drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) (04/01/91)
Jenni writes: >This is generally understood to mean the Gentiles, and that >Peter should minister to them as well. But I have not seen any reason >to not take it literally as well. Does anyone know of any? --Jenni Um, what about getting sick? I mean that quite seriously. All the categories of animals, birds and sea creatures forbidden in Leviticus 11 have been shown through modern medical research to be causally linked to various illnesses and diseases in humans, if consumed. I'm writing this at work and don't have a list of the references (chiefly from The Lancet, a medical journal) to demonstrate this, but would be happy to summarise and post if anyone is interested. Pork for example, has been linked to sclerosis of the liver, quite apart from issues of tape worms etc. Many of the sea animals are either at the top of the food chain (eg sharks) or scavengers (eg oysters) and as such tend to accumulate toxins in their tissues. There are three approaches to dealing with these Laws: a) they were simply rituals given to Israel; b) they "evolved" through tradition; c) they are Laws given by God because he created us and knows best what should and should not be eaten in order for humans to function well and live healthily. I maintain approach c) is the correct one. Just as we now know that eating too much salt, fat, not enough fibre, etc, is bad in the long run, so I believe the same applies for the animals listed in Leviticus 11. The argument "why did God create them then", is fatuous. One may as well ask, "why did God create poisonous plants?" Just a further note with respect to Peter's vision: read it carefully. It doesn't include any sea animals! And note what it does include: "every manner of creeping things" (KJV). Just think of it; spiders, beetles, worms, ants, cockroaches, scorpians etc. So, if the vision is to be literal, then spiders are on the menu, but oysters are off! Drew. -- Drew Corrigan (drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au)
billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) (04/02/91)
In article <Apr.1.02.29.30.1991.7156@athos.rutgers.edu> drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) writes: >Jenni writes: > >Just a further note with respect to Peter's vision: read it carefully. It >doesn't include any sea animals! And note what it does include: "every manner >of creeping things" (KJV). Just think of it; spiders, beetles, worms, ants, >cockroaches, scorpians etc. > >So, if the vision is to be literal, then spiders are on the menu, but oysters >are off! > In many underdeveloped nations (in Africa in particular) insects are considered "normal" food. Ever heard of chocolate covered bees, ants, or grasshoppers? Lobsters, crab, and shrimp aren't that far removed from "bugs" either. USDA has specific established limits as to how much rat hair, droppings, insect fragments, etc. can be included in food for it to pass inspection (and if they say it can be there, you can bet it is =8^) ). I recall seeing a film many years ago (while in junior high) about a school called "Outward Bound" where young people are taught survival skills, how to be self reliant/sufficient, etc. At one point they said that if you are alone with no food, spiders are excellent since they are mostly protein (low in fat, no cholesterol, no refined sugars! =8^) ). I also seem to recall someone selling "earthworm farms". They were saying that earthworms could be processed into consumable (for humans) protein. Why then should Peter's vision seem so far fetched? God is in control and knows what He's doing (if He doesn't, who does?)
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (04/02/91)
[In article <Apr.1.02.29.30.1991.7156@athos.rutgers.edu>, drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) referred to an article probably in the Lancet claiming that OT laws could be justified on medical grounds. --clh] I'm interesed, very much so... [you know that recent studies have shown that sleep gives you cancer ?! :-) ] > > There are three approaches to dealing with these Laws: a) they were simply > rituals given to Israel; b) they "evolved" through tradition; c) they > are Laws given by God because he created us and knows best what should and > should not be eaten in order for humans to function well and live healthily. > I maintain approach c) is the correct one. If approach (c) is correct, then why has God given these things for us to eat now ? I won't bore everyone with a myriad of Bible references (yet :-). And anyway, How do you know what God knows or what God thought when She (deliberate provocation, there !!!) set down the laws of the old testament ? How can you claim to know the purposes of God ? You got some direct line to God we don't know about ? :-) Jim.
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (04/04/91)
Regarding the reference to N.T. texts that supposedly dispose of the Health Laws of Moses: 1) These are really texts that show that these health laws are not salvation laws. If the New Testament clearly said you should not smoke tobacco whould you enter a smoke filled room in the context of witnessing - Paul would clearly say yes. Would Paul advise you to go home and become a chain smoker? No! That was intended to serve as an illustration and not to claim that the N.T. speaks out against smoking. I have read stories of Christians who have never touched alchohol before or since, but under singular circumstances have swallowed such beverage. I know of health lecturers who are adament against Pork from a health perspective who have eaten Pork for the sake of Christian love. But they do not return home and start to indulge in Pork. If we accept that the principles are health and Christian love then what about drugs? Would we inject drugs for the sake of Christian love? I have not heard of such examples. So, it is purely hipothetical and yet worth considering. The Bible does not specifically speak out against drugs and yet this is accepted as a Christian principle. 2) Peter's vision of the unclean animals illustrates the problem of working with Gentiles and not a dietary vision. If you read the whole chapter and the 1st half of the following chapter it becamse clear that Peter's pork vision was really about the Gentiles that were so popularly shuned. God wanted Peter to get busy and take the message to the Gentiles. Peter had a tougher time of this than did Paul. 3) Jesus was asked about divorse. His answer was that Moses was allowed to grant such laws of divorse, but God would rather humans did not need such laws. In the wilderness they grew tired of the heaven sent Manna and adamantly called on God to serve them up the flesh pots of Egypt. And so the Quail. In the Bible we find other examples of God allowing humans certain things that are not the best for them. We can search out these minimums and apply them or we can search out how God would really like to have us live - without the need of divorse, for example. God has a far greater plan for us than the minimums that can be searched out of the Bible. God knows best what it takes for us to live happier and healthier lives for Him. Dave (David E. Buxton)
James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.4.00.54.35.1991.14855@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) writes: |> Regarding the reference to N.T. texts that supposedly dispose of the |> Health Laws of Moses: |> There is no supposed about it, the CEREMONIAL laws of Moses are done away with. Upon what evidence can one say that the uncleanliness laws & ceremonies are 'Health laws' ? Saying that it is implicitly obvious won't cut it for me ! How can we humans discern God's thinking when the Laws of the Old Testament: i.e. Do we have a right to say 'God knew this... when God did this... action" ? |> God has a far greater plan for us than the minimums that can be searched |> out of the Bible. God knows best what it takes for us to live happier |> and healthier lives for Him. Oh. yes ? Do you know where I can find out about this 'greater plan' ? Jim.