comparing 7 different denominations

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This article online compares some seven different denominations. I was looking at it because I was considering visits a different denomination next Sunday. Do you think this brief list is accurate? What other key differences are there?

https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/comparing-beliefs-across-the-christian-church/


IMO, it's very much over-simplified. And the "heart" and "passion" of each is entirely ignored. These are meant to be uber-short, overly-simple summeries (and such is always going to have serious flaws).


Frankly, it might make for some good and helpful threads here at CH. If you could ask members of each specific faith community to convey what they think is special and distinctive of that community.



I'm not TOO sure that the best approach is to see "who most agrees with ME?" But there are surveys that help do just that. Here's one: http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=christiandenom







.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
IMO, it's very much over-simplified. And the "heart" and "passion" of each is entirely ignored. These are meant to be uber-short, overly-simple summeries (and such is always going to have serious flaws).


Frankly, it might make for some good and helpful threads here at CH. If you could ask members of each specific faith community to convey what they think is special and distinctive of that community.



I'm not TOO sure that the best approach is to see "who most agrees with ME?" But there are surveys that help do just that. Here's one: http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=christiandenom







.

I have used that questionnaire before. It doesn't take it account what churches or denominations may be nearby where you live and possible for you to attend
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
A church that thinks being a vegan is a Biblical principle to be observed? The closest to what you may be seeking is probably the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

It was co-founded in the 19th century by a young person considered to be a prophet, but since the church is not run by so-called prophets on an ongoing basis such as the Mormons do, this (sda) could still be the one for you.

No. Neither the Seventh Day Adventist church nor I say veganism is a biblical principle to be observed. Though you would respond that it is to the contrary, with verses that there are, which you could, there is basis for veganism in verses of the Bible. I could then still respond refuting that argument. But it would go astray from what is discussed here. I visited a Seventh Day Adventist church, but I did not agree with what I saw is taught, it did not feel right, and there were none there practicing any veganism according to what I was told. And they do go by what that founding "prophet" has written, when I want to be with a church where the Bible is used without anything else given equal attention.

Though other verses may be used to argue this, and I see some saying I twist scriptures, yet I don't but just show some of many verses showing this, without contradicting any context, there is this theme in the scriptures.

God said, "I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it shall be for food." Yahweh God said "It is not good that man should live alone." Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. Then Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. So Yahweh said, "I will destroy man who I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air." But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh. Then God spoke to Noah, saying, "Go out of the ark, you, your wife, your sons and their wives. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth." Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings. God blessed Noah and his sons, and said, "The fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and all the fish of the sea. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you, I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its blood. For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning." It pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They wrote this letter: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from what was strangled, and from sexual immorality. Keep yourselves from these, you will do well." The earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope, because the creation itself will also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young ones shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea." "God will wipe away every tear, there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
 
Last edited:

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
A church that thinks being a vegan is a Biblical principle to be observed?

No. Neither the Seventh Day Adventist church nor I say veganism is a biblical principle to be observed. Though you would respond that it is to the contrary, with verses that there are, which you could, there is basis for veganism in verses of the Bible.

