Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 14:37:09 GMT
I cannot help but wonder if we will be going meatless in heaven. I am not a big vegetable eater. I am sure whatever way it turns out we will be very happy just to be in heaven with our Lord and content in eating what is there. |
|
jasperdale
Numbers' Donkey
not even slightly dead
Posts: 136 
Favourite Verse: John 4:14
|
Post by jasperdale on Mar 15, 2014 17:52:04 GMT
my wife and i just had lunch yesterday at an indian restaurant. veggies can be quite good without meat. i don't think a lot of people realize just how tasty fruit and vegetables can be. we are so programmed that you have to eat meat for protein. there is plenty of protein in veggies and nuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Mar 15, 2014 17:57:46 GMT
Our bodies are going to be different. We might not need food, but be able to eat it anyway if we want. I'm praying there will be coffee there. 
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Mar 15, 2014 18:48:32 GMT
I don't mean to take this in a different direction ... I ran across this video and it kind of fits in  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 19:23:02 GMT
Interesting video, Jim, thanks.
I don't think that we are going to be missing meat in heaven. There are so many vegetarian dishes that tastes absolutely delicious. Like Elizabeth said, our heavenly bodies are going to be way different anyway.
|
|
Ncic
Levitical Priest
Posts: 68 
|
Post by Ncic on Mar 15, 2014 20:21:34 GMT
I kinda think when we get to Heaven we wont crave the things we need and crave in down here in our fleshly bodies. I think all of our needs will be met and sorrows gone....basically, I think God knows what He's doing and when we are finally forever with Him, our appetites for all things may be different. I just mean, I don't think we will be left wanting, for anything, you know? Just my thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 21:23:26 GMT
Interesting video, Jim. Thanks for sharing. I agree, the best kind of food is the Word.
I also agree with NCIC's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 15, 2014 21:41:35 GMT
Rieom, I think about things like that too. Maybe we'll like vegetables? lolololol..I eat them every day only because I have to, but I'm never going, "Boy, I could really go for a large bowl of broccoli right now." I was kind of hoping for a Reese's Cup tree in my backyard.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 21:49:52 GMT
I hear ya, Shiloh. "Mmmm...! Munchin' on an éclair a broccoli." I'm guessing Morningstar won't go to the market for this one. Lol!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 23:11:38 GMT
A Reese Cup would be more my style Shiloh. Perhaps I could have a M&M tree and we could share.
|
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Mar 16, 2014 0:14:39 GMT
Hey...I like Veggies..as long as they have melted cheese & butter all over them..There definitely will be fruit though, and you can imagine the glorious taste of heavenly fruit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 1:08:49 GMT
Lol, MS, you crack me up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Mar 16, 2014 1:33:55 GMT
Whatever the food is - I suspect that either it, or we, will be very different.
I believe that Adam's sin affected the entire universe. I've long felt that the universe isn't expanding; it's unravelling - and I think we see signs of this same entropy throughout the universe (even down to our own sun, whose energy output may be fuelled (at least in part) by gravitational collapse).
With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if fruits and vegetables neither tasted as good, nor had the same nutritional content, as they did before the fall - and likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if we ourselves didn't taste things as accurately as we once did as a species.
...so whatever is on offer in heaven (and here on earth during the Milennium) will be very different to what we have now, though probably very much the same, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 2:02:58 GMT
I've been logged in but not on, guys.
Sounds great to me! Reese's Cup trees and M&M trees! YEAH, now we're talkin'!
So it is written, so it shall be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 2:07:15 GMT
I agree, Benjamin but I'm not sure I understand ya on the gravitational collapse thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Mar 16, 2014 2:12:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 2:31:10 GMT
So, what's your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 2:32:31 GMT
LOL, I'm so sorry, Benjamin....... but I couldn't resist that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 2:41:05 GMT
That's actually very interesting, Benjamin. Thanks for sharing.
The evolution theory is weird. I don't understand why we would have stopped evolving when we became bipedal and then remained like that ever since. We could have grown wings by now if that was the case, so I'm surprised that the evolution theory still flies (pun intended). There's also the fact that no other animal ever "evolved" so as to reach our level of intelligence like evolution theory claims we did.
The Word of God by just Itself is proof enough to me that He is real. No man could have ever come up with something as perfect as It. Add the faith that we live, and so many other things, even those that are visible to the eye, like all of creation, and there is no way that it was all just random.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 2:56:49 GMT
and if we supposedly evolved from apes, then why didn't apes evolve into humans? That evolution theory is the stupidest theory I have ever studied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 3:04:21 GMT
Keyword: theory.
Yet it is taught in schools like it's fact. Shiloh, you and I should have been the ones to participate in that "Creation vs. Evolution" debate a while back. We would have floored them, figuratively speaking. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 3:11:47 GMT
LOL, John. I love debates and I'm more than sure you do too! Wouldn't that be funny?
