Eating Unclean Food Is an Abomination to the Lord!

[The_Patriot21]

10 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

All I know is we would find arrow heads in shoulders etc. It makes me sad to think how long it suffered. Some places enough to make it go down? Sure, it probably took a little time. It just seems there is a much quicker method than that.

Yes that comes from hunters getting impatient and not waiting until they get close enough. One has to be very very patient to be a good bow hunter. 

One year I had two friends who were elk hunting, one was bow hunting the other rifle.

They both got similar sized bull elk, both huge. The rifle hunter took his down with not one, not two, but 3 solid hits from a 7mm mag at about 500 yards, and all three were in the heart/lungs. The animal made it probably another 500 yards from the point of the first hit until the time it went down. Keep in mind the 7mm mag is a very powerful round and provides plenty of stopping power even at that range, and the first two did perforate the lungs with the third going through the heart.

The other hunter dropped his elk at 25 yards with a single arrow. Went between two ribs and through the heart. It made it maybe another 20 yards before it dropped.

The next year, the rifle hunter took another elk down with a single shot at 700 yards with the same gun. 

Its not really the weapon that makes it humane or not, it's the hunter.

[Anne2]

5 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Yes that comes from hunters getting impatient and not waiting until they get close enough. One has to be very very patient to be a good bow hunter. 

One year I had two friends who were elk hunting, one was bow hunting the other rifle.

They both got similar sized bull elk, both huge. The rifle hunter took his down with not one, not two, but 3 solid hits from a 7mm mag at about 500 yards, and all three were in the heart/lungs. The animal made it probably another 500 yards from the point of the first hit until the time it went down. Keep in mind the 7mm mag is a very powerful round and provides plenty of stopping power even at that range, and the first two did perforate the lungs with the third going through the heart.

The other hunter dropped his elk at 25 yards with a single arrow. Went between two ribs and through the heart. It made it maybe another 20 yards before it dropped.

The next year, the rifle hunter took another elk down with a single shot at 700 yards with the same gun. 

Its not really the weapon that makes it humane or not, it's the hunter.

Yeah, you are probably right. An arrow head in the neck or shoulder, really wouldn't be much different than a bullet, I guess. We have found those as well when I think about it.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Anne2

[The_Patriot21]

25 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

Yeah, you are probably right. An arrow head in the neck or shoulder, really wouldn't be much different than a bullet, I guess. We have found those as well when I think about it.

Actually in the neck an arrow has a better chance. A bullet in the neck is unlikely to expand, leaving a hole the size of the bullet through and through, with the hole being usually around 7-8mm. 

A good 4 bladed broadheads will be over an inch in each direction, and will leave basically 4 straight cuts. Actually quadruples your chances of getting an artery.

Now, I'm not suggesting hitting the neck. Not a great idea, but the chances are better.

A shoulder blade hit is both a good and a bad thing. If you got the power to go through it, it's the best spot to aim. When I'm rifle hunting that's where I aim, because I know the heart and lungs are right behind it so I'm garenteed a kill shot, and I don't lose much meat to boot. But with the guns I hunt with and the ranges I shoot, it's never a problem. My 270 will typically go through both shoulders of a deer or antelope and destroy the heart and lungs en route out to 200+yards and still be moving when it exists, and I rarely make a shot longer then 200 yards. It just isn't sporting to me to shoot beyond that. Once you hit the 500 yard mark it's no longer hunting, it's merely target practice.

But, if your archery hunting, especially if using a lower powered bow such as a recurve, a shoulder shot isn't always a good idea. A good hunter knows their weapon and it's strengths and weaknesses.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

1 hour ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Balaam's donkey is really a poor example. Because quite frankly if you believe it was actually a donkey that was talking, well, it's rather nieve. That donkey wasn't really talking of their own accord.

Because donkeys don't have the capacity for speech. Literally. A donkeys vocal cords are physically incapable of speech. For it to talk would require divine intervention. Not alone carry on a conversation.

 

I cannot break up the paragraphs more than once for whatever reason, 

That is not what I said,  go back and reread it, I had said that it had absolutely nothing to do with the voice of the donkey,  it was what the Angel said to Balaam concerning his donkey

You keep bringing up "sentience", and how an animal is not sentient, and here is the definition

Sentience is animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself.

Who saw the angel ACCORDING TO THE ANGEL?

Numbers 22:33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

That has NOTHING to do with the Ass speaking at all.