I think I should still clarify this, I mean I don't claim veganism is essential in being saved, as it is that becoming Jewish is not essential in being saved. Not using animal products was neglected soon in Christianity after the first believers, and then through Christian history, because having it as a requirement would be bad with keeping many people from responding in faith. No believers really start off with living righteously with no more sinning. There is development needed to turn from sin and live more righteously, and there is ongoing growth to turn from more wrong ways as we learn more of Yahweh God's will for us. I yet mean the perfect will of God for us is shown in scriptures including what was in the original design for us. This theme of not using animals continuously is shown in many places running through scriptures. Though God permitted meat from animals in an extreme situation, that in which little edible vegetation would be available, it was with dealing with murder in the same context, the dread of humanity starting (this is a curse, not a blessing), and with requirements including not abusing animals and not using meat with any blood having remained in it, which are not observed by hardly any now claiming they have that permission. That it is demonstrably healthier to eat just whole plant-based food is consistent with not still using animals being in God's perfect will for us, so there is this basis.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think I should still clarify this, I mean I don't claim veganism is essential in being saved, as it is that becoming Jewish is not essential in being saved. Not using animal products was neglected soon in Christianity after the first believers, and then through Christian history, because having it as a requirement would be bad with keeping many people from responding in faith. No believers really start off with living righteously with no more sinning. There is development needed to turn from sin and live more righteously, and there is ongoing growth to turn from more wrong ways as we learn more of Yahweh God's will for us. I yet mean the perfect will of God for us is shown in scriptures including what was in the original design for us. This theme of not using animals continuously is shown in many places running through scriptures. Though God permitted meat from animals in an extreme situation, that in which little edible vegetation would be available, it was with dealing with murder in the same context, the dread of humanity starting (this is a curse, not a blessing), and with requirements including not abusing animals and not using meat with any blood having remained in it, which are not observed by hardly any now claiming they have that permission. That it is demonstrably healthier to eat just whole plant-based food is consistent with not still using animals being in God's perfect will for us, so there is this basis.

Jesus ate fish, lamb, and probably beef when it was available.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Jesus ate fish, lamb, and probably beef when it was available.

As I have been talking about this much, it is not like you share objections I haven't considered or dealt with before. And here I was showing many verses for the theme, which make the point. And the objection you respond with is a claim without any verses to be shown for it. And there aren't verses for the claim. You speak of probability that is your belief and can't reasonably be pushed on another.

One singular verse, about the time after Jesus died, when to prove to his disciples that Jesus was now physically alive again, they were asked if they had anything. The original writings we have for having translations say here that they answered they had a fish and honeycomb. These things are not eaten together, I never have and certainly will still never, but if nothing was altered and they did have a fish, it shows they or some of them ate fish still, it does not show Jesus ate fish. I can see Jesus did not directly tell his disciples to not eat meat. But we can know from ancient writing that many of those individual disciples gave up meat afterward, and Jesus lived as an example to them and there was claim Jesus was never eating meat.

So if nothing was added to that text and they really had those two things, and they gave it to them, and he ate it, which actually suggests there was one thing, you don't have something to say with certainty that Jesus ate fish even on that one occasion, and you have nothing from scripture otherwise to insist that Jesus ate meat otherwise.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
https://medium.com/sant-mat-meditat...NOTB_hLRU&_branch_match_id=648279467953892580

I’ve heard people say that God created animals for us to eat. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say such a thing, but Genesis 2:18-20 tells us precisely why animals were created.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

God created “every beast of the field and every bird of the air” for Adam so that he would not be alone. They were all created to be a potential helper that was “comparable to him.” God then brought them to Adam and Adam gave “each living creature” a name. Scripture even goes so far as to tell us that “Adam gave names to all the cattle.” These days, animals on factory farms are merely given numbers and not names.
In the garden of Eden, all animals were meant to be companion animals. In Heaven and the new Earth, all animals will once again be our companions according to Isaiah 11:6-9.

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.

In the beginning, the world was vegan. In Heaven, there is no pain, bloodshed or death; thus, we shall all be vegan. Jesus told us to pray to God, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” Should we not, therefore, seek to live a life that does not cause harm and destruction or do we pray the Lord’s prayer in vain with empty words and a hardened heart?

Please consider taking steps toward a life that minimizes cruelty to God’s creatures and honors God’s creation.

Holise E. Cleveland III
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
God COMMANDED the Israelites to eat lamb in the passover. I don't think God would command people to sin.


Now, I'm much in favor as being humane in the termination of animal life for food, and I have nothing against people CHOOSING to exclude meat from their diet, only those claiming this is God's will or command or somehow makes them holier.



Back to the topic?
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
God COMMANDED the Israelites to eat lamb in the passover. I don't think God would command people to sin.


