Eat bacon, burn in Hell?

[Armin]

Well apparently, my mom's got her hands on a book about what we're supposed to eat. Even worse, this book is considered a religious book, which says that God doesn't want us to eat pork, shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, and many other foods because they're loaded with toxins and are supposedly considered an abdomination just like gay marriage.

Who says any of this is true? Sure, it's written in the bible, but isn't the bible written by man? Also, the bible was written thousands of years ago. Back then, pork was toxic and killed many people. It's said not to be toxic anymore today, but my mom still says, "The bible was written for any time period." I'm agnostic, so for me all of this is just a reason to turn athiest instead of Christian.

Also, anyone have any knowledge on the toxicity levels of any of these meals?

[Newby]

I think it's a joke. I'm not going to base my life around some writings written 2000+ years ago. So much has changed since then...

[Blaze]

this is just a reason to turn athiest instead of Christian.

Join the club.

[Sidoh]

Well apparently, my mom's got her hands on a book about what we're supposed to eat. Even worse, this book is considered a religious book, which says that God doesn't want us to eat pork, shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, and many other foods because they're loaded with toxins and are supposedly considered an abdomination just like gay marriage.

Who says any of this is true? Sure, it's written in the bible, but isn't the bible written by man? Also, the bible was written thousands of years ago. Back then, pork was toxic and killed many people. It's said not to be toxic anymore today, but my mom still says, "The bible was written for any time period." I'm agnostic, so for me all of this is just a reason to turn athiest instead of Christian.

Also, anyone have any knowledge on the toxicity levels of any of these meals?

People in the Old Testament were required to eat meat that was Kosher.  Times changed in the New Testament, however.  Since this is the newest law provided, it's what people who believe in the New Testament go by.  That's why Jews don't believe in Jesus, still eat Kosher meals, etc.  They don't believe in the New Testament.

Pork isn't toxic in normal quantities.  If it was, I'd be dead.  So would most of the rest of the world.  Everything is toxic, but nothing is.  I saw that quote on a Periodic Table of Elements in my science teacher's room a while ago.  Everything in moderation.

I think it's a joke. I'm not going to base my life around some writings written 2000+ years ago. So much has changed since then...

A book on moral values, relational parables and other things like this (which I've often heard you refer to it as) still applies to this world.  There are obvious reasons behind the laws the bible states.

Sorry for getting all religious, but it's just part of the person I am.

@ The ATHEIST instead of Christian statement:  That book sounds a lot like it's based more off of Judiast ideals than it is Chrisitain ones.  There is a huge difference between the two religions.  That's why Feanor wears a Yamaca and I don't.

[MyndFyre]

Well, Metal, the "reasoning" you have to turn athiest instead of Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) is kind of silly; basing what you believe on what you perceive you can or cannot do versus what is true or false... seems illogical.

You might also want to point out to your mother that she's missing the point of the New Testament (if it's Christianity, not Judaism, that you're referring to).  The old laws (incl. not eating pork) were meant to keep people set apart and pointed to God and God's messenger:

   ⁶But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

   ²⁴So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Furthermore, I think your mom is misled about the eating thing too.  I added emphasis in the following passage:

   ¹⁹Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. ²⁰Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. ²¹It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

    ²²So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

So besides the fact that we are not bound to the law as a condition of salvation, eating of pork (or anything else formerly decreed "unclean") is nullified.  The Romans 14 quote indicates that it isn't whether you eat "clean" or "unclean" foods, but rather whether you have faith that matters.

I think it's a joke. I'm not going to base my life around some writings written 2000+ years ago. So much has changed since then...

That is, of course, your prerogative.  But you have to ask yourself... what if they're true?

I suppose you don't need to ask yourself that question.  It's a valid question nonetheless.  If a man claimed to be God ~2,000 years ago, and it was true, would that be blatantly irrelevant today?  I don't think so.

[Sidoh]

Great argument, MyndFire.  Documented and everything!  :]

[Armin]

Well, Metal, the "reasoning" you have to turn athiest instead of Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) is kind of silly; basing what you believe on what you perceive you can or cannot do versus what is true or false... seems illogical.

I'm already agnostic, so I'm not a believer. Being athiest means you basically hate all religion. The only difference is I'd hate Christianity instead of just not believing it because of this rediculous law, but you've made it clear to me it's not a law anymore.

Also, thanks for the great arguement, I'll show my mom it now.