I then said, if anything, Balaam lacked the qualities you claim animals do not possess (sentience)

Numbers 21:21 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

It is funny, the conversation,

 You post the scripture, it says,

“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

You said,

I don't really see any moral problem with boiling a goat in goats milk.

-

But that's not what it says, I was simply "emphasizing" what is written when I posted

“You shall not boil a young goat in IT'S MOTHER'S milk.”

And you respond,

It's still a goat...it's still milk

...the mother's milk, is really only a problem in your head.

But it really isn't a problem in my own head by emphasizing on the words It's MOTHER'S milk because that is what is written, and you simply repeated it incorrectly, but when corrected with how God stated it

You say to the scripture,

"the mother's milk, is really only a problem in your head."

You mean God's head because that's how it is written

See?

“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

I do not believe the problem is with my head or  God's head for posting the scripture

When you stated,

" I don't really see any moral problem with boiling a goat in GOAT'S milk."

But it does not say what you just said it said

And if you had responded in the correct context of boiling a young goat in its MOTHER"S MILK while pointing out CORRECTLY (mind you) the very obvious when you said

'Now practically, it seems a lot of work and a lot of waste. That's a lot of goats milk for one"

This should make it obvious given your own observations that only a pyscho would encumber himself with the task do it, because it would have to be very heartless, and intentional, taking up a lot of work and waste to do it.

It just has  Silence of the Lamb vibes" written all over it.

And when I posted the exact verse found in the scripture (because YOU misquoted it)

“You shall not boil a young goat in IT'S MOTHER'S milk.”

Your response to God's words (not mine) is

You act like the goat is a sentient animal.

That was to God's words (not my words).

But I am somehow acting like it is something or not something that is relevant or irrellevant to God's word on it?   You have to put the ball in the correct court, an call it what it really is, you believe God (by his own words) is acting as if the creature he created is somehow sentient and therefore incorrect according to your thoughts.

To being sentient you respond, 

It's not. It's a goat. 

And you add, 

And it's milk. 

And I respond,

Yes, its milk and God said,

 “You shall not boil a young goat in its MOTHER'S M-I-L-K

Your response to this is basically

Fact is, the mother doesn't know nor care what you do with her milk.

But the fact is,

That God knows, and apparently cares since he said not to do it

I would think, someone like Jeffrey Dahmer might debate this with great fervor, that would be expected, wouldn't think someone would take such creepy thing to task.

The last part of your post is all over the place, and irrelevant

I had forgotten what gaslighting felt like, thanks for the reminder,

I'll let the rest of your post go and I cant put you on ignore since you are oversight, but its probably best we do not converse because we don't have much to offer each other in any kind of honest discussion.

 

 

 

[farouk]

3 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

He starts off in Galatians mentioning these in Gal 4:10

Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

And then here he says

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

And immediately takes us to Abraham as is shown us in the law

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

And it shows Abraham offered a burnt offering by Isaac Genesis 22:2 and as a prophet knew God would provide a lamb (Genesis 22:8) the same is shown in Jesus Christ (Son of promise) God's only begotten Son who is also the lamb God did provide (John 1:36)

Below, I cannot break the paragraphs to respond to each point you are trying to make and conversing with you is becoming a bit tedious.

Just back it up to Gal 4:10 and what they are not hearing as it pertained to observing those

I have no problem with scriptures themselves, I might not agree with how someone handles them or the points they are trying to prove by them but I don't argue with them. 

With that, I do appreciate the time you have taken to engage in this conversation with me on these various offerings, meats, sabbaths etc and it could probably continue until the cows come home but it's run its course for me. I am getting a little bored with it, and cannot see the point in continuing any futher.

Peace God bless you

 

 

@AFlameOfFire Good to remember indeed that Galatians shows that the New Testament believer is not under the law. (Hebrews 7 shows something quite similar also.)

[The_Patriot21]

30 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said:

 

I cannot break up the paragraphs more than once for whatever reason, 

That is not what I said,  go back and reread it, I had said that it had absolutely nothing to do with the voice of the donkey,  it was what the Angel said to Balaam concerning his donkey

You keep bringing up "sentience", and how an animal is not sentient, and here is the definition

Sentience is animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself.

Who saw the angel ACCORDING TO THE ANGEL?

Numbers 22:33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

That has NOTHING to do with the Ass speaking at all.

I then said, if anything, Balaam lacked the qualities you claim animals do not possess (sentience)

Numbers 21:21 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

It is funny, the conversation,

 You post the scripture, it says,

“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

You said,

I don't really see any moral problem with boiling a goat in goats milk.

