Blood and the God of life

a reply to: Cinrad

Christians should not eat blood or strangled animals

I kinda get the "blood" part, although I do love a blood rare, seared steak. But, the strangled part....wouldn't you imagine that to mean that God doesn't approve of food that was derived from animal cruelty? If that is the case, Christians beware! Almost all your meat is derived from animal cruelty! (Don't make me post videos)

originally posted by: windword
I kinda get the "blood" part, although I do love a blood rare, seared steak. But, the strangled part...

It's another way of saying "Don't consume the blood". If an animal is strangled the blood remains.
Historically, the Gentile church evidently did not feel the need to obey that particular intruction from Jerusalem.
The taboo against consuming blood went the same way as circumcision and the Saturday Sabbath.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Are you calling me a sinner for loving my blood rare, seared steak?

Is a McDonald's hamburger meat that's been sacrificed to an idol?

a reply to: windword
I'm not calling you a sinner, because I'm not one of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.
My own position follows on from the statement I was quoting in another thread; "we are no longer under the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit".
If the Spirit was not telling the Gentile church to avoid consuming blood, it was OK for them not to worry about it.

a reply to: windword
Only if there has been a religious ceremony explicitly dedicating it to a non-Biblical God.
As far as Paul is concerned, it's only an issue if the religious dedication is taking place at the time.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was commenting and asking about this, posted by Cinrad:
Acts 15:27
Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you in person the same things we are writing you. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements: You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

If it's ok to eat blood and animals whose flesh was derived by means of animal cruelty, can we also be sexually immoral?

a reply to: windword
That's what I thought. That's one of the issues Paul is discussing in 1 Corinthians ch10. Animals were being sacrificed and consumed at religious ceremonies devoted to gentile gods.
Paul tells the Corinthians that they should not take part in these ceremonies (vv14-22).
But it was also the custom to sell surplus meat in the ordinary meat markets afterwards, and he sees nothing wrong with consuming that as long as nobody is making an issue out of it (vv23-30).

originally posted by: windword
can we also be sexually immoral?

Immorality is one of those issues, like murder and theft, which are not symbolic but rather more fundamental to what the Biblical God wants from people's behaviour. The New Testament in general agrees in continuing to reject them, and I believe this reflects the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

a reply to: DISRAELI

When dealing with sexual immorality, should we refer to the Bible to inform us or the Holy Spirit? For example, the Bible doesn't condone divorce and remarriage. Should a person follow their "heart" or the Bible?

a reply to: windword
I'm doing "Marriage and the God of life" the week after next, so I don't want to anticipate. Can we postpone that discussion for a couple of weeks?

a reply to: DISRAELI

It's another way of saying "Don't consume the blood". If an animal is strangled the blood remains.

Upon reflecting this, I have another question. Wouldn't the blood also remain if the animal was killed with a bullet or a sledge hammer to the head?

a reply to: DISRAELI

My question isn't really so much about marriage, but whether one should follow the rules of the Bible or of the soft whisper of the Holy Spirit. Divorce and remarriage, like rare steaks from beef killed with a sledge hammer to the head, are forbidden in the Bible, but most Christian will give a pass on both the fore mentioned sins.

a reply to: windword
Probably, but the leaders in Jerusalem would have no reason to mention any methods which were not in common use at the time. Strangling was something which was happening, so they talked about strangling.

a reply to: windword
Questions of divorce and remarriage are part of the general topic of "marriage", as an institution, so I can't separate them out. Week after next.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Okay, lol. Compartmentalize if you must.

a reply to: windword
I must, because the choice (in this forum, anyway) is between compartmentalising and talking about EVERYTHING.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, just saying, the author of Acts 15:27 didn't have a problem lumping these issues all together.

a reply to: windword
He wasn't having to discuss them at length on an internet forum.
Without strict keeping to topic, every religious debate turns into a wife's argument with her husband;
"Why haven't you taken the dustbins out?"
"I did all that five minutes ago".
"Ah yes, but what about that time you insulted my mother's cooking".
This is how I keep things on track.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Without strict keeping to topic, every religious debate turns into a wife's argument with her husband;

Which is why women should keep quite when men are preaching.