Now, I'm much in favor as being humane in the termination of animal life for food, and I have nothing against people CHOOSING to exclude meat from their diet, only those claiming this is God's will or command or somehow makes them holier.

Back to the topic?

I was misrepresented as saying God commanded to not have meat or that we don't have it are holier. That is a strawman argument against me.

You say back to the topic when no others are talking in this otherwise inactive thread, when I had answered a response to my search for a church with criticism to it, and you answer me with what you think should be the last word, to shut me up though there is no activity otherwise that I interfere with. But it isn't the last there is to say about this, that what you have communicated can be answered.

Interesting that you brought up humane treatment being needed. I don't believe you checked.

“Factory farm operators believe that the less Americans know about what goes on behind their closed doors, the better for the industry. That’s because the animals sent through those factories often endure an unimaginable amount of mistreatment and abuse.” – New York Times Editorial Board

“What can you say about a society whose food production must be hidden from public view? In which the factory farms and slaughterhouses supplying much of our diet must be guarded like arsenals to prevent us from seeing what happens there?” – George Monbiot

The Farm Myth: Fantasy Farms, Factory Farming

Vita Sleigh, AnimalsAndSociety.org
March 2019

The farm myth is created and sustained in three main ways: Romanticization: The books romanticize the reality of farms in a way that is not accurate about the lives of farmed animals. This rosy view of farms can outlast childhood into adulthood, leaving the legacy exploitable by advertisements for animal products. Absence: The absence of suffering or death in the books constitutes deceit by omission. Myth: The ways that inaccuracies are presented as fact, and how this misrepresentation can seamlessly develop into outright lies.

“It is an indication of the extent to which people are now isolated from the animals they eat that children brought up on storybooks that lead them to think of a farm as a place …[of] …idyllic conditions might be able to live out their entire lives without ever being forced to revise this rosy image” (Singer 1975).

In the forty years since Singer wrote his landmark book Animal Liberation, a farm myth still persists: a fairy-tale image of farming which is firmly rooted in children’s books about farms. Animal rights organizations have improved quality of footage and technologies with which to show images of farming, dissemination of which has been greatly helped by the rise of social media. As more people understand the truth about factory farming and seek alternatives, rosy perceptions of so-called “high welfare,” “free range,” and “humane” farms are pressed on buyers through the farm myth imagery in advertisements and packaging.

Children’s books about farms may be for many children their first introduction to conceptualizing animals within a framework of anthropocentrism and objectification. The impact of children’s books about farms is long-lasting: it is a cultural myth which acts as one of many barriers to people finding out, or fully comprehending, the reality of how animals who are (ab)used for food live their lives. For these reasons it is imperative that illustrators, publishers, and writers make a commitment to championing children’s books that do not romanticize or sanitize the farming industry or objectify farmed animals.

The farm myth is created and sustained in three main ways:

Romanticization: The books romanticize the reality of farms in a way that is not accurate about the lives of farmed animals. This rosy view of farms can outlast childhood into adulthood, leaving the legacy exploitable by advertisements for animal products.
Absence: The absence of suffering or death in the books constitutes deceit by omission.
Myth: The ways that inaccuracies are presented as fact, and how this misrepresentation can seamlessly develop into outright lies.
The four examples of books about farms have been chosen for the span in suggested reading ages (between four and ten years old). Due to practical limitations, all four examples are written in English and set in Western cultures.

https://www.care2.com/greenliving/spy-drones-reveal-the-truth-about-factory-farms-video.html

https://thehumanitarianchurch.org/
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was misrepresented as saying God commanded to not have meat or that we don't have it are holier.


You didn't note that I didn't direct the post to anyone or any post.



You say back to the topic when no others are talking in this otherwise inactive thread


Actually, inactive or inactive has nothing to do with it. It has to do with a post being off-topic (and thus potentially de-railing the discussion).

