Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,630
Members1,323
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
3 registered members (TheophilusOne, Karen Y, 1 invisible),
3,597
guests, and 13
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: vastergotland]
#124407
03/31/10 01:31 PM
03/31/10 01:31 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,429
Midland
|
|
Do you think worms, parasites, germs, bacteria, or other pathogens is the only reason they were unclean and if we could have a way to insure sterilization of them, there would be no objection to eating unclean meat? Either that or there would be something intrinsically evil about that which is called unclean, menstruating women for instance. Good point. Suppose everyone really has an allergy to cows' milk since we were never designed to drink it. That is my point, in that we should object to splicing genes since they are inserting proteins and DNA fragments that we were not designed to eat. However, for someone who drinks cows' milk or eat frog, is there any objection? Concluding that humans were not designed to drink milk leads to the necessary conclusion that the ability to non the less drink it possessed by large populations of humans is evidence of evolution. Cuteness aside, likewise you would need to demonstrate that it was intended for humans to drink another organism's milk. In the rest of nature, it would be a rare thing if it was that one species drinks another species' milk. Now one could argue there may be parasites in the milk glands and sometimes I have seen grown cows drink from their mother or even other cows, but the cases are rare. But would you agree with the last part of what you quoted that for those who drink cows' milk and eat frog, is there any objection to consuming that which has inserted DNA from one organism to another whether plant or animal, commonly known as GMO foods?
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#124408
03/31/10 01:46 PM
03/31/10 01:46 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,429
Midland
|
|
He said "I have given you every herb that yields seed."
Given every herb - that yields seed. Herb is given. Herb is described. Whether yielding seed, being brown, green, growing in the forest or the field. Call it what part of grammar you want, but the herb is given. It is described or qualified as yielding seed. Seed was not given according to the sentence structure. Vegetables are also herbs that yield seed. (Something for you to consider: Do you think Adam and Eve knew that those little things coming off ferns which sprout and grow into little plantlike things were spores and not seeds) But the rest of what you said, that you have decided in your own mind what it means, I can't argue with that.
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: kland]
#124507
04/04/10 09:29 PM
04/04/10 09:29 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Do you think worms, parasites, germs, bacteria, or other pathogens is the only reason they were unclean and if we could have a way to insure sterilization of them, there would be no objection to eating unclean meat? Either that or there would be something intrinsically evil about that which is called unclean, menstruating women for instance. Good point. Suppose everyone really has an allergy to cows' milk since we were never designed to drink it. That is my point, in that we should object to splicing genes since they are inserting proteins and DNA fragments that we were not designed to eat. However, for someone who drinks cows' milk or eat frog, is there any objection? Concluding that humans were not designed to drink milk leads to the necessary conclusion that the ability to non the less drink it possessed by large populations of humans is evidence of evolution. Cuteness aside, likewise you would need to demonstrate that it was intended for humans to drink another organism's milk. In the rest of nature, it would be a rare thing if it was that one species drinks another species' milk. Now one could argue there may be parasites in the milk glands and sometimes I have seen grown cows drink from their mother or even other cows, but the cases are rare. But would you agree with the last part of what you quoted that for those who drink cows' milk and eat frog, is there any objection to consuming that which has inserted DNA from one organism to another whether plant or animal, commonly known as GMO foods? Fact, a sizeable amount of humans can drink the milk of many different species even as grownups. If God did not give humans this capability and it did not evolve, where did it come from? Does the devil plot to give humans nourishing food? Obviously there are such objections, for instance here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: vastergotland]
#124591
04/06/10 04:02 PM
04/06/10 04:02 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,429
Midland
|
|
Likewise a fact, humans can drink alcohol. If God did not give humans this capability did it evolve or where did it come from? Does merely toleration/elimination/use of a substance mean it was intended? As far as the devil plotting, you assume cow's milk is nourishing food for humans. I don't believe that has been determined to be true.
For GMO, if you go with evolution, then having a wider genetic variability and capability which one did not have before would give organisms a much wider and broader ability to withstand environmental changes. Ability to spread the diversity throughout it's environment is nothing more than evolution and genetics at work. Human health is not under question as humans already eat the stuff.
As far as me, I don't drink milk, I don't eat frog, and so would be opposed to such manipulation, but have yet to see any reason why those who are non-discriminating of what they ingest should oppose it.
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: kland]
#124625
04/08/10 06:14 AM
04/08/10 06:14 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
A cow in the family has saved countless children and youth from starving to death in the days of selfsustained farming, and probably still do where this means of living still exists. I think no simmilar case can be made for alcohol.
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: vastergotland]
#124641
04/09/10 12:19 PM
04/09/10 12:19 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,429
Midland
|
|
A few questions come to mind:
If someone was shipwrecked on an island and all they had to eat was lizards, and they were sustained and kept from starving, would one conclude lizards were intended food?
Why was it necessary, or was it necessary, for countless children and youth to drink milk to keep from starving to death.
(Side question: what is self sustained if they were on the verge of starvation?)
Why not their human mother's milk? Otherwise, why children and youth? I think it's an idea from the milk industry.
What does Ellen White say about eating animals and animal products? There was a Review article concerning her thoughts on cruelty to animals in raising them for food.
Alcohol provides calories and we need calories to survive. Though I do agree one would live longer drinking cow's milk than alcohol, one could also live longer drinking alcohol than drinking cyanide.
|
|
|
Re: Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?
[Re: kland]
#124642
04/09/10 01:11 PM
04/09/10 01:11 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Likewise a fact, humans can drink alcohol. If God did not give humans this capability did it evolve or where did it come from? Does merely toleration/elimination/use of a substance mean it was intended? As far as the devil plotting, you assume cow's milk is nourishing food for humans. I don't believe that has been determined to be true.
For GMO, if you go with evolution, then having a wider genetic variability and capability which one did not have before would give organisms a much wider and broader ability to withstand environmental changes. Ability to spread the diversity throughout it's environment is nothing more than evolution and genetics at work. Human health is not under question as humans already eat the stuff. kland, We seem to be in agreement on this. I also do not use milk, and I would have to say I don't think it was intended for human consumption any more than the flesh of animals. Only humans still seem to drink milk as adults! It so happens that milk is one of the most frequent allergens among people today. Many others have lactose intolerance. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|