Actscelerate.com

Old Time Country Preacher

The Daniel Diet Begins Soon

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 15570 **1/2/16 9:54 pm**

What is being called a Daniel Fast will begin in many churches in just a few days. Nothing wrong with folk giving up certain stuff to seek God, nothing at all. But please, lets be honest with the text. Lets be solid excellent an ethical exegetes. What Daniel done in Daniel 1 was not a fast. It was not called a fast. Daniel didn't call it a fast. It was a diet.

Who will rise to the occasion an write a book called "The Daniel Diet?"

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/2/16 10:04 pm**

Ole Timer, I considered it. But I knew it would be in the wrong spirit if I did it. There have been quite a few things about it that were upsetting to me, but so far I don't believe the Lord would have me write a book about it.
(I'm open, though.)

Quiet Wyatt

Re: The Daniel Diet Begins Soon

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **1/2/16 10:49 pm**

bigdubbz

You are incorrect:

Friendly Face Posts: 445 **1/3/16 10:22 am**

Hopefully your minds aren't made up so as to ignore the facts but this is the scripture where the "Daniel Fast" comes from

Daniel 10:1-3 - In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war.[a] The understanding of the message came to him in a vision.

2 At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. 3 I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.

This was not a diet, but a specified time period of fasting to seek God in connection to a dream...perfectly Biblical...

Quiet Wyatt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **1/3/16 10:35 am**

Still not a fast. Daniel was apparently a spiritual dieter though, which again, there's nothing wrong with that, but it simply is not what the Bible refers to as fasting.

bonnie knox

Re: You are incorrect:

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 12:19 pm**

Hopefully you are not so arrogant as to think that Ole Timer, Quiet Wyatt, and I aren't familiar with the smorgasbord of scripture this so called "Daniel Fast" comes from.
For the three weeks mentioned in Daniel 10, Daniel may have been eating unleavened bread. I believe Mark Ledbetter pointed out that Daniel possibly extended the feast of unleavened bread which occurs in "the first month." Notice that Daniel refers to the first month in verse 4: And in the four and twentieth day of the first month...

(The command for the feast of unleavened bread comes from Exodus 12. Exodus 12: 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

20 Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.)

Now, the folks who have instituted this "Daniel Fast" wanted to draw from the 3 weeks mentioned in Daniel 10, BUT they also wanted to draw from chapter 1 where Daniel and his cohorts ate pulse (so that vegetables can be added to this "fast" and it's not just flat bread and water.) Never mind that this was, what, over 65 years prior to the incident in chapter 10. Of course, that's not enough. Since Daniel specifically mentions not anointing himself, proponents point to the New Testament verse which says to anoint one's face during fasting so as to appear not to fast. In other words, scriptures are chosen at random to fit whatever it is that the proponents of the Daniel Fast want. I find it interesting that rather than choosing an Esther fast or a Jehoshaphat fast, a 21 day fast is chosen. It's just arbitrary, I suppose, yet some pastors are insisting that their congregations do it that way. I'm pretty sure our pastor thought that anyone who objected to this smorgasbord approach to scripture was objecting to fasting. Sad, really.
In fact he sounded rather angry from the pulpit when he said someone had told him his doctor advised against it. The pastor said something to the effect of would you be answering to what your doctor said or to what God commanded when it comes to judgment day. Of course, I was saying to myself, "So in other words, the words of the person who came up with the 'Daniel Fast' are on par with the commandments of God." ~shaking my head~ And I do know a man in our church who is diabetic who was advised by his doctor not to do the Daniel Fast.

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 12:41 pm**

Besides, it has become a fad for weight loss and a chance to make money selling books and study guides.
You know when there are web pages devoted to RECIPES for a fast, something is off.
Nowhere in scripture is there mention of fasting for weight loss, yet that has been a big part of this so called "Daniel Fast."

Eddie Robbins

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16509 **1/3/16 1:20 pm**

That's right, Bonnie.

Old Time Country Preacher

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 15570 **1/3/16 1:36 pm**

Old Time Country Preacher

Re: You are incorrect:

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 15570 **1/3/16 1:58 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 6:50 pm**