[Armin]

Alright, my mom doesn't want to listen. No matter what I say, she brings up verses from the Old Testament saying that pig is unclean. She just doesn't know how to listen. Any ideas?

[Newby]

Bring up what MyndFyre said and ask her to explain those without the use of the Old Testament.

[Sidoh]

Alright, my mom doesn't want to listen. No matter what I say, she brings up verses from the Old Testament saying that pig is unclean. She just doesn't know how to listen. Any ideas?

Explain to her that people in the Old Testament were to yet to be redeemed through the salvation of Christ's crucifixion.  This is the main reason why times changed so much in the New Testament.

[Armin]

Alright, my mom doesn't want to listen. No matter what I say, she brings up verses from the Old Testament saying that pig is unclean. She just doesn't know how to listen. Any ideas?

Explain to her that people in the Old Testament were to yet to be redeemed through the salvation of Christ's crucifixion.  This is the main reason why times changed so much in the New Testament.

Since I'm not a Christian, you'll have to explain to me why we can now eat pork after Christ's crucifixion. Other than that, seems like it will work if my mom will actually listen to me this time.

[Sidoh]

Since I'm not a Christian, you'll have to explain to me why we can now eat pork after Christ's crucifixion. Other than that, seems like it will work if my mom will actually listen to me this time.

Err.. nevermind.

Metion to her that perhaps God was protecting us from some disease that was present in non-kosher sources of meat during the presence of this law?  Since in Romans it plainly stated that all food is clean, the rule was abolished since there was no longer a concern.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

[Armin]

Since I'm not a Christian, you'll have to explain to me why we can now eat pork after Christ's crucifixion. Other than that, seems like it will work if my mom will actually listen to me this time.

Err.. nevermind.

Metion to her that perhaps God was protecting us from some disease that was present in non-kosher sources of meat during the presence of this law?  Since in Romans it plainly stated that all food is clean, the rule was abolished since there was no longer a concern.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

She won't believe it unless it's a verse.

[Sidoh]

That was from a verse.  I just said MyndFire's post because I didn't want to find which one he was talking about.  Here:

¹⁹ Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

²⁰ Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

²¹ It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

[Armin]

I know that, I already showed that to her, I was referring to the part about God just protecting us from a disease.

[Ergot]

Tell her... She's not Jewish and to finish reading the Bible.

[Sidoh]

I know that, I already showed that to her, I was referring to the part about God just protecting us from a disease.

How would the bible make any sense if we couldn't reason some of God's actions?  IE -- why did he forgive our vile, disgusting sins if he didn't love us?

The bible assumes that the reader has a sense of logic, but doesn't use that logic to question things written in the bible.

Bring this up:  If you look in a history book, it will say that liquor was illegal during the 1920's (I think it was then).  If you read further on, you'll see that that law was changed for several reasons.  While this is but a man's example of something in the bible, it still relates.

Tell her... She's not Jewish and to finish reading the Bible.

EXACTLY

[MyndFyre]

Since I'm not a Christian, you'll have to explain to me why we can now eat pork after Christ's crucifixion. Other than that, seems like it will work if my mom will actually listen to me this time.

The Bible, specifically the New Testament, although this is true of the Old Testament as well, emphasizes righteousness by faith.  Very few people in Old Testament times understood this though; Abraham was one ("Abraham had faith, and it was creditted to him as righteousness"), Enoch (IIRC) was another, so was David (a "man after God's own heart").

    ⁴Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

    ¹The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

Specifically stated (emphasis added):

    ²³For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Pretty much, it's saying that there is nothing we have to do to take it, nothing we can do to earn it.  It is a gift; all we have to do is accept it.  How do we accept it?  The Bible says, time after time: faith.

Having a set of laws is pointless if you don't have faith.  Now, the Bible doesn't say that it's okay to do out and do whatever you want.  That's not the point.

Have her read the section out of her Bible starting at 1 Corinthians 10:23 that goes to chapter 11, called "The Believer's Freedom" (here is a link to it online).  It even says, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience."

Uh, for the record, the translation I'm using for all quotes unless otherwise stated is the New International Version (NIV).  Rom 6:23 was taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).  I'm not sure what the meaningful difference is (what sources, how it was done, etc).

[GameSnake]

this is just a reason to turn athiest instead of Christian.

Join the club.

Already in it.
<-- Doesn't believe in god.

[Sidoh]

Already in it.
<-- Doesn't believe in god.

