, Australia

#153 Nov 21, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 150[1]:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
As you observed earlier, it is important not to put words into God’s mouth. Jehovah told Noah not to eat blood of animals he slaughtered. Other than abstaining from eating this blood where was Noah required to treat the substance of blood as sacred? Other than not eating it, was Noah ALSO prohibited from USING this blood for purposes OTHER THAN eating? There were many practical uses of blood available to Noah, and most of them were nothing resembling sacred. Yet so far as I can tell, Noah was free to use blood for these secular purposes. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:
1. Post 150: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
I disagree with you Marvin.

blood is sacred ..it belongs to God ..

Its restricted to him, and to his purpose..not ours.

also mothers milk was not an issue before the fall..but comes under natural Law, that is placed by God in all of nature.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#154 Nov 22, 2012
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I believe scripture proves what they were allowed to eat, preflood
Because we have the written record , at the same time as is recorded the restriction on the tree of knowledge of good and bad..he also recorded his permission on the fact they could eat from every other tree...and as said before , meat wasn't on the menu...You have to presume it was on the menu..but according to the record it records fruit trees and vegetation for sowing ..but not meat..
Looks like we are just going around in circles..
So I will let it go now , however all periods of time have restrictions on what we can or can't eat, by people who desire to do Gods will.
The whole human descendants are under the command given to Noah
They can eat meat and vegetation...but they are forbidden to eat meat along with the blood.
The old covenant had many food restrictions ...
but in the new covenant Jesus gave the word, all food is clean' but a restriction on blood was broadened out... to refrain from blood...and blood has never been a "food' ever ever..so when Jesus declared all foods clean..in the new covenant he mediates..the covenant arrangement upholds the sacredness of blood.
In all the dispositions of time, the sacredness of blood, has been reiterated.
Little Lamb....

Wy don't you tell us all how it was possible to bleed a carcass from all its coagulated blood, before the annimals was eaten in a distress situation... for sustaining lives...?

Do you really believe that every singel Jew and Gentile among the jews was carrying salt, peppar and water with them, just in case they should happen to end up in a situation without food... Leviticus 17:15 opposite Leviticus 17:13...?

If Acts 15:20,29 was a new law for Christians... a really NO NO, a gross violation og Gods law to the death, if some one doesn't abstain... then you have by your interpretation, based at your teachers the Governing Bodys doctrines like Saul from Gamaliel, maked Paul to an apostate... since he allowed Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols... 1 Corinthians 8:4...:HUH:

The only situation a Christian should absain from eating meat, which has been used in and as scrifices to idols, was if it would
violate anothers conscience and make that person stumble... In all other cases, it was fully free to eat such meat... Period.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#155 Nov 22, 2012
-

From post 153[1]:
little lamb wrote:
I disagree with you Marvin.
little lamb,

Thanks for your responses. You have been respectful and thoughtful in your replies and it is much appreciated. It is wholly respected by me that you disagree with things I’ve said. But, and not to beat a dead horse, I am looking for solid logical scriptural arguments from which to draw conclusions. A logical argument (scriptural or not) is something that is testable in order to determine its veracity. This is the reason for my questions.
little lamb wrote:
blood is sacred ..it belongs to God ..
.
Its restricted to him, and to his purpose..not ours.
I realize that is your conclusion. My questions are to determine what biblical premises you have to support it. Respectfully I am compelled to say that because you or I make an assertion does not make that assertion true. Assertions must be proven true in order to be valid, and they must be able to withstand scrutiny, including consistency with all available information on the subject.
little lamb wrote:
also mothers milk was not an issue before the fall..but comes under natural Law, that is placed by God in all of nature.
If mother’s milk “comes under natural Law” then why does meat not also come under “natural Law”?

By creative act milk is a food source.

By creative act meat is a food source.

If you disagree with the latter statement then on what basis do you disagree with it? Do you disagree that by God’s creative act meat is eaten? If so, why?

__________

Please do not mistake my motivation here. I appreciate honest and open discussion, and particularly of subject impinging what we find in holy scripture. My questions and responses are not for purpose of convincing you to hold any belief different than you do now. I am interested in learning for myself, and sharing with others for whatever good purpose can come of it. I want nothing but good for everyone.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 153: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
little lamb

Australia

#156 Nov 22, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 153[1]:
<quoted text>
little lamb,
Thanks for your responses. You have been respectful and thoughtful in your replies and it is much appreciated. It is wholly respected by me that you disagree with things I’ve said. But, and not to beat a dead horse, I am looking for solid logical scriptural arguments from which to draw conclusions. A logical argument (scriptural or not) is something that is testable in order to determine its veracity. This is the reason for my questions.
<quoted text>
I realize that is your conclusion. My questions are to determine what biblical premises you have to support it. Respectfully I am compelled to say that because you or I make an assertion does not make that assertion true. Assertions must be proven true in order to be valid, and they must be able to withstand scrutiny, including consistency with all available information on the subject.
<quoted text>
If mother’s milk “comes under natural Law” then why does meat not also come under “natural Law”?
By creative act milk is a food source.
By creative act meat is a food source.
If you disagree with the latter statement then on what basis do you disagree with it? Do you disagree that by God’s creative act meat is eaten?
__________
Please do not mistake my motivation here. I appreciate honest and open discussion, and particularly of subject impinging what we find in holy scripture. My questions and responses are not for purpose of convincing you to hold any belief different than you do now. I am interested in learning for myself, and sharing with others for whatever good purpose can come of it. I want nothing but good for everyone.
Marvin Shilmer
__________
References:
1. Post 153: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
If that really was the case Marvin..you would go to Jehovah in prayer for the answer..because in desiring the truth of a matter, is it not to our God we should inquire?

