# Noahic covenant and blood sausage



## Ben Zartman (Aug 18, 2019)

Recently I had an "all that is set before you eat" moment when an abominable sort of blood sausage locally known as "morcilla" was set before me. Happily, the plate was heaped with sufficient other foods that there was no expectation of me finishing all of it, and the mostly uneaten morcilla was hidden among the other debris.
Later, mentioning it to someone, she asked in shock--"you mean to say that _Christians _eat blood sausage?" It took a minute, but then I recalled that just before making a covenant with Noah and all the creatures that came out of the ark, that He would never flood the whole earth again, God prohibited eating the blood with the flesh.
The question is: is the blood prohibition still in force? Were these terms spoken before He said "And I, behold, I establish my covenant...." part of that covenant? Obviously the Noahic covenant is still going--I keep seeing rainbows all over the place, reminding me of the promise, but is it lawful, especially in light of Paul's discourse on meats (all that is sold in the shambles...) to eat blood sausage? I would dearly love an excuse to NOT eat it when it's set before me, because it looks bad and tastes worse, but I would not for the world lay a prohibition on a brother's conscience that God has not first made.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 18, 2019)

NO.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 18, 2019)

No. Ceremonial aspect. Passed away.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> No. Ceremonial aspect. Passed away.


But the Noahic had no ceremonies. However, I deduce that you and Perg agree that the preamble to the Noahic was not part of that covenant at all.


----------



## Kinghezy (Aug 18, 2019)

If you read some commentators on this passage (e.g. Matthew Henry, Calvin) it can be helpful. Their take is the prohibition is on eating "living flesh" (aka ripping off meat and eating without any cooking). The "with blood" is a symbol of this and part of pagan sacrifices, and is the ceremonial aspect.

Matthew Henry


> . Man must not prejudice his own life by eating that food which is unwholesome and prejudicial to his health (v.4): "Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof(that is, raw flesh), shall you not eat, as the beasts of prey do." It was necessary to add this limitation to the grant of liberty to eat flesh, lest, instead of nourishing their bodies by it, they should destroy them. God would hereby show, (1.) That though they were lords of the creatures, yet they were subjects to the Creator, and under the restraints of his law. (2.) That they must not be greedy and hasty in taking their food, but stay the preparing of it; not like Saul's soldiers (1 Sam. xiv. 32), nor riotous eaters of flesh, Prov. xxiii. 20. (3.) That they must not be barbarous and cruel to the inferior creatures. They must be lords, but not tyrants; they might kill them for their profit, but not torment them for their pleasure, nor tear away the member of a creature while it was yet alive, and eat that. (4.) That during the continuance of the law of sacrifices, in which the blood made atonement for the soul (Lev. xvii. 11), signifying that the life of the sacrifice was accepted for the life of the sinner, blood must not be looked upon as a common thing, but must be poured out before the Lord (2 Sam. xxiii. 16), either upon his altar or upon his earth. But, now that the great and true sacrifice has been offered, the obligation of the law ceases with the reason of it.



Calvin


> But flesh with the life thereof , which is the blood thereof Some thus explain this passages ‘Ye may not eat a member cut off from a living animal,’ which is too trifling. However, since there is no copulative conjunction between the two words, blood and life , I do not doubt that Moses, speaking of the life, added the word blood exegetically, as if he would say, that flesh is in some sense devoured with its life, when it is eaten imbued with its own blood. Wherefore, the life and the blood are not put for different things, but for the same; not because blood is in itself the life, but inasmuch as the vital spirits chiefly reside in the blood, it is, as far as our feeling is concerned, a token which represents life. And this is expressly declared, in order that men may have the greater horror of eating blood For if it be a savage and barbarous thing to devour lives, or to swallow down living flesh, men betray their brutality by eating blood. Moreover, the tendency of this prohibition is by no means obscure, namely, that God intends to accustom men to gentleness, by abstinence from the blood of animals; but, if they should become unrestrained, and daring in eating wild animals they would at length not be sparing of even human blood. Yet we must remember, that this restriction was part of the old law. Wherefore, what Tertullian relates, that in his time it was unlawful among Christians to taste the blood of cattle, savours of superstition. For the apostles, in commanding the Gentiles to observe this rite, for a short time, did not intend to inject a scruple into their consciences, but only to prevent the liberty which was otherwise sacred, from proving an occasion of offense to the ignorant and the weak.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 18, 2019)

"Everything is indeed clean..." Romans 14.
“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink..." -- Col. 2.