Now, it COULD be argued that diet regulations of various denominations is not off topic, and so if a post is in direct response to some dietary prohibitions of a denomination, it would not be off topic (so perhaps we agree) and my comment wouldn't apply (thus the question mark)

If you conclude the discussion was precisely about dietary prohibitions of various denomination, then, I agree with you - my comment about "back to the topic?" was inappropriate (or at least the question mark was).
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As I have been talking about this much, it is not like you share objections I haven't considered or dealt with before. And here I was showing many verses for the theme, which make the point. And the objection you respond with is a claim without any verses to be shown for it. And there aren't verses for the claim. You speak of probability that is your belief and can't reasonably be pushed on another.
You are mistaken if you think that there is no verse or verses showing that the Lord ate fish.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish. And he took it, and ate before them.
Luke 24:38-43
And Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples and the passover was a meal of lamb with bitter herbs and unleavened bread where the main thing to be eaten was the lamb which was called the passover lamb.
And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him; and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the master of the house, The Teacher saith, Where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished and ready: and there make ready for us.
Mark 14:12-15
One singular verse, about the time after Jesus died, when to prove to his disciples that Jesus was now physically alive again, they were asked if they had anything. The original writings we have for having translations say here that they answered they had a fish and honeycomb. These things are not eaten together, I never have and certainly will still never, but if nothing was altered and they did have a fish, it shows they or some of them ate fish still, it does not show Jesus ate fish. I can see Jesus did not directly tell his disciples to not eat meat. But we can know from ancient writing that many of those individual disciples gave up meat afterward, and Jesus lived as an example to them and there was claim Jesus was never eating meat.

So if nothing was added to that text and they really had those two things, and they gave it to them, and he ate it, which actually suggests there was one thing, you don't have something to say with certainty that Jesus ate fish even on that one occasion, and you have nothing from scripture otherwise to insist that Jesus ate meat otherwise.
Even John the Baptist ate animal 'flesh'; Locusts are specifically mentioned. And of course the apostles ate meat from "clean" animals and saint Peter was urged by God in a vision to rise, kill, and eat the animals that he saw in the vision.
Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour: and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance; and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
Acts 10:9-13
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
As I have been talking about this much, it is not like you share objections I haven't considered or dealt with before. And here I was showing many verses for the theme, which make the point. And the objection you respond with is a claim without any verses to be shown for it. And there aren't verses for the claim. You speak of probability that is your belief and can't reasonably be pushed on another.

One singular verse, about the time after Jesus died, when to prove to his disciples that Jesus was now physically alive again, they were asked if they had anything. The original writings we have for having translations say here that they answered they had a fish and honeycomb. These things are not eaten together, I never have and certainly will still never, but if nothing was altered and they did have a fish, it shows they or some of them ate fish still, it does not show Jesus ate fish. I can see Jesus did not directly tell his disciples to not eat meat. But we can know from ancient writing that many of those individual disciples gave up meat afterward, and Jesus lived as an example to them and there was claim Jesus was never eating meat.

So if nothing was added to that text and they really had those two things, and they gave it to them, and he ate it, which actually suggests there was one thing, you don't have something to say with certainty that Jesus ate fish even on that one occasion, and you have nothing from scripture otherwise to insist that Jesus ate meat otherwise.

https://medium.com/sant-mat-meditat...NOTB_hLRU&_branch_match_id=648279467953892580

I’ve heard people say that God created animals for us to eat. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say such a thing, but Genesis 2:18-20 tells us precisely why animals were created.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

God created “every beast of the field and every bird of the air” for Adam so that he would not be alone. They were all created to be a potential helper that was “comparable to him.” God then brought them to Adam and Adam gave “each living creature” a name. Scripture even goes so far as to tell us that “Adam gave names to all the cattle.” These days, animals on factory farms are merely given numbers and not names.
In the garden of Eden, all animals were meant to be companion animals. In Heaven and the new Earth, all animals will once again be our companions according to Isaiah 11:6-9.

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.

