I’m not sure Doug has researched this enough. The issue of factory farming is the horrendous conditions that the animals are kept in, not just the day of the slaughter. They are tortured their entire miserable excuse for a lives. Free range animals aren’t.
Being an organic farmer, I've made the following statement "growing GMO's is saying that God didn't make the plant the right way and man has to modify it". When anyone talks about cloning a human everyone thinks its absurd and man is trying to play God, but when man modifies other parts of God's creation we have an argument such as this. If you buy GMO's your supporting man's ambition to change what God has provided.
Christopher Kelly I'm glad to see a farmer contribute to this conversation. There are so many more issues in the food arena in our age versus the biblical era. How about the unethical and immoral behavior of the biotech companies buying the whores in the judicial branch to get them to drop panties and abort justice by persecuting righteous farmers who are trying to save their heirloom seeds and the depraved GMO pimps have purposely sabotaged their pure seed crops with unlawfully patented frankenfood seeds? Then they're forced to pay outrageous lawyer fees to defend their innocence and have to sell their farms to the GMO agri-factory farms? Can't Doug see a biblical example of corrupt judges and witnesses in these examples today in which the bible would refer to these people as worthless? And if you gloss over this GMO issue, people will perpetuate this problem by naively buying these 'blood-money' foods. See Jeffrey Smith's movies like 'Seeds of Deception' for some evidences of this. Other than ignorance, I have to believe man's fear of other men must be playing a role here. It's political suicide in America today to eek a squeak about GMO's, and clergy are too afraid to lose status, congregation or the mighty 501C3, thanks to the CLA, Christian Law Association.
Then I guess we shouldn’t be eating any of the food that exists today. Corn, for example, was originally an inedible grass that was genetically modified; watermelon was also mostly rind, originally. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking dominion and subduing nature.
Hmm, while I respect you're living by your own conscience and I'm not trying to mock that, are we not given dominion over all the plants and animals? In which case there is a clear distinction; we lack dominion over our own race compared to any other species or flora. It's fine if you choose that kind of agriculture, certainly, I just don't think it's your place to demand others do the same.
I’ve got a history of “food-fussing” of various kinds, and I cannot express how much this conversation (and it’s second part) has blessed me and challenged me to mortify it. Thank you!
My career since 9/11 has left me unemployed at times so I studied my health issues and started learning how our food causes most of our illnesses. Food that causes I’ll-health is not clean. It’s all quite well known now but most would rather eat their treats and die slowly.
I am curious to know what Pastor Wilson's Blood Pressure is ? and what is his Cholesterol numbers ? Is he overweight ? Let's be a "LIVING" Example for Christ ..........
The Bible doesn’t say anything about blood pressure, cholesterol, or weight, none of these things are the fruit of the spirit and none of these things are an aspect of becoming more Christlike. Furthermore there is no argument to be made that spirituality and morality or sanctification have anything to do with these metrics. Your argument isn’t Biblical, and so it’s not a valid rebuttal. If you were not a Christian and this was your argument then I could understand where you as an atheist would think these things are relevant, but your claim at the end of your statement implies you are a Christian and therefore you should know better. I don’t agree with Doug, but the way you’ve approached this isn’t a Christian or a polite or approach, it isn’t loving, do better.