There are 2 kinds of prohibitions in the New Testament. First, there are cultural prohibitions, and second there are universal prohibitions.

A universal prohibition is always the same everywhere - "Don't worship other gods."

A cultural prohibition takes into account some sort of context that makes an action right or wrong.

For instance, speeding limits are based on the universal rule of loving your neighbor by not potentially running over him due to unsafe driving, but the particular speed may be subject to local contexts.

In Acts 15 we have a letter sent out to the Gentiles stating that they need not become Jews to be Christians, but just knock off those particularly Gentile sins that were common among them such as fornication, and also to be culturally sensitive (be aware of what you eat).

It is the equivalent of a missions pastor reminding Christians that his Muslim neighbors, too, can become brothers in Christ. Just watch it with the immodest clothing and the bacon sandwiches around them.

It is the mark of the old way of thinking to keep saying, "“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” If a tribe bleeds their cattle for nourishment to sustain their health or even save their lives, I will not put them under bondage, but would rather see them in good health. 

Eating brains causes more disease than blood and God never put a prohibition upon it, so we cannot argue that God forbade it for health reasons alone. God forbade it, I believe because blood was tied into the sacrificial system. The sacrifices now being obsolete, so, too, are the prohibitions against eating blood.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 18, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> But the Noahic had no ceremonies.



(c)eremonies; or cememonial type things. a cuz to ceremonies. If that helps. Maybe I am redefining.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 18, 2019)

Thanks for the replies, and especially for the quotes from Henry and Calvin. Having determined that blood sausage is indeed lawful (I'll have to find some other excuse not to eat it....), I'm still curious whether it was a prohibition of the Noahic covenant, or if the covenant is only the promise not to flood the earth again.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## StephenMartyr (Aug 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> "Everything is indeed clean..." Romans 14.
> 
> 
> A cultural prohibition takes into account some sort of context that makes an action right or wrong.



No one seemed to bring up this verse:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 

If blood sausage is cooked, I don't see a reason to abstain. If sausage is dripping with blood then maybe not good to eat it. Why would that above verse written to Gentiles apply to them and not to us?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 18, 2019)

StephenMartyr said:


> No one seemed to bring up this verse:
> 
> Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
> 
> If blood sausage is cooked, I don't see a reason to abstain. If sausage is dripping with blood then maybe not good to eat it. Why would that above verse written to Gentiles apply to them and not to us?


Because of the context those Gentiles were in. That's the reference Perg had in mind. It would have been grossly uncharitable to thumb their noses at long-held Jewish dietary customs that were only newly abrogated, and which the Jewish Christians there were still observing both from long habit and in order to live in their community.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 18, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> Because of the context those Gentiles were in. That's the reference Perg had in mind. It would have been grossly uncharitable to thumb their noses at long-held Jewish dietary customs that were only newly abrogated, and which the Jewish Christians there were still observing both from long habit and in order to live in their community.



This seems to me to be completely unconvincing. Wasn’t circumcision also a long held Jewish custom that had just recently be abrogated, and yet we get Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35 (Aug 18, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> If you read some commentators on this passage (e.g. Matthew Henry, Calvin) it can be helpful. Their take is the prohibition is on eating "living flesh" (aka ripping off meat and eating without any cooking). The "with blood" is a symbol of this and part of pagan sacrifices, and is the ceremonial aspect.
> 
> Matthew Henry
> 
> Calvin


That was my take as well, and it seems to make good moral sense.

Some cultures might have the odd culinary practice in which they, say, carve slices off a living donkey and eat them (Mongolia, I think), or eat the brains out of a live monkey, etc (China, and a few others).

This strikes me as not only disgusting, but disrespectful of the life God has put into the creature. I have no problem at all seeing a prohibition against such gustatory adventures as ongoing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 18, 2019)

My take: https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2018/06/05/can-a-christian-eat-black-pudding/

Includes a great recipe which my wife and I enjoy on Saturday mornings.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 18, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> My take: https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2018/06/05/can-a-christian-eat-black-pudding/
> 
> Includes a great recipe which my wife and I enjoy on Saturday mornings.