In the beginning, the world was vegan. In Heaven, there is no pain, bloodshed or death; thus, we shall all be vegan. Jesus told us to pray to God, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” Should we not, therefore, seek to live a life that does not cause harm and destruction or do we pray the Lord’s prayer in vain with empty words and a hardened heart?

Holise E. Cleveland III

You are mistaken if you think that there is no verse or verses showing that the Lord ate fish.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish. And he took it, and ate before them.
Luke 24:38-43
And Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples and the passover was a meal of lamb with bitter herbs and unleavened bread where the main thing to be eaten was the lamb which was called the passover lamb.
And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him; and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the master of the house, The Teacher saith, Where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished and ready: and there make ready for us.
Mark 14:12-15
Even John the Baptist ate animal 'flesh'; Locusts are specifically mentioned. And of course the apostles ate meat from "clean" animals and saint Peter was urged by God in a vision to rise, kill, and eat the animals that he saw in the vision.
Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour: and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance; and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
Acts 10:9-13

As I had said something about that one verse, it was absolutely pointless for you to bring it up when it clearly has been altered to exclude honeycomb that Jesus was offered after he had been killed. So nothing is proved with that, as I said, there are no passages saying Jesus definitely ate meat, and it is your assumptions that meat had to be present at the last supper, as their Passover meal, and Jesus had to eat it. That is just wrong. Jesus didn't have to do anything. No meat was mentioned in that scene, the early Christian believers also had the belief among them that Jesus did not eat meat, and there were apostles who no longer ate meat. Why would that be? There was no other model in those times for that, unless it was Jesus.

The Passover is a commemoration of blood placed on the doorframes of homes of the people of God, that they would be passed over, and delivered. Meat of the animal used was available to be eaten. But not every individual observing it had to eat it. Meat might be left over, any that was had to be burned. Most meat of sacrifices to God was burned up. There are Jews who do observe Passover without having any meat. They don't need your condemnation.

If you want respect for answers to my posted communication as being valid objections, I should not see the terrible exegesis for it that I see from others, which is really ignorant. Context, which is always important, shows the teaching, which is to Peter, and then the other apostles when he sees them, that Jewish believers were not to exclude gentile believers in any way as being unclean, which was common thinking in those times. There is no basis to make another doctrine about food from that when the context is not about that. It should be an embarrassment to use a scripture passage that way.

Jesus is the one valid model for us. Jesus modeled godliness that we are to follow, with love, compassion, grace, and mercy, greater than from any others. Where any people show love, or compassion, or grace, or mercy, it is after the way of Jesus, who showed it more, along with truth. And it was not with limit and we are to grow in such, not with any limits meant for it.

To every creature his own life is dear.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As I had said something about that one verse, it was absolutely pointless for you to bring it up when it clearly has been altered to exclude honeycomb
The KJV mentions (in Luke 24:42) honeycomb. Here is the passage from a translation that uses a manuscript that includes honeycomb:
(Luke 24:38-43)
And he said to them: “Why are you disturbed, and why do these thoughts rise up in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Look and touch. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. Then, while they were still in disbelief and in wonder out of joy, he said, “Do you have anything here to eat?” And they offered him a piece of roasted fish and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten these in their sight, taking up what was left, he gave it to them.​
If you hold to KJV only perspectives then further discussion will be complicated.


that Jesus was offered after he had been killed. So nothing is proved with that, as I said, there are no passages saying Jesus definitely ate meat, and it is your assumptions that meat had to be present at the last supper, as their Passover meal, and Jesus had to eat it. That is just wrong. Jesus didn't have to do anything. No meat was mentioned in that scene, the early Christian believers also had the belief among them that Jesus did not eat meat, and there were apostles who no longer ate meat. Why would that be? There was no other model in those times for that, unless it was Jesus.

The Passover is a commemoration of blood placed on the doorframes of homes of the people of God, that they would be passed over, and delivered. Meat of the animal used was available to be eaten. But not every individual observing it had to eat it. Meat might be left over, any that was had to be burned. Most meat of sacrifices to God was burned up. There are Jews who do observe Passover without having any meat. They don't need your condemnation.