" For out of his mouth is knowledge and wisdom"

Jesus said " if someone is really desiring to do Gods will, they will know if a doctrine is from God or not."

I realize that you state your purpose is not to convince me against my convictions, and you haven't , because I know Jehovah states he has placed BLOOD on the altar for us..[ not the table]...LOL]

I don't disagree..meat is now a food source

milk is a food source..no disagreement that we are allowed to eat these things.

mothers milk is a natural process God has created in all mammals, to feed their young..and its wonderful when you think about it..not only by his written commandments , does he protect and provide a warm home for an infant..he also creates a child who brings its own love with them, and provides for them with a food source...Comes into the world supplied with its every need.

Sin has interrupted Gods holy way of looking after infants , but its been there from the beginning..Jehovah is a great God.

I have enjoyed answering you Marvin because I am not frightened of being wrong, if I believed you were right, there would be no advantage to continue in a lie....it is a matter of belief

And belief that doesn't rely on ones own understanding, is beyond many peoples comprehension...but it does exist in some people , and it comes about by trusting God in little matters, that builds up a strong faithful relationship with this great and wonderful God.

If he told you to take your son up a mountain and sacrifice him..we all know what your answer would be Marvin..you are predictable..but thats what set Abraham apart from the crowd, his faith.

However I know Gods word is the truth, and I know I am wrong if I believe I could win you by argument.. I know thats not the way...and like you I tend to enter these frays , to allow others to see there is another point of view.

So thank you Marvin..I leave you in Gods hands and I too appreciate your manner of conversation.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#157 Nov 22, 2012
-

little lamb,

If God told me to do as He told Abraham my preference would be to do the same. If you think otherwise then you do not know me at all. But in my lifetime I’ve never had God hold a verbal conversation with me by supernatural means as He did Abraham.

On the other hand, though God listens to us in prayer, He talks to us with His word, which is the Bible. It is by forming logically sound conclusions from premises we find in the Bible that we let Jehovah speak to us. It is, after all, His word. Hence what can be soundly (logically) deduced from those words is the will of our Creator. This is what I look for in teachings I end up holding conviction in.

I have placed several items into our discussion that I see no dispute from you and for which you offer no resolution of how those items can be as they are in the face of a belief that God PROHIBITED pre-flood humans from eating meat.(Uppercase is purely for emphasis)

Just above I ask a question of milk and meat. You say eating milk was not prohibited to pre-flood humans under “natural Law”. But when I ask whether meat also falls under “natural Law” you all but ignore it in terms of pre-flood humankind, which is the question. I don’t know how you can avoid this aspect of our subject and at the same time hold the belief you do. How do you choose to hold a belief without making sure it’s consistent with everything we find in the Bible? Prior to the flood meat was already being eaten by divine creative act of God, just like milk was already being eaten by divine creative act of God. You embrace one of these under “natural Law” yet reject the other when it is equally under “natural Law”. I don’t understand this.

For me to let God’s word talk to me it is vitally important that whatever convictions I hold I do so based on a firm resolve to make sure those beliefs are soundly deduced from biblical premises and that they are consistent with everything else said on the subject within holy scripture. For me there is no other way to feel honest in my worship of the only true God.

Insofar as “winning” me by argumentation, acquiescing to logical conclusions using biblical premises is something very comforting to me.

I assure that when you can construct a logical scriptural argument proving that pre-flood humans were prohibited from eating meat that I will immediately yield to the conclusion.

But I am unable to accept something as true because a human or group of humans tells me it’s true. I let God’s word be found true though every man a liar.

Again, thanks for our discussion. Perhaps one day we can take up the subject again between us.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
personally....! 4 min Shell from WI 1,362
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 7 min Matt13weedhacker 22,825
YES- People WILL get OUT of HELL! 10 min Liberated 1,954
Prince Religious Beliefs: false rumors, lies an... 15 min Shell from WI 12
So how many are awaiting paradise? 19 min Shell from WI 25
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 23 min PrufSammy 6,862
Anti-same sex marriage video by JWs.. 25 min Shell from WI 6
News Purple Faith: Prince's Life as a Jehovah's Witness 6 hr putasockinit 800
NWT is by far the best Bible 9 hr pcloadletter 501
Prince Rogers Nelson was a Baptized JW-says the... 13 hr Shell from WI 336
More from around the web