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Mar 16, 2014 3:14:35 GMT
and if we supposedly evolved from apes, then why didn't apes evolve into humans? That evolution theory is the stupidest theory I have ever studied. ...the argument is that they did (hence, us), and that modern apes and modern man share a common ancestor somewhere back down up the evolutionary tree. So:  You can see that the theorized evolution is progressive, with diverse genii branching away from the "main line" (leading up to man) at various points in the history of the species... hence the less evolved species (e.g. gibbon) progressing to the more highly evolved (humans). ...not agreeing with it, but that's the theory. |
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Mar 16, 2014 3:29:45 GMT
Shiloh Quote: rieom quote: What do you guys think?  ...That were going to have a "Willy Wonka Heaven?""...LOL.LOL.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 3:30:49 GMT
It still makes no sense to me. Wouldn't one animal evolve into the same thing as the rest of its species? Or at least something similar. Baboons' ancestors were apparently the laziest ones that didn't feel like evolving or branch off any further. Humans are far too unique in both appearance and intelligence to have evolved from any sort of animal. But I guess this world will believe in what they would prefer to believe, and that's why this theory is still around.
Shiloh, I don't like debating all that much, no. Lol, I have no charisma for big debates, and I get all nervous when talking in front of large crowds of people I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Mar 16, 2014 3:58:53 GMT
It still makes no sense to me. Wouldn't one animal evolve into the same thing as the rest of its species? Or at least something similar. Baboons' ancestors were apparently the laziest ones that didn't feel like evolving or branch off any further. Humans are far too unique in both appearance and intelligence to have evolved from any sort of animal. But I guess this world will believe in what they would prefer to believe, and that's why this theory is still around.
Shiloh, I don't like debating all that much, no. Lol, I have no charisma for big debates, and I get all nervous when talking in front of large crowds of people I don't know. ...because evolution occurs as a result of mutation - and you wouldn't expect a mutation to be species-wide at the point of origin. It's not that they're lazy, it's that they simply don't have the genetic information to produce mutations that further evolutionary progress. Of course, that in and of itself is something of a crux: nothing in all of evolutionary theory is able to demonstrate, or even suggest, that any animal at any time has produced characteristics that did not already exist (at least in potential) within the genome... which in itself suggests that whatever information is or is not within a species' gene pool, was there to begin with - and that evolution is an entropic regression as opposed to a progressive force; that is, that creatures become increasingly LESS complex, not more so. |
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Mar 16, 2014 3:59:16 GMT
Morningstar, It would be different. Not like a Willy Wonka factory...although those Reese's Cups and M&Ms would immediatley grow back.
Br.John, I agree with that all the way. The map still doesn't answer our doubt, nor challege our belief.... and WHO in the world came up with that idiotic mess of a chart anyway?! It still makes no sense to me. There's a lot of arguments any one of us could come up with against that.
|
|
Ncic
Levitical Priest
Posts: 68
|
Post by Ncic on Mar 16, 2014 6:13:43 GMT
I don't understand any of the evolution theory. Not just looking at apes, but bugs, spiders, fish, whales, starfish, sea horses, jelly fish, elephants, butterflies (of course I could go on and on)...I mean, are they saying all of these evolved over millions of years into all of these different types of animals/creatures including humans? And from what? What is the 'thing' all of creation evolved from anyway in their opinion? So dumb. But seriously, I am asking, because I don't understand any of it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 10:27:33 GMT
What do you guys think? ...That were going to have a "Willy Wonka Heaven?""...LOL.LOL.... Love your message MS, made me laugh. Perhaps we are not thinking big enough Shiloh... perhaps we need a bunch more trees. |
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Mar 16, 2014 11:11:31 GMT
I don't understand any of the evolution theory. Not just looking at apes, but bugs, spiders, fish, whales, starfish, sea horses, jelly fish, elephants, butterflies (of course I could go on and on)...I mean, are they saying all of these evolved over millions of years into all of these different types of animals/creatures including humans? And from what? What is the 'thing' all of creation evolved from anyway in their opinion? So dumb. But seriously, I am asking, because I don't understand any of it. The "thing" is hypothetical. There is no current living creature that anyone can point to and say "this is what all life came from". To give you an idea, this is what a really basic evolutionary tree (phylogenetic tree) looks like:  To break it down a little - you can see the various "kinds" (to use a Creationist word) toward the top - so, for example, anthropods are broken down into several kinds. These kinds are grouped not necessarily according to known common ancestry (although that's something evolutionists do strive toward doing - and have certainly focused on doing with the human evolutionary chain), but according to perceived common traits. So, again, if we take the anthropods, the common inherited trait is an external skeleton, which was preceded by protosomes, which was preceded by a nervous and vascular system. The branch taking place here exists because while reptiles and mammals have a vascular system, they have deuterosomes (this, rather grossly, means that we have an "input" and an "output" hole, stated simply, whereas arthropods do not - though the term itself is more in regards to in-utero development) - and from that point onward, the evolutionary tree breaks down into specific groups sorted by who has what characteristics, and who doesn't. So... that probably doesn't help answer the question very much - but the evolutionary response would be that the primary ancestor would be the simplest possible single-cell life form, from which all life (both plant and animal) derive. |
|
...That were going to have a "Willy Wonka Heaven?""...LOL.LOL....