|
Wilderness |
March 31, 2010
Q/A Topics: Loving Everybody?
READER QUESTION:
VW ANSWER: What is more loving than to "snatch" someone out of the fire; even at the risk of one's own life to do so? (Ju1:23, Jn15:13) And if someone is trapped, what is required to extricate them from the fire? Supposing they are the victim of a crime where somebody shackled them, the flames are closing in, but there is no key or tool to break the shackles, but there is an object by which to chop off their arm or leg, and thus get them free? What did Jesus say?
So the question is: Do we love -them- and their apostasy? or... Do we love God? We cannot love both. When John speaks of love, it is "love of the brethren" (1Jn3:14) Peter says the same thing. (1Pt1:22) Jesus' command to love one another was in the context of His "disciples"... Believers. (Jn13:35) On the other hand, David speaks of "hate" and "enemies"... of those who hate God. (Ps139:21-22) (If we were meeting in a room I would ask us all to look up these passages, and we would read them together. While I don't always take up the space to paste them in here... please look them up and read them) Yes....they will love each other...because they are not In Christ. Believers will love one another because we -are- in Christ. But it is a spiritual fact that the world and those of Christ are at "enmity" with each other (Ja4:4, Jn15:19, Rom8:7, 1Co2:14, Jn17:14, 1Pt4:4, etc); just as God and satan are at enmity with each other. If God and satan are enemies, so will be their followers with each other. So... if they make the observation that a Believer, in their eyes, is lacking love (for them)... such a statement is actually an acknowledgement on their part that the Believer is not one of them. In other words, the Believer is apparently living such a life that is obviously distinct (by definition: "holy") from their apostasy. The Believer in such a case should rejoice. Apparently the holiness is -real- enough that it is being noticed... it is a testimony: both -for- God, and -against- their apostasy. Being, as Jesus said, "Lights" in the dark world, which "exposes/reproves" their apostasy. (Mt5:14, Eph5:11) It's not that there isn't love. It's that the Believer's love is toward God. Theirs isn't. What they love (rebellion against God), the Believer hates. What the Believer loves (faithfulness to God's holiness), they hate. And as such...
[Top] Blood: raw meat?
READER QUESTIONS: VW ANSWER:
ITEM:
VW: When Saul's men were eating the spoils "with the blood" (1Sam14:33), the solution was to set up a stone, light a fire, and 'cook' the meat.
ITEM:
VW:
ITEM:
VW: When I pick from a sushi bar, I try to pick what I can see (or presume) does not have 'raw' fish. I am no expert in the 'art' of preparing sushi....but I've seen some documentaries that tell how an expert chef will prepare extremely poisonous fish (apparently a 'delicacy' in Japan) in a way that it does not kill people....but if he doesn't prepare it JUST SO, that the eater will die. As a child, when -in- Japan, I remember eating 'raw' fish (I think, carp) (that is....the whole fish on the plate, head, entrails, fins, scales) only one time. And at that, I seem to remember eating only a couple of bites. Lots of rice stuffed in the mouth, and a tiny piece of the fish, after being dipped in a hot sauce. I did not like it. We were 'visiting' someplace where it was served, and that was a one-time-only event for me. However....I do not know the specifics about blood in fish. I also only eat fish 'cooked'. I like 'kippered' salmon....which seems (close as I can tell) to be a 'smoked' (?) process....and I've never sensed the presence of fresh blood in it. (Although, the place I used to buy it no longer carries it, and haven't been able to find it anyplace else in town... Snacking on kippered salmon is waaaay yummier than a piece of candy!!!)
ITEM:
VW:
ITEM:
VW: Since I don't know the scientific ramifications, I don't know how to tell somebody else when blood is blood, and when it ceases to be blood. I do for myself according to conscience. Paul speaks of personal decisions regarding foods (1Co6:13, 1Ti4:3, Col2:21-23) and also that meat is meat (1Co8:4, 9:4, 10:25-26), even if the heathens had offered it to idols....since idols are nothing, and meat is meat. Insert: After the rest of this item was mailed, a subscriber who is a hunter replied with some explanations of 'hanging' and 'cooling' meat, 3 to 4 days, to drain the blood. Thus... that the cooked (red) 'juices' are (allegedly) not "blood". And also that -cooking- does not make any blood cease to be blood. But he did not answer how Saul's men, then, cooking the meat, 'solved' the problem of them eating "with the blood". Even though Saul was rebelling against God, one would think that he knew the Kosher custom. Thus, I still have to say that "I don't know" the physiological ramifications. But the matter of the 'blood' goes back even before Moses. God spoke to Cain about Abel's blood "crying" up from the ground. (Ge4:10) But the first actual -law-, that is recorded, came to Noah after the flood. There seems to be a subliminal -cult- today that holds to what they call the "Noahide Laws". I don't know everything that is on their list. But from Scripture it is clear that God mentions the blood. (Ge9:1-6) Both in the matter of human murder; and of eating animal flesh and its blood. Thus, to my own mind: if something is being brought out, still swimming in the red liquid, and the meat is still red, and you poke it with a fork and more red liquid comes squishing out....such meat has not been adequately 'cooked'. It is still IN ITS BLOOD. The way I understand the matter, such a serving should not be eaten until the blood has been thoroughly cooked out of it. I would rather gnaw on something that's OVER-cooked, than slurp the blood juices of something that was merely lightly seared. That's my 'take' on the matter. But Paul also wrote Romans ch14. What is another person's understanding of -when- blood ceases to be blood. They eat "in faith". But if they go contrary to what their heart knows, in faith....
[Top]
|