Well cooked steaks is very wrong so I'll have to agree with you.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Aug 18, 2019)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Wasn’t circumcision also a long held Jewish custom that had just recently be abrogated, and yet we get Paul’s letter to the Galatians.



I thought the context of Galatians is that people are returning to Judaism after becoming Christians, and Paul is trying to say they are going backwards. I think that is a different scenario than Paul having Timothy circumcised to evangelise to the Jews or not eating meat sacrificed to idols because of someone's conscience.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 18, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I thought the context of Galatians is that people are returning to Judaism after becoming Christians, and Paul is trying to say they are going backwards. I think that is a different scenario than Paul having Timothy circumcised to evangelise to the Jews or not eating meat sacrificed to idols because of someone's conscience.



I think you are thinking of Hebrews. The Galatians were gentiles whom the Judaizers we’re trying to convince that they needed to be circumcised and follow the OT ceremonial law in order to be saved.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2019)

Even if it's biblically OK, why would you _want_ to eat it? Sounds disgusting.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 19, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Even if it's biblically OK, why would you _want_ to eat it? Sounds disgusting.



Fried black pudding with waffles is fantastic. You get the savoury from the black pudding combined with the sweet from the waffle. You get the crispy from the BP being fried combined with the softness of the waffle. Everything just comes together. 

There's also a Filipino pork blood stew called Dinuguan that I'm also quite fond of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 19, 2019)

StephenMartyr said:


> No one seemed to bring up this verse:
> 
> Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
> 
> If blood sausage is cooked, I don't see a reason to abstain. If sausage is dripping with blood then maybe not good to eat it. Why would that above verse written to Gentiles apply to them and not to us?


I covered Acts 15 in my explanation above about universal prohibitions and cultural prohibitions.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 19, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Even if it's biblically OK, why would you _want_ to eat it? Sounds disgusting.


Tribal peoples in Africa often drain blood from their cows and mix with milk to sustain them. I think the Masai (sp?) are one such group that still does this. Horse soldiers on the steppes in ancient days did the same when they ran out of food.


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 19, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Even if it's biblically OK, why would you _want_ to eat it? Sounds disgusting.


Blood is delicious. One of my favourite Korean foods is soup made from congealed blood. I'll grant that it looks revolting.

There's a lovely type of sausagey thing here made of intestines stuffed with noodles and blood.

German Blutwurst is also quite a treat.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Aug 19, 2019)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think you are thinking of Hebrews. The Galatians were gentiles whom the Judaizers we’re trying to convince that they needed to be circumcised and follow the OT ceremonial law in order to be saved.




It was the epistle I had meant. When I said "returning" and "backwards", I meant in the sense that that Paul is speaking here: Galatians 4:7-9 - So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears (Aug 19, 2019)

In Scotland, black pudding is a very common thing to have with a fry up and is very very delicious. For this reason I have wondered this before myself.

When I looked it up I found this article by Sinclair Ferguson, who would naturally be well-equipped to answer, being from Scotland himself.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 19, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> My take: https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2018/06/05/can-a-christian-eat-black-pudding/
> 
> Includes a great recipe which my wife and I enjoy on Saturday mornings.


That picture is pretty much of the Morcilla I was served. To each his own, I guess--the very sight of it was off-putting enough, and the taste was worse. While I'm glad such sources of nutrition don't go to waste, I'm pretty glad I have other options.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 19, 2019)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This seems to me to be completely unconvincing. Wasn’t circumcision also a long held Jewish custom that had just recently be abrogated, and yet we get Paul’s letter to the Galatians.


I think your'e missing the cultural context. Circumcision and dietary laws were abrogated as conditions of remaining in covenant, because a New Covenant was now in force. But these things were also long-held cultural sensibilities, in which it was prudent for Christians to give up liberties in order to not be offensive to the unsaved Jews they were preaching the Gospel to. While I find cultural sensibilities to be foolish in themselves, I see how wantonly breaking them because we have liberty in Christ can be stumbling block to the unconverted. Wasn't it Hudson Tailor who dressed like the Chinese in order to gain easier access to them? Did not Paul keep Jewish feasts and take vows so that the Jews wouldn't be offended? He knew he had liberty to abandon all trappings of Judaism, but became all things to all men in order to win some. Sure, he pushed back hard when people would make these old covenant trappings necessary for salvation, but he also did not gratuitously trample cultural hangups underfoot.