If you want respect for answers to my posted communication as being valid objections, I should not see the terrible exegesis for it that I see from others, which is really ignorant. Context, which is always important, shows the teaching, which is to Peter, and then the other apostles when he sees them, that Jewish believers were not to exclude gentile believers in any way as being unclean, which was common thinking in those times. There is no basis to make another doctrine about food from that when the context is not about that. It should be an embarrassment to use a scripture passage that way.

Jesus is the one valid model for us. Jesus modeled godliness that we are to follow, with love, compassion, grace, and mercy, greater than from any others. Where any people show love, or compassion, or grace, or mercy, it is after the way of Jesus, who showed it more, along with truth. And it was not with limit and we are to grow in such, not with any limits meant for it.

To every creature his own life is dear.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
The KJV mentions (in*Luke 24:42) honeycomb. Here is the passage from a translation that uses a manuscript that includes honeycomb:

(Luke 24:38-43)
And he said to them: “Why are you disturbed, and why do these thoughts rise up in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Look and touch. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. Then, while they were still in disbelief and in wonder out of joy, he said, “Do you have anything here to eat?” And they offered him a piece of roasted fish and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten these in their sight, taking up what was left, he gave it to them.

If you hold to KJV only perspectives then further discussion will be complicated.

Where is seen that I ever suggested that I hold to that? Why assume that I do? Speak just for yourself about perspectives.

Honeycomb has clearly been edited out of the Bible text in Bible versions, I have seen cases of other such editing. I trust the original writing of scriptures were the truth being shown but modern versions we have do have to be checked against others, if not the published text of the early manuscripts if we can have access to that. It isn't clear to me that things weren't added into scriptures early on, even such things as the word fish.

Jesus is the model for us and never limited compassion. No one is more compassionate than Jesus, not even vegans, so Jesus is more compassionate than they are. Besides, the Bible does not show that animals are simply here for us to eat, as is claimed be many I hear.

There is all this argument for one passage, to ignore all the passages I speak of, only for support of the position that already has the facts for saying people being plant-based is better, for their health, besides being better for the world with people starving, demand for water and other resources, environments, climate change and global warming, while continued demand for the animal agriculture with its products is not better for anything.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
When I found the information of Forks Over Knives, I realized I was seeing the absolutely most healthful way of eating shown from that. So I could eat this right way with which many health problems can be avoided.

There are other reasons that are important to give up animal products. Being plant-based is better, for people's health, besides being better for the world with people starving, demand for water and other resources, environments, climate change and global warming, while continued demand for the animal agriculture with its products is not better for anything. But this much change may be intimidating to people, I see others, but not all, not being responsive to try coming to such change. So then I make mention of the site for it, http://www.forksoverknives.com, though I found the book first, and saw the documentary film later, this site is extremely helpful with showing how to transition, with many delicious healthy recipes shown, and providing way to give time for such a transition. It is indeed lifesaving.

The studies for this are many, the China Study is the largest ever. Quoted here is text from The Forks Over Knives Plan, authored by doctors. There are many conclusive studies behind this, and lives have been saved with it.

I see God's perfect will for us includes this better way. So it is I look for a church of vegan Christians. That is the point of me posting here originally. There needs to be vegan Christians, and I want to find them for fellowship and worship together. I will keep looking, there will be such, sometime, as there needs to be.
.....................................................

Americans are sick, tired, and over-medicated. Every fifty-three seconds someone in the United States dies of heart disease, which, as the nation's number one killer, claims about 600,000 lives per year. Cancer, now the second leading cause of death, takes the lives of more than 1500 people per day. Meanwhile, nearly 10 percent of the population has diabetes; and our children are getting sicker, as indicated by the startling fact that obesity has more than doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past thirty years. We have turned to the medical system for help, and it has delivered medication in a big way: Nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, more than 50 percent take two, and 20 percent are on five or more prescription drugs. Despite the billions of dollars being spent on pharmaceuticals, the needle almost never moves downward on the rates of chronic disease, and the people still feel lousy and sick.