Disclaimer: I love Doug Wilson. He said calling food "garbage" is a relative term. I don't think it is at all. There may be some confusion as to what the absolute standard of good food is, do to ignorance or a deficient understanding in biological science in general, but it's not a relative term. Anything that is not nourishing to the body is garbage to the body, or poison. He said, if its poison why am I still alive? And Then he chuckled like it's so stupid to even call it poison if it doesn't do what poison does. Well, that entire argument makes him seem very ignorant himself. If you don't think it's poison, then drink a bottle of Round Up and let's see what happens. You're not dead because you get small doses of poison. But in today's world we get about a thousand small doses of different poisons a day. God designed our body to have defenses against these poisons, but after years of bombardment those defenses break down, hence disease. I'd like to see inside his medicine cabinet as he speaks of this foods non-poisonous effects. I don't think God is more concerned with what goes in our body than He is our soul. He definitely cares about the soul more. But I also believe very strongly that mind, body and soul are not compartmentalized. Just as the verse goes, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" Foods that were prohibited were to be symbolic of the differences between Jew and gentile. Just as Doug said. It was a physical and tangible picture of something spiritual. With Christ's death came the abolition of the gap between the two, therefore the abolition of the food prohibitions. That doesn't mean these foods were suddenly deemed healthy by God. Shell fish are still the most unhealthy sea creature you can possibly eat, since they're the bottom dwellers and the sea's clean up system. But eating the shell fish no longer has the spiritual impact it did through the law. I never see anyone arguing with scripture for the right to eat vultures, when those were prohibited in scripture as well. It's always the delicious food they stand up for. Anyone with half a brain can see why God said not to eat vultures, yet we look at pigs and can't figure it out. Really? They're disgusting. Go ahead and eat one, it won't keep you out of heaven. But why would you want to put garbage (and that's not a relative term, they actually eat garbage) in your body? There should be no self-righteousness with those who choose to eat healthier food. I agree completely and I actually pray about this for myself as a preventive measure. I don't want to become a food snob. But I cannot agree that it's so unimportant as he does. He even made a statement along the lines of him not liking the healthy food, so I'm leaning towards this being a very biased answer.
I agree with Doug on this one, and I agree with you that eating healthy is a good thing. And if we could agree on these three propositions, I'd be happy. 1) The healthiness or unhealthiness of many of the organic, trendy "healthfoods" are disputable, and the proven benefits are usually quite small. As Doug pointed out, how are we living longer than ever with all these so-called poisons entering our bodies? 2) It falls within the realm of Christian liberty as to what kinds of foods we eat, and should never be an excuse for breaking fellowship or belittling our brothers and sisters. 3) There are numerous other things that impact health (sleep, stress, exercise, and genetics), and given that God has given all the plants and animals of the earth to us for food, supposing we both give sincere thanks to God, the strictest vegan and the most ravenous carnivore should be able to eat the Lord's Supper together focusing on Christ and one another and not the food quality of the elements themselves.
@@heresyhunters I can agree with those three things, except for one sentence - "As Doug Pointed out, how are we living longer than ever with all these so-called poisons entering our bodies?" - First, living longer does not equal quality of life. Second, there are many factors that go into the low life expectancy of the past, the largest factor being the very high infant mortality rate lumped in with everyone else bringing the average life span down drastically.
@@hannaht4683 Interesting. I'm not sure how quality of life factors in to this, but I'd venture to guess we're much healthier now than in the distant past. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Your second point is, I believe, a red herring. Of course there was higher infant mortality; there was higher adult mortality too. So I think the point stands since generally healthy people have healthy babies.
@@heresyhunters I am sorry I wasn't more clear. We may live longer now, into our 80's, but is the quality of the life of people in that age now good? As compared to the health and quality of life of the well researched centurions in the Blue Zones? I would say no. Which is why I, and others in the comments of this video, have mentioned Doug's medicine cabinet. Sure, you can live to a hundred nowadays but if the last 40 years of ones life is spent on dozens of prescriptions, constant doctors visits, multiple cancer spouts, diabetes, nursing homes, dementia, then perhaps healthy food is worth more consideration than just spouting off "We live longer now".
@@heresyhunters I am not denying modern medicine has done an amazing job at saving lives- that's undeniable and I am grateful for it - but to imply, as Doug does, more lives are saved into old age in spite of our modern food (or because of our modern food?) is a far stretch. His view on diet is remarkably similar to that of a physician... a physician with, what?, four hours of nutrition study in medical school, is it? Whereas the professionals who studying nutrition for living, dietitians, would never be so nonchalant about it. But as I said in my original comment, it's pretty clear why Doug takes this stance and exalts it as the more holy perspective - because he simply doesn't like healthy food.