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Aug 19, 2019)

I had lots of questions about this last year: May we eat blood?

Reverend Buchanan's post there (#24) has kept me from returning to eating blood.

One paragraph from that post:



> After all has been said, I must be counted among them who say that, Gen.9 in conjunction with Act.15 seem to me plain enough: setting aside all stringent manners prescribed by Moses (including additional kosher details), men should avoid (gratuitous) consumption of animal blood. Much like Sabbath observance, whether there was or wasn't some discernible _natural _benefit (and there may be, but so what?) we should note and obey such a clear command of Scripture.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 19, 2019)

There is a general equity in the law, however. If you find the notion of eating blood sausage disgusting don't eat it. Disgust is a very helpful emotion: there is nothing inherently irrational in it. The command against eating it in Acts 15 did stick out to me when reading through Acts recently. What is lost if we abstain from eating it? It's quite interesting how much writing has been produced defending the right to eat blood. Perhaps because of that niggling voice of conscience suggesting we shouldn't? What about drinking blood? Any of the blood eaters imbibe a nice glass of blood on a regular basis?

The notion of eating most so-called seafood is nauseating to me. Shrimp, mussels, crab, lobster: these are the insects of the sea. Fins and scales seems a good guide in this area.

The diet of Israel was a healthy one. You wouldn't lose anything by sticking to it. Just don't make it a matter of dogma. I don't consciously follow it. I was brought up on a Western diet and was never fond of seafood, even regular fish until I was a teenager. I have always been a fan of pork though 

Much of the diet of the East and Third World is frankly repulsive not to mention undignified for man to partake in. I think there is much to commend abstaining from a lot of what is called food in the world- morally and health-wise.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 19, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> There is a general equity in the law, however. If you find the notion of eating blood sausage disgusting don't eat it. Disgust is a very helpful emotion: there is nothing inherently irrational in it. The command against eating it in Acts 15 did stick out to me when reading through Acts recently. What is lost if we abstain from eating it? It's quite interesting how much writing has been produced defending the right to eat blood. Perhaps because of that niggling voice of conscience suggesting we shouldn't? What about drinking blood? Any of the blood eaters imbibe a nice glass of blood on a regular basis?
> 
> The notion of eating most so-called seafood is nauseating to me. Shrimp, mussels, crab, lobster: these are the insects of the sea. Fins and scales seems a good guide in this area.
> 
> ...



People often eat what they must. I'd hate to limit their options for nourishment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 19, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> People often eat what they must. I'd hate to limit their options for nourishment.



Agreed.


----------



## JennyGeddes (Aug 19, 2019)

Kenneth Gentry has a blog post on this and I found it very helpful:
https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/07/09/prohibiting-blood-eating/

But he also agrees it prevents animal cruelty.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 19, 2019)

Theological debate aside, honestly I think we could just paraphrase 1 Corinthians 11:14 on this one:

“Does not even nature itself teach us that blood sausage is disgusting?”

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 2


----------



## StephenMartyr (Aug 19, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Blood is delicious. One of my favourite Korean foods is soup made from congealed blood. I'll grant that it looks revolting.
> 
> There's a lovely type of sausagey thing here made of intestines stuffed with noodles and blood.
> 
> German Blutwurst is also quite a treat.



I want to show you a picture of what some of_ us_ eat. It looks weird and that orange liquid is from oranges. It's a fruit.


----------



## Susan777 (Aug 19, 2019)

Much of the diet of the East and Third World is frankly repulsive not to mention undignified for man to partake in.........


alexandermsmith said:


> Disgust is a very helpful emotion[/QUOTE


How do you feel about haggis? You probably know that authentic haggis cannot be imported into the USA because the FDA has ruled it “not fit for human consumption “. What one man finds repulsive another man finds delightsome. Personally I’d leave the blood pudding and haggis and go for those ocean insects called lobster, with drawn butter of course.


----------



## Susan777 (Aug 19, 2019)

StephenMartyr said:


> I want to show you a picture of what some of_ us_ eat. It looks weird and that orange liquid is from oranges. It's a fruit.