I'm sorry.

[trust]

It's because they eat gross stuff.

[GameSnake]

Already in it.
<-- Doesn't believe in god.

I'm sorry.

Sorry for what exactly? Your religious intolerance?
 

[Sidoh]

Sorry for what exactly? Your religious intolerance?

I'm sure you're familiar with what Christians believe happens to faithless people.  I'm not trying to insult you in any way with this message, so don't take offense.

[GameSnake]

Well, sir, I could be offended because of your imposing I will burn in hell yet I am not because I believe there is not a hell and its a controll method.

[d&q]

I would prefer to have some sort of afterlife, because if we all just eventually died, it would just be the universe. Like, nothing happening. Just it going onnn and onnn.

Depressing  .

[Sidoh]

Well, sir, I could be offended because of your imposing I will burn in hell yet I am not because I believe there is not a hell and its a controll method.

What do you care if you don't believe it exists?

This is a completely unrelated comparison, but it has the same simple aspect represented with the example.

If I told you that pink monkeys were going to kidnap you and take you to the mental asylum, what would you think?

If you don't believe that it doesn't exist, why should you care?  Here's a good answer:  you shouldn't.

[MyndFyre]

Sorry for what exactly? Your religious intolerance?

Whoa!  All he said was "I'm sorry."  That could be taken a lot of ways.  I could say that, meaning that I feel bad for you that you don't have faith, because it's quite rewarding.

Well, sir, I could be offended because of your imposing I will burn in hell yet I am not because I believe there is not a hell and its a controll method.

And I could be offended because of your imposing that there is no god and that macroevolution is the 100% scientific truth that talks about how everyone came into existence, and that there is no meaning to life, but rather that we are a random accident; and that this system of belief is a controlling method so that society can exist 100% in a solely reason-based system.  But I'm not, because people have a right to have their own opinions.  I have the right to defend my opinions and my beliefs, just as much as you have the right do defend yours.  What you do not have the right to do, sir, is tell me that I cannot express or discuss my opinions or beliefs.  That, sir, is how society loses ideas.

Honestly, where do you get off calling him intolerant?  That is just blatantly rude and out of line.  I'm sorry it bothers you that I believe that if you don't have faith in Christ you won't be enjoying eternal life.  But that's what I believe, and I'm not sorry for my beliefs.  I believe it because I believe it's true, not because it's convenient.  And I certainly don't think that it's some kind of controlling method.  Look at protestant churches all over the US -- by and large, they do NOT have overarching authorities.  Each church is individually self-contained.  There are organizations that help them coordinate now and then, but it is most CERTAINLY not a system of control.  I can't speak to the Catholic church, though.

[Sidoh]

Very nice post, Mynd.

[AntiVirus]

Nice Myndfyre on all of your posts.

Being atheists takes  A LOT more faith than being christian.

[trust]

I've always thought of myself as a Christian, but, lately, I've been seeming to think more in an Agnostic way. I still beleive in God, but I question some of the things the Bible says (such as how we became). I guess it's not SO bad, Benjamin Franklin and many of those sorts of people were Agnostic.

[Sidoh]

Nice Myndfyre on all of your posts.

Being atheists takes  A LOT more faith than being christian.

Um, no it doesn't.  Saying you're Christain is also implicitly saying that there are things in this world  that can't be explained using man's logic.  Saying that there is no purpose or reason to life -- we're just a chain of random, meaningless chemical reactions is a rather bland, static way to look at things.  Taking man's logic and believing it to the fullest extent is rather easy to do.  Saying that you're an infinitely inferior being when compared to God takes a lot more faith than just "explaining" how we came to be does.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

[AntiVirus]

Nice Myndfyre on all of your posts.

Being atheists takes  A LOT more faith than being christian.

Um, no it doesn't.  Saying you're Christain is also implicitly saying that there are things in this world  that can't be explained using man's logic.  Saying that there is no purpose or reason to life -- we're just a chain of random, meaningless chemical reactions is a rather bland, static way to look at things.  Taking man's logic and believing it to the fullest extent is rather easy to do.  Saying that you're an infinitely inferior being when compared to God takes a lot more faith than just "explaining" how we came to be does.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Actually, yes it is.  Read the book: "I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

[GameSnake]

No one is offended here, your overeacting MyndFyre. I was actually being really nice in my posts but you guys are taking it the wrong way. Why do you talk about opinions and how we have them yet you're telling me like your arguement is the only way, the bible just doesn't apply to me in these days. My opinion is that we are all spinning balls of negetive nuetral and postive charges that over millions and billions of years in the wonder of it all we're here.