If a certain ingredient has been demonstrated to be toxic through scientific means, the ingredient causes specific health problems over time, (doesn’t kill you fast, but slowly) and someone is serving food containing that ingredient, should I then be called a fanatic if I were to lovingly warn the individuals, and avoid hypocrisy by not eating the food? Warning folks is loving and hypocrisy is sinful right? I’m not arguing for Christian dietary laws, but lovingly promoting common sense. As a pastor, I would be interested in a response from Cannon on this issue. Thank you
I am curious to know what Pastor Wilson's Blood Pressure is ? and what is his Cholesterol numbers ? Is he overweight ? Let's be a "LIVING" Example for Christ ..........
I watched some human interest news story about some British women in their 90s. One of the secrets they revealed was a steady, long term diet which included RAW pork sausage.
Excellent points on the topic, would love to hear some thoughts and advice on the food topic when it comes to allergens and in what ways we ought to hospitable when having people over with allergens or if we are the ones with allergens..something along those lines. Thanks for the content!!
Doug, I am curious to know that if you would advise to refrain from value judgement between Christians on the subject of food (as described here) do you feel differently about value judgements between Christians about education? If I get your position from what you seem to teach (correct me if I am wrong) you would say that is different than the dietary value judgement but for the same justification, that it is Biblical. That we are taught Biblically not to avoid foods on misplaced judgements and that we are taught Biblically we MUST recognize the public schools as being worldly and avoid them (possibly admonishing brothers and sisters who do not)? I am would like to know your treatment of these 2 issues.
Well the Bible doesn't make any dogmatic statements about state schools so why would this be anything other than a conscience issue? In fact Daniel and his friends had a Babylonian education which God seemed to work to their favour(they are also the prime example of dietary restriction having health benefits in the OT), Moses was educated among Egyptian royalty and Solomon for all his wisdom explored various schools of thought. There's also the fact that the NT has to have been written at least in part by men with Hellenistic education and the Greco-Roman thinking that came with this. So maybe Doug has advised people to get their kids out of public schools at times but it's not a Gospel issue and I doubt he would say it is. It's entirely up to the parents though, bearing in mind that a secular schooling won't teach them a Christian worldview.
Would Pastor Wilson be able to answer the question of why God put different nutrients in food if he doesn't care what we eat? To use a simple example of not getting enough Vit C leading to scurvy which can be fatal seems to show that through natural revelation God is telling us what we eat is important.
There's some equivocation on the word "care". Christians can worship together and eat organic / non-organic -- so in that sense God doesn't care. Of course there are wisdom issues associated with eating healthily. But they aren't morality issues, as many all-organic folks argue.
@@CanonPress thanks for clarifying. I guess I didn't realize this discussion was in the context of Christians worshiping together. Just so I'm understanding your position, being concerned about your health from a nutritional perspective is wise but has nothing to do with morality so therefore can not be sinful?
@@mldralex Doug's book on the subject mostly has to do with fellowship among Christians. Although the arguments apply: Perhaps I would compare it to other diets. For example, is it "wiser" to eat paleo than to eat bread / dairy? Some would make the argument -- but when we elevate it to a moral issue, we're creating rules where God hasn't. Of course you can still sin with what you eat -- self control, gluttony etc. Similarly, if you know someone is mistreating workers at his non-organic farm, perhaps you shouldn't buy from him, and of course if he's a Christian you'd confront him and take it to the church elders -- but that's due to the mistreatment, not organic vs non-organic.
@@CanonPress thanks for your engagement here. I agree we can't make the way one chooses to eat a moral issue. I guess I'm wrestling with the importance of "good stewardship." Is it just a wisdom issue or a sin issue?
I understand the disfellowship of not eating what everyone else is eating. At family gatherings my uncle brings chicken and rice in his own Tupperware. Apparently this is for health reasons perhaps prescribed by his doctor. Should he just eat what everyone else is eating, even though his doctor said that he should eat certain things?