-

But that's not what it says, I was simply "emphasizing" what is written when I posted

“You shall not boil a young goat in IT'S MOTHER'S milk.”

And you respond,

It's still a goat...it's still milk

...the mother's milk, is really only a problem in your head.

But it really isn't a problem in my own head by emphasizing on the words It's MOTHER'S milk because that is what is written, and you simply repeated it incorrectly, but when corrected with how God stated it

You say to the scripture,

"the mother's milk, is really only a problem in your head."

You mean God's head because that's how it is written

See?

“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

I do not believe the problem is with my head or  God's head for posting the scripture

When you stated,

" I don't really see any moral problem with boiling a goat in GOAT'S milk."

But it does not say what you just said it said

And if you had responded in the correct context of boiling a young goat in its MOTHER"S MILK while pointing out CORRECTLY (mind you) the very obvious when you said

'Now practically, it seems a lot of work and a lot of waste. That's a lot of goats milk for one"

This should make it obvious given your own observations that only a pyscho would encumber himself with the task do it, because it would have to be very heartless, and intentional, taking up a lot of work and waste to do it.

It just has  Silence of the Lamb vibes" written all over it.

And when I posted the exact verse found in the scripture (because YOU misquoted it)

“You shall not boil a young goat in IT'S MOTHER'S milk.”

Your response to God's words (not mine) is

You act like the goat is a sentient animal.

That was to God's words (not my words).

But I am somehow acting like it is something or not something that is relevant or irrellevant to God's word on it?   You have to put the ball in the correct court, an call it what it really is, you believe God (by his own words) is acting as if the creature he created is somehow sentient and therefore incorrect according to your thoughts.

To being sentient you respond, 

It's not. It's a goat. 

And you add, 

And it's milk. 

And I respond,

Yes, its milk and God said,

 “You shall not boil a young goat in its MOTHER'S M-I-L-K

Your response to this is basically

Fact is, the mother doesn't know nor care what you do with her milk.

But the fact is,

That God knows, and apparently cares since he said not to do it

I would think, someone like Jeffrey Dahmer might debate this with great fervor, that would be expected, wouldn't think someone would take such creepy thing to task.

The last part of your post is all over the place, and irrelevant

I had forgotten what gaslighting felt like, thanks for the reminder,

I'll let the rest of your post go and I cant put you on ignore since you are oversight, but its probably best we do not converse because we don't have much to offer each other in any kind of honest discussion.

 

 

 

Lol I saw what you said....

I just quite frankly didn't respond to the scripture, because your basically, ignoring the context, or rather the intent behind the law.

The whole reason behind that "law" wasnt that donkeys or goats are sentient.

They are not. They're animals. They recognize they're alive but they have no souls.

The whole reason that law was put in place wasn't to avoid "ghoulishness" or whatever you want to call it, but to separate God's chosen people from the pagans at the time who would do that as part of their rituals.

These pagan rituals no longer exist. 

Furthermore I am not a Hebrew under the mosaic law. I'm a Christian under the new covenant. A covenant where God specifically lifted all dietary restrictions.

So basically I didn't respond because the verses at hand no longer apply to me so there's no logic in replying to it.

I don't live under legalism, and since that law is no longer really applicable, it really is just in your head.

What I fail to see is why it's so important to you to convince me, especially since I've already stated I don't do that and have no intention of doing so, though for different reasons then yourself. And even if I did, it wouldnt hurt you in the slightest.

I'm even wondering why I'm in this silly conversation. It's really a trivial thing to debate. So with that I'm off. Goodnight

 

 

 

[Anne2]

10 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Lol I saw what you said....

I just quite frankly didn't respond to the scripture, because your basically, ignoring the context, or rather the intent behind the law.

The whole reason behind that "law" wasnt that donkeys or goats are sentient.

They are not. They're animals. They recognize they're alive but they have no souls.

The whole reason that law was put in place wasn't to avoid "ghoulishness" or whatever you want to call it, but to separate God's chosen people from the pagans at the time who would do that as part of their rituals.

These pagan rituals no longer exist. 

Furthermore I am not a Hebrew under the mosaic law. I'm a Christian under the new covenant. A covenant where God specifically lifted all dietary restrictions.

So basically I didn't respond because the verses at hand no longer apply to me so there's no logic in replying to it.

I don't live under legalism, and since that law is no longer really applicable, it really is just in your head.