I don't believe in the christian God -- sounds too far fetched but I agree we may be here for a reason and the after life may hold something glorious but we can't even comprehend it.

I respect your opinions, dont get me wrong, I just hoped you will respect mine.

[Sidoh]

Actually, yes it is.  Read the book: "I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

You and the author of that book needs to redefine 'Faith', then.

No one is offended here

You retract your own words far too often, Gamesnake.

Well, sir, I could be offended because of your imposing I will burn in hell yet I am not because I believe there is not a hell and its a controll method.

Perhaps this is one of the tell-tale signs of what smoking marijuana does to your memory?

[Sidoh]

Did a bit of homework and found this:

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all worldviews because it is the most reasonable. The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style. A valuable aid to those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the prior beliefs of doubters and skeptics.

Hahahahahahaha.

The most "reasonable"?  How do you say that the explicit statement "We can't understand this.  We lack the capability to reason with something of this nature because we don't contain the mental capacity, resources or knowledge to understand it." is logical?  I mean we're saying that with something such as the creation of the universe, we can't use logic to describe it because it contains so many aspects which we, as humans, lack the ability to understand.

When you pick up your toolbelt you're going to use to describe how the universe was created and you see nothing but "physics, logic and math", that seems a lot more faithless than Christianity.  That's saying you have faith in nothing but man's own logic and that it is impossible that we were created by a superior entity.  Saying that usually implys that you lack the Faith to accept that God exists.

[MyndFyre]

The most "reasonable"?  How do you say that the explicit statement "We can't understand this.  We lack the capability to reason with something of this nature because we don't contain the mental capacity, resources or knowledge to understand it." is logical?  I mean we're saying that with something such as the creation of the universe, we can't use logic to describe it because it contains so many aspects which we, as humans, lack the ability to understand.

Actually, IMO, I have come to the same conclusion.

I believe that the concept of reason is a gift of God to people.  Logic is a law by which God made the universe function.  Being an outside observer of the universe, distinctly separate from the universe itself, God is able to manipulate the universe on a level that would defy normal physical laws.  We term these instances "miracles."

I further think that God created the human race to be reasonable on purpose.

Look at it this way:
Every sin in, say for sake of example, the ten commandments, comes back to pride in self or selfishness in self (or both).  All of them elevate oneself above God.  All sin is, then, is raising the importance of something, someone, or oneself above God -- idolatry.  Jesus said so, too: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'  And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matt. 22:37-40 NIV).

God first.  Others second.  Self third.

If all sin leads back to pride and/or selfishness, these "laws" or "commandments" are logical representations of such sin.

I believe that reason is a gift because God didn't intend for us to just have blind faith.  People have blind faith in science, but because people tell them it's based on reason, people think it's okay.  If you want to know the truth, then you should look, and not just take what people say at face value.

I was an evolutionist athiest for a long time.  As I became more educated, I found that I had issues with both the way it's (evolution) taught and the theory (macroevolution, generation of new families) itself.  You might disagree with my evidence, and that's fine.  I like debates. ;-)

[Armin]

Actually, IMO, I have come to the same conclusion.

In my opinion, it's all based on opinions, which makes argueing about it as pointless are argueing about politics.

[MyndFyre]

Actually, IMO, I have come to the same conclusion.

In my opinion, it's all based on opinions, which makes argueing about it as pointless are argueing about politics.

It's not pointless.

You might be ardently against my position.  There may be people undecided.  Arguments allow us to learn about other points of view, and it allows people who are more moderate or less-informed to have an opportunity to change or shift their opinions.  When done correctly, it's worthwhile.

[Armin]

Never thought of it that way, but not only it has to be done correctly, but the person your argueing with needs to use the arguements to understand other's points of view as well. It's a mutual thing, which I don't really see going on here.

[iago]

Hmm, I finally wandered over and read this thread, and I guess I'll post what I have to say. 

I come from a somewhat religious family, but I have never personally been particularly religious.  However, that being said, I do think that there are things that we aren't capable of understanding, and am open to the possibility that a God exists.  Whether the God created the Universe and let it run, or whether it pokes at things now and again, or weather it interferes in our day to day existance, I am unsure, and don't think I will ever be sure of.  To summarize: I believe in the possibility of a God existing. 