Is it not possible that the state of the modern food industry(the antibiotic, growth hormone, GMO injection of our foods) is a byproduct of our fallen condition, is the state of the standard American diet not driven by greed and selfishness, is that not a viable rebuttal? I don't mean this as a copout but a legitimate question. I think there is validity in the argument of not threatening fellowship in the name of organic foods or your keto diet or something, but if you don't distress fellowship over these choices then is it even a problem? Furthermore, if I go over to a brothers house, and they are eating french fries and chicken tendies for dinner, but I have decided to forgo fried food and decide to instead not eat at all, and that distresses my brother and puts our fellowship in jeopardy, does part of the blame not fall on my brother? Is his insistence of my consuming this food not in and of itself a self-righteous and selfish pursuit on his part?
Typically love Doug Wilson’s teaching but this one was disappointing. You can’t say “by what standard” for what makes a food garbage and not use the same argument when talking about what a fanatic is.
Thanks for both your thoughts and the interaction. I'm not following your by what standard critique -- of course who a fanatic is depends on the standard. Our "food" standard is what kind of Christians you're supposed to share the Lord's Supper with. You may be interested in reading the whole argument if this felt truncated in Doug's book "Food Catholic".
@@CanonPress thanks for your reply. My critique there was based on Pastor Wilson's comments on what is considered garbage food or not(what is healthy or not I'm assuming that means). He said we can't take our standard from cult leaders from the past. I'm not sure where the Lord's supper comes into this discussion. What I was saying is he seemed to say we can't really say there's a food we should or shouldn't eat because God doesn't give us a standard for what is healthy or not. Does he give us a standard for what is "fanatical" or not? If a Christian is concerned about nutrition because he or she wants to be a good steward of their body, to call them fanatical without a biblical standard for what "fanatical" is seems unfair.
I’m not sure Doug has researched this enough. The issue of factory farming is the horrendous conditions that the animals are kept in, not just the day of the slaughter. They are tortured their entire miserable excuse for a lives. Free range animals aren’t.
Being an organic farmer, I've made the following statement "growing GMO's is saying that God didn't make the plant the right way and man has to modify it". When anyone talks about cloning a human everyone thinks its absurd and man is trying to play God, but when man modifies other parts of God's creation we have an argument such as this. If you buy GMO's your supporting man's ambition to change what God has provided.
Christopher Kelly I'm glad to see a farmer contribute to this conversation. There are so many more issues in the food arena in our age versus the biblical era. How about the unethical and immoral behavior of the biotech companies buying the whores in the judicial branch to get them to drop panties and abort justice by persecuting righteous farmers who are trying to save their heirloom seeds and the depraved GMO pimps have purposely sabotaged their pure seed crops with unlawfully patented frankenfood seeds? Then they're forced to pay outrageous lawyer fees to defend their innocence and have to sell their farms to the GMO agri-factory farms? Can't Doug see a biblical example of corrupt judges and witnesses in these examples today in which the bible would refer to these people as worthless? And if you gloss over this GMO issue, people will perpetuate this problem by naively buying these 'blood-money' foods. See Jeffrey Smith's movies like 'Seeds of Deception' for some evidences of this. Other than ignorance, I have to believe man's fear of other men must be playing a role here. It's political suicide in America today to eek a squeak about GMO's, and clergy are too afraid to lose status, congregation or the mighty 501C3, thanks to the CLA, Christian Law Association.
As an aspiring organic farmer, I agree with you.
Then I guess we shouldn’t be eating any of the food that exists today. Corn, for example, was originally an inedible grass that was genetically modified; watermelon was also mostly rind, originally. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking dominion and subduing nature.
Hmm, while I respect you're living by your own conscience and I'm not trying to mock that, are we not given dominion over all the plants and animals? In which case there is a clear distinction; we lack dominion over our own race compared to any other species or flora.
It's fine if you choose that kind of agriculture, certainly, I just don't think it's your place to demand others do the same.
Most of the things you farm, even if they are "organic", are likely hybridized.
I’ve got a history of “food-fussing” of various kinds, and I cannot express how much this conversation (and it’s second part) has blessed me and challenged me to mortify it. Thank you!
I totally disagree. I don't think food should be over God but I definitely think God cares about what we eat.
Well said.
Tough to argue with your thoroughly biblical defense
What is his Blood Pressure ? What is his Cholesterol ?