What I fail to see is why it's so important to you to convince me, especially since I've already stated I don't do that and have no intention of doing so, though for different reasons then yourself. And even if I did, it wouldnt hurt you in the slightest.

I'm even wondering why I'm in this silly conversation. It's really a trivial thing to debate. So with that I'm off. Goodnight

 

 

 

 LOL, I looked it up myself. Couldn't make heads or tails of it. It seems the definition has changed and it now just depends. At least that is what I got out of it. Whichever the case, animal cruelty is awful, and it seems we all agree on that.

I will say, I have found for some of my own pets, they can be very loving. And those that I have put down, I have blubbered like a baby.

[farouk]

I do feel that it's easy to fall in to legalism; and dietary issues are an area where this can happen particularly easily.

Hebrews of course contains strong warnings against going back into legalism and ritual.

[The_Patriot21]

8 hours ago, Anne2 said:

 LOL, I looked it up myself. Couldn't make heads or tails of it. It seems the definition has changed and it now just depends. At least that is what I got out of it. Whichever the case, animal cruelty is awful, and it seems we all agree on that.

I will say, I have found for some of my own pets, they can be very loving. And those that I have put down, I have blubbered like a baby.

Oh I agree, animal cruelty is horrible. I'm not one to mistreat an animal. Even with my hunting my goal is to put the animal out of its misery as quickly and cleanly as possible.

I just fail to see how boiling an already dead animal as cruel, regardless of what it's boiled in. I mean...the animal is dead...it can't feel anything.

[The_Patriot21]

8 hours ago, Slibhin said:

If I was wrong about what you said then I'm wrong, my bad.

However...

There is no evidence it is a pagan ritual, I checked. it is merely asserted that it "may have been" by one author. It also isn't merely a dietary restriction, it's a moral one.

The fact that you and others find this so baffling when G-d, whom you claim to believe in, clearly stated not to do it is questionable. You are also incorrect about souls in that the Tanakh refers to animals as having a living spirit. There is no word for "soul" in ancient Hebrew and the closest word translated as such is "Neshamah", which kind of means "breath" as in "breath of G-d". The Torah and several parts of the Tanakh refer to animals as well as humans as having Neshamah.

Saying Jesus apparently did away with the law or you think it doesn't apply to you, therefore you can be as cruel as you like to animals reenforces my negative assessment of Christianity. As an aside, it is amazing how many people I've seen here state that Jesus/G-d "did away with" the laws regarding justice, cruelty and charity so now they can be as horrible as they like.

Animal cruelty is one of the laws of Noah and one of the few violations a non-Jew would be punished for according to Hashem's decrees.

I was hesitant to approve this, because your language is getting borderline but I decided it was a worthy comment regardless.

 A animal, does not have a soul, at least not in the same way you and I do, if you feel scripture teaches that, then you misunderstand it.

And animal cruelty is being cruel to animals. Causing them undo suffering and pain. That baby goat? It's dead. It's not feeling pain. Even if it had a "soul" it already left the body. If it was boiled alive? Yeah there would be a case for animal cruelty no matter what you boiled it in. But a dead animal can feel absolutely no pain so you cannot be cruel to it.

So by definition boiling a dead goat in it's mother's milk absolutely cannot be animal cruelty. Period. Because it's not cruel, it's not causing that deceased animal any pain.

And I never said that Jesus did away with the law, I said Jesus did away with dietary restrictions, which is true.

Even the apostle Paul said the law was in place so that we know what is and what is not sin. He also said we are no longer bound by the law, but by grace because no one can follow the law.

And today, literally no one is. I'm certainly not aware of really any practicing Jews who follow the sacrifices like they're supposed to. 

What I said was as Jesus fulfilled the law we need to look at the intent of the law. The whole pagan thing? Yeah you may only have found one reference online, but I've come across it several times over the years. It's a thing.

And God is very big on His people being set apart from the world. Which makes far more sense in this scenario then some imaginary belief that a dead goat can feel pain. Which is the lesson behind that story, that if the world is doing something perhaps we shouldn't. 

No one's currently boiling goats in their own milk anymore. I literally don't know anyone who even does that. So doing it really wouldn't be doing what the world does.

On top of that, did I mention literally no one does that? I mean I guess I'm gonna have to read back but how did this discussion even get started? Did someone pull up some obscure passage of the Bible to push their brand of legalism or what?

Because this is something that isn't practiced in todays world for really any reason. I hadn't even thought about this passage in years, that is how obscure this is in todays world so why are we all getting so bent out of shape over boiling goats in milk lol