On the other side, I don't believe in religion.  It seems to me that Catholics believe far too strongly in their religion (the structure of the Church, attending church, the Bible, etc.) and not in their God.  When people begin to believe in the religious structure rather than the God itself, then there's a problem.  And a lot of people I know seem to believe in going to church, but don't really believe in God.  They attend their weekly sermons to ensure that they end up in Heaven. 

Also, I don't think the Church discourages this behaviour.  Somebody mentioned in this thread that Religion is a mechanism used to control people, and I think that's what the Church does.  The Church encourages doctrine, belief, and faith, not logic and clear thinking.  Disagree with me if you want, I don't have hard evidence, that statement is an opinion/observation. 

The reason I went from a complete Athiest (when I was young) to more of an Agnostic is because of the reading I have done in University.  I have a minor in Philosophy, and from reading many old works (not only on theology, also on the human mind and other fun stuff) I've begun to realize that there is really far too much even about my own mind, let alone the world, that I can't explain.  And I don't think that Catholocism or any religion that I know about addresses those issues very well. 

I'm not trying ti disagree with anything anybody has said in this thread.  I'm simply stating what I think is going on.  Agree or disagree, that's fine

[Sidoh]

Hmm, I finally wandered over and read this thread, and I guess I'll post what I have to say.

I come from a somewhat religious family, but I have never personally been particularly religious. However, that being said, I do think that there are things that we aren't capable of understanding, and am open to the possibility that a God exists. Whether the God created the Universe and let it run, or whether it pokes at things now and again, or weather it interferes in our day to day existance, I am unsure, and don't think I will ever be sure of. To summarize: I believe in the possibility of a God existing.

On the other side, I don't believe in religion. It seems to me that Catholics believe far too strongly in their religion (the structure of the Church, attending church, the Bible, etc.) and not in their God. When people begin to believe in the religious structure rather than the God itself, then there's a problem. And a lot of people I know seem to believe in going to church, but don't really believe in God. They attend their weekly sermons to ensure that they end up in Heaven.

Also, I don't think the Church discourages this behaviour. Somebody mentioned in this thread that Religion is a mechanism used to control people, and I think that's what the Church does. The Church encourages doctrine, belief, and faith, not logic and clear thinking. Disagree with me if you want, I don't have hard evidence, that statement is an opinion/observation.

The reason I went from a complete Athiest (when I was young) to more of an Agnostic is because of the reading I have done in University. I have a minor in Philosophy, and from reading many old works (not only on theology, also on the human mind and other fun stuff) I've begun to realize that there is really far too much even about my own mind, let alone the world, that I can't explain. And I don't think that Catholocism or any religion that I know about addresses those issues very well.

I'm not trying ti disagree with anything anybody has said in this thread. I'm simply stating what I think is going on. Agree or disagree, that's fine

I completely agree with you on your view regarding Catholics.  They have too much involvement in church politics and not enough in their faith.  While I still consider the Catholic faith somewhat correct, it definitely has its flaws.

In 1517 (or some time before), Martin Luther was a devout Catholic Monk.  He punished himself to points of near death because he found himself such a disgusting human being.  At this time, the Catholic church had disallowed access to Bibles to any members of their church, only the higher-ups were allowed to read them.  Somehow or another, Martin got his hands on a bible and began to read.  Through his reading, he learned that Jesus preached that "good works" were in no way, shape or form a requirement to get to heaven.  While he strongly encouraged them, there is no scripture that states "You must be a good boy/girl to get to Heaven."  He read that faith (in God and Jesus, believing that Jesus was crucified to redeem the sins of the world) is the only absolution.

During Martin's endeavors, the Catholic church had recently implemented "indulgences."  These were pieces of paper signed by the leaders of the Church which you could purchase with money.  The leaders claimed that they forgave the sins of anyone, alive or dead.  This enraged Martin and ultimately propelled him to create his 95 Thesis, which was a document he posted on the Church door stating the wrongs that the church was doing.  This lead to huge controversy between Luther, his multitudes of followers and the Catholic church.  In the end, Luther ended up breaking off from the Catholic church and now the Lutheran church exists.

The Lutherans (Missouri Synod at least) completely disagree with anything that is added to faith by man (ie the indulgences).  We believe that we cannot add, remove or alter the Bible, because it is the absolute word of God.

In short, not all churches are like the Catholic church.