My criticisms come from a personal place; they are not theoretical. There are some burdens that began in my marriage that I connect to the Daniel Fast when our church began it six or so years ago. I won't go into that.
Then there are the things that I can share. When our church began this, I came in one Sunday and found a list of foods on my bulletin. We were told, "These are the foods you may eat the next 3 weeks."
"Well what about green beans?" I asked. I was quite curious as to why they weren't listed amongst the veggies.
"You're being too legalistic," was the reply given to me by the assistant pastor. (Me? I wasn't the one who came up with the list of foods to eat in the first place.)
One lady said she felt led to do a 3 day complete fast instead. She could not get affirmation from the pastor that that was "allowed."
I felt it was being presented in a cult-like way. You may eat this if you are a member of our group.
When I met the pastor's wife in the grocery store, it seemed like she had a loyalty check sheet. She was surprised to find out my husband was complying with the "fast." I don't know if she was surprised that I was not, but she definitely was critical of the whole wheat spaghetti I had chosen for my husband (and yes, this "fast" increases my meal planning task considerably which is an odd thing for a "fast" to do if you think about it) because it was a pasta even though I had made sure it was 100% whole grain (with NO leavening or sweeteners or artificial ingredients.
I was dismayed that the pastor spent so much time touting the health benefits of fasting, given that the Bible doesn't connect the two, esp. when he was giving out questionable info. When he mentioned the effort the body takes to digest food and tied that to not swimming for 30 min. or an hour after a meal, I mentioned that the myth that one may not swim after eating was just that--a myth. Boy, did he get mad! "That's why so many people have gotten cramps and drowned!" he said. I happened to hear Chuck Swindoll the next day talking about a contentious woman, so I skipped challenging the pastor on who those people were who drowned. He also quoted Derek Prince's advice to follow a fast with lettuce to scrub out one's intestine. I'm not taking nutritional advice from Derek Prince, sorry.
Criticizing someone (in general, not the specific person by name, though it was a specific person's situation) from the pulpit for following his doctor's advice seemed beyond the pale.
Any discussion of the way this is done at our church, seems to be taken as a criticism of fasting in general. Our motives are that we just don't want to deny our flesh, we are told.
I know some of you on the forum might be surprised if I said I was an empathetic sort of person, but I can tell you it upset me to see my husband with diarrhea so bad that one year he felt he should not complete the "fast." And yes, I did feel sorry for him last year during the "fast" when I drove three hours to pick him up from the emergency room where he had been sent after a wreck. He had been cold the entire afternoon and evening, so we took him through the drive-thru and he broke the fast with some coffee and a fast food sandwich. (Now, me, I'm still continuing my life long "fast" of coffee, lol.)
Who knows, maybe I would have criticized the woman with the alabaster box, or maybe I would have just sounded off on the contemporary forum about why I thought Judas' objection had to do with his love of money.

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 6:59 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 7:06 pm**

Are you referring to the passage in Daniel 10? And would you also call what happened in Daniel 1 a fast? I know at our church, the situation described in chapter 1 is getting classified as "fasting."
Is your understanding of chapter 10 that Daniel did not eat any bread at all or that he only ate what would not be considered pleasant bread?
I had often read that to mean that he ate no bread at all, given that any bread would be pleasant to a hungry person, but other translations made me question that assumption.
Certainly it was a time of mourning and self affliction. I can't see him posting on Pinterest the dairy free, sugar free smoothie he had concocted.

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 7:20 pm**

I also have a sincere question about who calls whom to fast and who may specify for how long. (And I know I'm outnumbered on this board by guys who are pastors, many of whom see that as an authoritarian position.)
I really don't see a clear directive in the NT for that.

Quiet Wyatt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **1/3/16 7:41 pm**

I would sincerely like to see a list of the 'majority' of commentators and scholars who would say what Daniel did in chs. 1 and 10 was a fast.

Quiet Wyatt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **1/3/16 10:55 pm**

Quiet Wyatt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **1/3/16 11:05 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **1/3/16 11:14 pm**

I never eat lettuce on an empty stomach without some sort of bread with it, and it would certainly not be what I want when coming off a fast. I don't know what all Derek Prince says about fasting, but just from recommending lettuce to scour out one's intestines like a rag after fasting indicated to me that he is not someone I'd want to get nutritional advice from.

Carolyn Smith

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5923 **1/4/16 3:17 am**

Bonnie, I don't think I've told you enough how much your posts make me chuckle. I would have loved to hear your exchange with the pastor. LOL It's sad when we have a serious concern and don't feel we can sit and discuss it rationally with the pastor, though. It doesn't sound as though it has been handled very well at your church.

I'm glad our pastor has not endorsed the Daniel fast. There's no way I could do one as most vegetables upset my stomach badly.

Eating lettuce at the end of a fast does seem a bit...harsh. Seems like fruit or something light might be better.

Once again we seem to have lost the spirit of why we are called to fast and are majoring in minors. There are legitimate ways and reasons to fast. Why must we make simple things difficult?
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name

Quiet Wyatt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **1/4/16 7:39 am**

Tom,

Thanks. You've definitely given me something to think about. I genuinely appreciate that.

QW