My career since 9/11 has left me unemployed at times so I studied my health issues and started learning how our food causes most of our illnesses. Food that causes I’ll-health is not clean.
It’s all quite well known now but most would rather eat their treats and die slowly.
I am curious to know what Pastor Wilson's Blood Pressure is ? and what is his Cholesterol numbers ? Is he overweight ? Let's be a "LIVING" Example for Christ ..........
The Bible doesn’t say anything about blood pressure, cholesterol, or weight, none of these things are the fruit of the spirit and none of these things are an aspect of becoming more Christlike. Furthermore there is no argument to be made that spirituality and morality or sanctification have anything to do with these metrics. Your argument isn’t Biblical, and so it’s not a valid rebuttal. If you were not a Christian and this was your argument then I could understand where you as an atheist would think these things are relevant, but your claim at the end of your statement implies you are a Christian and therefore you should know better. I don’t agree with Doug, but the way you’ve approached this isn’t a Christian or a polite or approach, it isn’t loving, do better.
Disclaimer: I love Doug Wilson.
He said calling food "garbage" is a relative term. I don't think it is at all. There may be some confusion as to what the absolute standard of good food is, do to ignorance or a deficient understanding in biological science in general, but it's not a relative term. Anything that is not nourishing to the body is garbage to the body, or poison. He said, if its poison why am I still alive? And Then he chuckled like it's so stupid to even call it poison if it doesn't do what poison does. Well, that entire argument makes him seem very ignorant himself. If you don't think it's poison, then drink a bottle of Round Up and let's see what happens. You're not dead because you get small doses of poison. But in today's world we get about a thousand small doses of different poisons a day. God designed our body to have defenses against these poisons, but after years of bombardment those defenses break down, hence disease. I'd like to see inside his medicine cabinet as he speaks of this foods non-poisonous effects.
I don't think God is more concerned with what goes in our body than He is our soul. He definitely cares about the soul more. But I also believe very strongly that mind, body and soul are not compartmentalized. Just as the verse goes, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"
Foods that were prohibited were to be symbolic of the differences between Jew and gentile. Just as Doug said. It was a physical and tangible picture of something spiritual. With Christ's death came the abolition of the gap between the two, therefore the abolition of the food prohibitions. That doesn't mean these foods were suddenly deemed healthy by God. Shell fish are still the most unhealthy sea creature you can possibly eat, since they're the bottom dwellers and the sea's clean up system. But eating the shell fish no longer has the spiritual impact it did through the law. I never see anyone arguing with scripture for the right to eat vultures, when those were prohibited in scripture as well. It's always the delicious food they stand up for. Anyone with half a brain can see why God said not to eat vultures, yet we look at pigs and can't figure it out. Really? They're disgusting. Go ahead and eat one, it won't keep you out of heaven. But why would you want to put garbage (and that's not a relative term, they actually eat garbage) in your body?
There should be no self-righteousness with those who choose to eat healthier food. I agree completely and I actually pray about this for myself as a preventive measure. I don't want to become a food snob. But I cannot agree that it's so unimportant as he does. He even made a statement along the lines of him not liking the healthy food, so I'm leaning towards this being a very biased answer.
I agree with Doug on this one, and I agree with you that eating healthy is a good thing. And if we could agree on these three propositions, I'd be happy. 1) The healthiness or unhealthiness of many of the organic, trendy "healthfoods" are disputable, and the proven benefits are usually quite small. As Doug pointed out, how are we living longer than ever with all these so-called poisons entering our bodies? 2) It falls within the realm of Christian liberty as to what kinds of foods we eat, and should never be an excuse for breaking fellowship or belittling our brothers and sisters. 3) There are numerous other things that impact health (sleep, stress, exercise, and genetics), and given that God has given all the plants and animals of the earth to us for food, supposing we both give sincere thanks to God, the strictest vegan and the most ravenous carnivore should be able to eat the Lord's Supper together focusing on Christ and one another and not the food quality of the elements themselves.