Full English Breakfast?


----------



## StephenMartyr (Aug 19, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> Full English Breakfast?



Yep! Pancakes and everything


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 19, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> How do you feel about haggis? You probably know that authentic haggis cannot be imported into the USA because the FDA has ruled it “not fit for human consumption “. What one man finds repulsive another man finds delightsome. Personally I’d leave the blood pudding and haggis and go for those ocean insects called lobster, with drawn butter of course.



I love haggis and always have, even though I'm not remotely Scottish. When I was in Brazil in March, I finally got to try the Brazilian version: Buchada de bode. Delicious.

At the end of the day, it mostly just boils down to some people being more open to trying new things. There's not too much I won't try. Most Asian desserts repulse me, though. I can't handle the texture.

I wrote something about my culinary adventures in the Philippines recently.


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 19, 2019)

StephenMartyr said:


> I want to show you a picture of what some of_ us_ eat. It looks weird and that orange liquid is from oranges. It's a fruit.


Pancakes with maple syrup are still my favourite thing. Nothing beats a good Canadian breakfast.

I don't have many inhibitions about food. I love seafood even though I'm from Ontario (maybe it's my Nova Scotian heritage). In Korea I have eaten a lot of seaweed, clams, shrimp, squid, octopus...

One Korean delicacy is raw fish. It's exremely good. You can also eat octopus so fresh it's still moving. (Just be sure to chew well or it'll get stuck in your throat.)

I don't care for bugs. If you like bugs (snails, silk worm pupae, etc.), that's fine, but the texture puts me off. I did once try a cracker made of mealworms, though, and I was impressed at how delicious it was.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 19, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Most Asian desserts repulse me, though. I can't handle the texture.


Have you ever tried Korean rice cake (떡)? It comes in countless varieties. In my opinion it's wonderful, but apparently not many Westerners like the chewiness.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 19, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> There is a general equity in the law, however. If you find the notion of eating blood sausage disgusting don't eat it. Disgust is a very helpful emotion: there is nothing inherently irrational in it. The command against eating it in Acts 15 did stick out to me when reading through Acts recently. What is lost if we abstain from eating it? It's quite interesting how much writing has been produced defending the right to eat blood. Perhaps because of that niggling voice of conscience suggesting we shouldn't? What about drinking blood? Any of the blood eaters imbibe a nice glass of blood on a regular basis?
> 
> The notion of eating most so-called seafood is nauseating to me. Shrimp, mussels, crab, lobster: these are the insects of the sea. Fins and scales seems a good guide in this area.
> 
> ...


_De gustibus non est disputandum._


----------



## Susan777 (Aug 19, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> I love haggis and always have, even though I'm not remotely Scottish. When I was in Brazil in March, I finally got to try the Brazilian version: Buchada de bode. Delicious.
> 
> At the end of the day, it mostly just boils down to some people being more open to trying new things. There's not too much I won't try. Most Asian desserts repulse me, though. I can't handle the texture.
> 
> I wrote something about my culinary adventures in the Philippines recently.


Gee, you _look_ like a normal enough guy, but pig face and chicken intestines? Just joking. I enjoyed reading your culinary adventures blog entry. And it really is wonderful that they eat all but the feathers.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 19, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Have you ever tried Korean rice cake (떡)? It comes in countless varieties. In my opinion it's wonderful, but apparently not many Westerners like the chewiness.



I may have -- it sounds familiar. I was thinking more of slimy desserts like the Filipino halo halo. I can handle chewy, but slimy just gets my gag reflex going.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 20, 2019)

With thanks to those who not only responded to the questions, but who entertained us with an eye-opening discussion of various foods (truly, while in all my travels I've always found some sort of local food that I could eat, I've concluded that most of what the world eats is nauseating. But I've always been closed-minded), I'd like to redirect to the non-food portion of my question: is the Noahic Covenant limited to not flooding the whole earth again? Or do the preceding terms continue in perpetuity? Must I kill every animal that spills human blood? I certainly see the usefulness and equity of the pre-Noahic terms, but are they properly part of that Covenant?
Thanks.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 20, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> _De gustibus non est disputandum._



I disagree in regards to food. The notion that it comes down to being "more open to try new things" is modern nonsense. Some things are just obviously not to be eaten by civilised people.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 20, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Some things are just obviously not to be eaten by civilised people.



