Vegans of BYC!!

[Bakbuk]

That was the best sweet treat! Vanilla icecream (dairy free, but honestly best ice-cream I've ever had), caramel and biscuits. It was so good!

Wow.

I need to try this.

 

[Bhubbard]

Yes that's because eating meat was never inherently wrong, according to scripture. But now we have factory farms, and greed. And we don't HAVE to rely on meat in some areas of the world. So if you take into consideration *all* of the scriptures, God's preference is loud and clear.

this is also false by the way, this passage was symbolism for "gentiles". Had nothing to do with the literal sense.
Every time Peter was told to eat unclean meat, he said no, he would not disobey God's law. He never ate the meat. He simply understood "hey, god would never tell me to break his own law. This must have deeper meaning". And it did, it was about bloodlines not eating meat.
The law on eating blood was also never taken back.

And despite what you quote of Jesus, he never touched unclean meat, and followed the Jewish Laws. Don't take his words out of context

Yeah we can agree to disagree on this for sake of the thread being shut down.

 

[BelovedBirds]

Yeah we can agree to disagree on this for sake of the thread being shut down.

Frankly the thread isn't the issue, nor is the topic of religion. Arguing is against the rules and could result in a couple replies being deleted, but I don't consider this an argument.
I'm just pointing out the information being out of context
More than happy to agree to disagree

 

[Bhubbard]

Frankly the thread isn't the issue, nor is the topic of religion. Arguing is against the rules and could result in a couple replies being deleted, but I don't consider this an argument.
I'm just pointing out the information being out of context
More than happy to agree to disagree

That’s fine. I just didn’t want to upset anyone or go against the rules of forum speaking on religion.

 

[BelovedBirds]

That’s fine. I just didn’t want to upset anyone or go against the rules of forum speaking on religion.

It's okay, religion is allowed if the discussion remains peaceful and the topic doesn't go against the OP's wishes- there are literal threads dedicated to it- but it's okay. I expect there are some members of this thread who don't particularly like the topic and we probably won't agree anyway

 

[Bhubbard]

I feel like if I’m taking directly from scripture and using it as it as spoken it isn’t being misused. We would also have to agree we are on the same level of Christianity. Meaning we agree on theology ect… I say that because I would never use the Bible in a secular argument or if someone was Jewish and held these practices based on beliefs. It wouldn’t be right to hold that argument in my opinion.

 

[BelovedBirds]

I feel like if I’m taking directly from scripture and using it as it as spoken it isn’t being misused. We would also have to agree we are on the same level of Christianity. Meaning we agree on theology ect… I say that because I would never use the Bible in a secular argument or if someone was Jewish and held these practices based on beliefs. It wouldn’t be right to hold that argument in my opinion.

The problem is that you are taking a verse out of the surrounding verses (out of context). It doesn't really matter what our differing beliefs are, just what is written

For example with the Peter scenario, Yes there was a vision involving "unclean animals" but the point of the vision was about gentiles and Jews, it wasn't literal. I believed it was a literal teaching, like you do, for many years, until I actually studied it in greater detail in context.

To make my point, there is another verse in Isaiah (can't recall where specifically, I'll check tomorrow perhaps, it's late here), which is a prophecy of end times- and this scripture clearly says that wrath and judgement will come to those who eat rats, and bats and other unclean animals. Now, in context, this does appear to be literal. How would we be punished for a law that was "abolished"? Answer, is that it was never abolished

 

[BelovedBirds]

I feel like if I’m taking directly from scripture and using it as it as spoken it isn’t being misused. We would also have to agree we are on the same level of Christianity. Meaning we agree on theology ect… I say that because I would never use the Bible in a secular argument or if someone was Jewish and held these practices based on beliefs. It wouldn’t be right to hold that argument in my opinion.

Now, that isn't to say that everything OT is still nearly today, a lot of the old testament was based around the historic culture of the Jews, and plenty changed after Jesus' death. I'm merely pointing out that the new testament carried over much from the past, that a lot of those laws were never abolished, and would still be required after the sacrifice.
You can of course believe and do whatever you wish, but it's worth reading up on these verses, if you believe in scripture. There's a lot there that a lot of people don't uncover and the entire thing is very interesting.

 

[Bhubbard]

The problem is that you are taking a verse out of the surrounding verses (out of context). It doesn't really matter what our differing beliefs are, just what is written

For example with the Peter scenario, Yes there was a vision involving "unclean animals" but the point of the vision was about gentiles and Jews, it wasn't literal. I believed it was a literal teaching, like you do, for many years, until I actually studied it in greater detail in context.

To make my point, there is another verse in Isaiah (can't recall where specifically, I'll check tomorrow perhaps, it's late here), which is a prophecy of end times- and this scripture clearly says that wrath and judgement will come to those who eat rats, and bats and other unclean animals. Now, in context, this does appear to be literal. How would we be punished for a law that was "abolished"? Answer, is that it was never abolished

Ok so trying to follow… so if I’m understanding you the law regarding food in this situation would need to be upheld to receive Christ and enter into the kingdom of heaven?

 

[Bhubbard]

The problem is that you are taking a verse out of the surrounding verses (out of context). It doesn't really matter what our differing beliefs are, just what is written

For example with the Peter scenario, Yes there was a vision involving "unclean animals" but the point of the vision was about gentiles and Jews, it wasn't literal. I believed it was a literal teaching, like you do, for many years, until I actually studied it in greater detail in context.

To make my point, there is another verse in Isaiah (can't recall where specifically, I'll check tomorrow perhaps, it's late here), which is a prophecy of end times- and this scripture clearly says that wrath and judgement will come to those who eat rats, and bats and other unclean animals. Now, in context, this does appear to be literal. How would we be punished for a law that was "abolished"? Answer, is that it was never abolished

I agree and know it’s a vision. The Jew is clean the gentile is unclean. At the same time Cornelius was receiving a parallel vision to get Peter and bring him to his house. The Jew and Gentiles became one under God. The levitical law was laid out to sort out the specific animals to separate Jews and Gentiles also. Just not seeing how both scenarios don’t apply. Yes it’s a vision of mixing of one church and yes it removes the dietary standard for Jews that never applied to Gentiles. If that wasn’t the case Gentiles would be left out of heaven if only the law mattered.