@@heresyhunters I can agree with those three things, except for one sentence - "As Doug Pointed out, how are we living longer than ever with all these so-called poisons entering our bodies?" - First, living longer does not equal quality of life. Second, there are many factors that go into the low life expectancy of the past, the largest factor being the very high infant mortality rate lumped in with everyone else bringing the average life span down drastically.
@@hannaht4683 Interesting. I'm not sure how quality of life factors in to this, but I'd venture to guess we're much healthier now than in the distant past. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Your second point is, I believe, a red herring. Of course there was higher infant mortality; there was higher adult mortality too. So I think the point stands since generally healthy people have healthy babies.
@@heresyhunters I am sorry I wasn't more clear. We may live longer now, into our 80's, but is the quality of the life of people in that age now good? As compared to the health and quality of life of the well researched centurions in the Blue Zones? I would say no. Which is why I, and others in the comments of this video, have mentioned Doug's medicine cabinet. Sure, you can live to a hundred nowadays but if the last 40 years of ones life is spent on dozens of prescriptions, constant doctors visits, multiple cancer spouts, diabetes, nursing homes, dementia, then perhaps healthy food is worth more consideration than just spouting off "We live longer now".
@@heresyhunters I am not denying modern medicine has done an amazing job at saving lives- that's undeniable and I am grateful for it - but to imply, as Doug does, more lives are saved into old age in spite of our modern food (or because of our modern food?) is a far stretch. His view on diet is remarkably similar to that of a physician... a physician with, what?, four hours of nutrition study in medical school, is it? Whereas the professionals who studying nutrition for living, dietitians, would never be so nonchalant about it. But as I said in my original comment, it's pretty clear why Doug takes this stance and exalts it as the more holy perspective - because he simply doesn't like healthy food.
If a certain ingredient has been demonstrated to be toxic through scientific means, the ingredient causes specific health problems over time, (doesn’t kill you fast, but slowly) and someone is serving food containing that ingredient, should I then be called a fanatic if I were to lovingly warn the individuals, and avoid hypocrisy by not eating the food? Warning folks is loving and hypocrisy is sinful right?
I’m not arguing for Christian dietary laws, but lovingly promoting common sense. As a pastor, I would be interested in a response from Cannon on this issue. Thank you
Your not going to hell for eating bacon but you might get to heaven alittle quicker.
Lol true. Bacon is gross.
Five Star And a Turkey Leg wrapped in Bacon is called a Swanson.
I am curious to know what Pastor Wilson's Blood Pressure is ? and what is his Cholesterol numbers ? Is he overweight ? Let's be a "LIVING" Example for Christ ..........
I watched some human interest news story about some British women in their 90s. One of the secrets they revealed was a steady, long term diet which included RAW pork sausage.
Sounds like a win either way
Excellent points on the topic, would love to hear some thoughts and advice on the food topic when it comes to allergens and in what ways we ought to hospitable when having people over with allergens or if we are the ones with allergens..something along those lines. Thanks for the content!!
Doug, I am curious to know that if you would advise to refrain from value judgement between Christians on the subject of food (as described here) do you feel differently about value judgements between Christians about education? If I get your position from what you seem to teach (correct me if I am wrong) you would say that is different than the dietary value judgement but for the same justification, that it is Biblical. That we are taught Biblically not to avoid foods on misplaced judgements and that we are taught Biblically we MUST recognize the public schools as being worldly and avoid them (possibly admonishing brothers and sisters who do not)?
I am would like to know your treatment of these 2 issues.
What is his Blood Pressure ? What is his Cholesterol ?
Well the Bible doesn't make any dogmatic statements about state schools so why would this be anything other than a conscience issue?
In fact Daniel and his friends had a Babylonian education which God seemed to work to their favour(they are also the prime example of dietary restriction having health benefits in the OT), Moses was educated among Egyptian royalty and Solomon for all his wisdom explored various schools of thought. There's also the fact that the NT has to have been written at least in part by men with Hellenistic education and the Greco-Roman thinking that came with this.
So maybe Doug has advised people to get their kids out of public schools at times but it's not a Gospel issue and I doubt he would say it is. It's entirely up to the parents though, bearing in mind that a secular schooling won't teach them a Christian worldview.