Like pavlova. Whoever thought that up? Blech.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 20, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Like pavlova. Whoever thought that up? Blech.



What's wrong with pavlova?


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 20, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I disagree in regards to food. The notion that it comes down to being "more open to try new things" is modern nonsense. Some things are just obviously not to be eaten by civilised people.


Perhaps I'm not civilized, then!


----------



## Andrew35 (Aug 20, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Perhaps I'm not civilized, then!


That likely depends on the civilization.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Aug 20, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I disagree in regards to food. The notion that it comes down to being "more open to try new things" is modern nonsense. Some things are just obviously not to be eaten by civilised people.


Completely agree. I can't imagine why anyone would eat such foods like salad. Raw food? What kind of barbarians are we? Cantonese food is where it's at.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## bookslover (Aug 20, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Fried black pudding with waffles is fantastic. You get the savoury from the black pudding combined with the sweet from the waffle. You get the crispy from the BP being fried combined with the softness of the waffle. Everything just comes together.
> 
> There's also a Filipino pork blood stew called Dinuguan that I'm also quite fond of.



Now, you're combining blood sausage with one of the Three Evil Foods - waffles. (The other two Evil Foods are pancakes and French toast.)


----------



## bookslover (Aug 20, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Tribal peoples in Africa often drain blood from their cows and mix with milk to sustain them. I think the Masai (sp?) are one such group that still does this. Horse soldiers on the steppes in ancient days did the same when they ran out of food.



Reason #56,854,998 not to set foot in Africa for any reason whatsoever.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Aug 20, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Like pavlova. Whoever thought that up? Blech.


I’ve never heard of it so I googled it and it looks amazingly good. On the other hand our equivalent to BP seems to be scrapple, also savory, fried, and served with pancakes and syrup. There’s even a national scrapple day.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 21, 2019)

Ben Zartman said:


> The question is: is the blood prohibition still in force? Were these terms spoken before He said "And I, behold, I establish my covenant...." part of that covenant? Obviously the Noahic covenant is still going--I keep seeing rainbows all over the place, reminding me of the promise, but is it lawful, especially in light of Paul's discourse on meats (all that is sold in the shambles...) to eat blood sausage? I would dearly love an excuse to NOT eat it when it's set before me, because it looks bad and tastes worse, but I would not for the world lay a prohibition on a brother's conscience that God has not first made.


Mark 7:19 ... last part: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 28, 2019)

Brian Withnell said:


> Mark 7:19 ... last part: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"



Aye, He declared all _foods_ clean. Blood ain't no food.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 28, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Aye, He declared all _foods_ clean. Blood ain't no food.



By what standard?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Like pavlova


Careful. There are New Zealanders on the Board 


alexandermsmith said:


> What's wrong with pavlova?


It is one of the greatest New Zealand inventions. And very delicious  Our contention is that Australians stole our recipe


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 28, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is one of the greatest New Zealand inventions. And very delicious  Our contention is that Australians stole our recipe



As far as I'm concerned, you Kiwis can have it mate. Nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Nothing to be proud of


As you said in Post 54 "by what standard"?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm not civilized, then!


I'll second that. Can someone pass the motion?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 28, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> As you said in Post 54 "by what standard"?



Touché. Nicely played, brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 29, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Aye, He declared all _foods_ clean. Blood ain't no food.


Can you prove that? It certainly at the time was considered a food by the culture (Roman civilization).


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Withnell said:


> Can you prove that? It certainly at the time was considered a food by the culture (Roman civilization).



There was no Roman civilization when all of mankind was forbidden to eat blood. I don't think Rome had the authority to make not-food be food by cultural practice.

There are people who eat shards of glass, metal, and gravel. Doesn't make these things food.

Yes, I've read the whole thread. I am unpursuaded by the arguments counter to Genesis 9 and Acts 15.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 29, 2019)

Granted that you are unpersuaded ... I am unpersuaded that it isn't.


----------



## Claudiu (Aug 29, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Yes, I've read the whole thread. I am unpursuaded by the arguments counter to Genesis 9 and Acts 15.



Ditto, brother. I do not see the Gen. 9 command against consuming blood abrogated or changed. Rather, it appears maintained in Acts 15.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------