Health statistics aren't just about numbers on a page or data on a statistician's ledger. These are our mothers, fathers, siblings, and children. These are our friends. The health crisis is taking a real toll on our daily lives, profoundly affecting the personal happiness and productivity of millions of us every single day.

There is good news, though. Research is revealing with greater certainty that we understand the main cause of this epidemic: an American diet that derives more than 90 percent of what we eat from animal-based and processed foods. Understanding the cause means there's hope! The research tells us that if we change to an entirely different way of eating, we can dramatically alter our health destiny.

Modern pioneers like T. Colin Cambell, PhD; Caldwell Esselstyn, MD; Dean Ornish, MD; John McDougall, MD; Neal Barnard, MD; and others are leading the charge. Thanks to these doctors and researchers, along with an emerging body of scientific evidence from all corners, we now know that a whole-food, plant-based diet is more powerful at preventing and treating chronic diseases than any medication or procedure. We are so convinced by the evidence that we believe if this diet came in a pill, it would be heralded on the front pages of newspapers and magazines around the world for its effectiveness.

There is a movement under way as hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, are trying the whole-food, plant-based lifestyle for themselves and finding great success. We have personally seen remarkable results in our own medical practice, not to mention experienced it in our own lives. Here are just a few of the significant life-changing results you may expect:

Prevent and reverse the leading chronic ailments. A whole-food, plant-based diet can prevent, halt, and even reverse heart disease and diabetes. Other diseases that are also positively impacted by this type of diet include: high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, and overall mortality. Cancer is also significantly affected by this diet. In fact, the foods that make up this diet are the exact same foods that were recommended in the first "surviving cancer" dietary recommendations. There is also evidence that a plant-based diet may reduce the risk of diverticular disease, gallstones, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and kidney disease. Furthermore, after switching to a plant-based diet, people routinely report experiencing or seeing in others improvements in a range of ailments, including osteoporosis, arthritis, headaches, acne, asthma, sexual dysfunction, reflux, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, dementia, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, infertility, insomnia, and sleep apnea. They even find themselves experiencing fewer or less intense colds, viruses, and allergies.

Reach your ideal weight. Our friend Doug Lisle likes to point out that humans and their domesticated pets are the only earthly creatures that suffer from being overweight and obese ... in spite of the fact that we're also the only creatures who practice portion control! Why is this the case? It's simple. All the other animals on earth are eating foods that are appropriate for their species. If we also eat foods that are appropriate for our species -- whole, plant-based foods -- then we, too, will be able to eat without portion control and will naturally reach a comfortable weight.

Improve mental clarity Eating a whole-food, plant-based diet improves cognitive function and protects against dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Most people experience greater clarity of thought, improved ability to concentrate, and better memory.

Experience only positive effects, not "side effects". Perhaps you would choose to transition to a plant-based diet to reverse heart disease or reduce your diabetes medications, but now you could see that you would welcome into your life an abundance of positive effects. These can include better mood, sounder sleep, improved bowel function, and more vibrant skin. You will have more energy to do the things you love, like playing with your children or grandchildren, biking, gardening, walking, swimming. You may even want to exercise more. By contrast, as we'll discuss more, medical procedures and medications can have all sorts of major unintended negative consequences.

Have a sense of well-being and empowerment. You are in control of your health. You do not have to settle for compromised health or believe that you are destined to succumb to chronic disease. You can live with less fear that a heart attack can happen at any time or that you will be struck by the same chronic ailment from which other members of your family have suffered.

Save time and money. Whether you have health insurance or not, you will likely have to pay out of pocket for at least some of your health care expenses if you are sick. Fewer trips to the doctor and fewer procedures and pills equal more time and money you can spend in other areas of your life.

The Forks Over Knives Plan, pages* 15-18.
 
Top Bottom