Would Pastor Wilson be able to answer the question of why God put different nutrients in food if he doesn't care what we eat? To use a simple example of not getting enough Vit C leading to scurvy which can be fatal seems to show that through natural revelation God is telling us what we eat is important.
There's some equivocation on the word "care". Christians can worship together and eat organic / non-organic -- so in that sense God doesn't care. Of course there are wisdom issues associated with eating healthily. But they aren't morality issues, as many all-organic folks argue.
@@CanonPress thanks for clarifying. I guess I didn't realize this discussion was in the context of Christians worshiping together. Just so I'm understanding your position, being concerned about your health from a nutritional perspective is wise but has nothing to do with morality so therefore can not be sinful?
@@mldralex Doug's book on the subject mostly has to do with fellowship among Christians. Although the arguments apply: Perhaps I would compare it to other diets. For example, is it "wiser" to eat paleo than to eat bread / dairy? Some would make the argument -- but when we elevate it to a moral issue, we're creating rules where God hasn't. Of course you can still sin with what you eat -- self control, gluttony etc. Similarly, if you know someone is mistreating workers at his non-organic farm, perhaps you shouldn't buy from him, and of course if he's a Christian you'd confront him and take it to the church elders -- but that's due to the mistreatment, not organic vs non-organic.
@@CanonPress thanks for your engagement here. I agree we can't make the way one chooses to eat a moral issue. I guess I'm wrestling with the importance of "good stewardship." Is it just a wisdom issue or a sin issue?
What is his Blood Pressure ? What is his Cholesterol ?
Love this!
What would you say to someone who as acid refllux and goes to a relatives home and all the food is not good for her.
I understand the disfellowship of not eating what everyone else is eating. At family gatherings my uncle brings chicken and rice in his own Tupperware. Apparently this is for health reasons perhaps prescribed by his doctor. Should he just eat what everyone else is eating, even though his doctor said that he should eat certain things?
What is his Blood Pressure ? What is his Cholesterol ?
thesis...antithesis. Good stuff, Doug!
Is it not possible that the state of the modern food industry(the antibiotic, growth hormone, GMO injection of our foods) is a byproduct of our fallen condition, is the state of the standard American diet not driven by greed and selfishness, is that not a viable rebuttal? I don't mean this as a copout but a legitimate question. I think there is validity in the argument of not threatening fellowship in the name of organic foods or your keto diet or something, but if you don't distress fellowship over these choices then is it even a problem? Furthermore, if I go over to a brothers house, and they are eating french fries and chicken tendies for dinner, but I have decided to forgo fried food and decide to instead not eat at all, and that distresses my brother and puts our fellowship in jeopardy, does part of the blame not fall on my brother? Is his insistence of my consuming this food not in and of itself a self-righteous and selfish pursuit on his part?
Typically love Doug Wilson’s teaching but this one was disappointing. You can’t say “by what standard” for what makes a food garbage and not use the same argument when talking about what a fanatic is.
Thanks for both your thoughts and the interaction. I'm not following your by what standard critique -- of course who a fanatic is depends on the standard. Our "food" standard is what kind of Christians you're supposed to share the Lord's Supper with. You may be interested in reading the whole argument if this felt truncated in Doug's book "Food Catholic".
@@CanonPress thanks for your reply. My critique there was based on Pastor Wilson's comments on what is considered garbage food or not(what is healthy or not I'm assuming that means). He said we can't take our standard from cult leaders from the past. I'm not sure where the Lord's supper comes into this discussion. What I was saying is he seemed to say we can't really say there's a food we should or shouldn't eat because God doesn't give us a standard for what is healthy or not. Does he give us a standard for what is "fanatical" or not? If a Christian is concerned about nutrition because he or she wants to be a good steward of their body, to call them fanatical without a biblical standard for what "fanatical" is seems unfair.
I totally agree !
By what standard? Common sense...
I don't think it's so cut and dry but who am I lol
It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him , it’s what comes out of it Mark 715
This must be VERYYYYYY OLDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Why does Isiah say about the end times that eating swine flesh is an abomination though?