Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #631 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-02-2004, 07:44 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII



usual suspect wrote:

Rat wrote:


snip

What I AM saying -- which was
absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
time.


What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called
"Reformers," at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's
doctrines. However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not
Protestant -- this is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman
Catholics.


Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.


Bullshit.


I doubt you
would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.


Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and protestantism
in general. See for yourself:


Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests,


No, Humpty Dumpty -- when discussing the history of the 16th and
17th centuries, it is not. Protestant is a specific historical
term in that context, and if you are not willing to accept the
language of reputable scholars in the field, then you might as
well call Henry a space alien or an Antedeluvian, or whatever other
strange term you invent, but your term will have no historical
meaning anyone familiar with the period would recognize.

Get back to me when you have read a book or two.

snip

The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and
Luther had historical precedents.


It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.


Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
cannot name ONE.


Everyone at the
time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.


No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it. The
differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol


Yes, Nitwit -- Henry disagreed with the Protestants on every one of
those issues, coming down firmly on the Roman side of the controversy,
except for the issue of the Pope's authority in England, where again,
as I said, his dissent was not based on Protestant grounds, but on much
earlier Constantinian grounds. Henry supported transubstantiation. He
forbade priests to marry (leading Cranmer to have to hide his wife ),
and he did not believe in sufficiency of Scripture. He was not Protestant.

snip


Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.


Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.


Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?


NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.


But you are incorrect to do so. You are inventing a new meaning for
Protestant which is not historically valid for the period.

snip


Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
in terms of doctrine.


I'd disagree.


I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.


*LOL* That rich, coming from someone who doesn't even know what
Protestant means.

snip


Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination,


Absolutely not.


Absolutely, yes.


Absolutely not.

snip

Rat


  #632 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-02-2004, 10:23 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII

degeneRat wrote:

snip

What I AM saying -- which was
absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
time.



What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called
"Reformers," at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's
doctrines. However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not
Protestant -- this is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman
Catholics.



Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.



Bullshit.



I doubt you
would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.



Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and
protestantism in general. See for yourself:



Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests,



No, Humpty Dumpty --


Yes, retard.

when discussing the history of the 16th and
17th centuries, it is not. Protestant is a specific historical
term in that context, and if you are not willing to accept the
language of reputable scholars in the field, then you might as
well call Henry a space alien or an Antedeluvian, or whatever other
strange term you invent, but your term will have no historical
meaning anyone familiar with the period would recognize.

Get back to me when you have read a book or two.


Evangelical and reformed are synonyms:
--------
....[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
centres of pilgrimage.

These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII. The King was a keen
theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his
new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the
alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous
policies.
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
----------
King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that criticised
the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of the things
that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII
ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land
from the church. However Henry did this for political gains, not because
he supported the ideas of Luther. However because of his actions Henry
VIII laid the foundations of Protestantism in England which under the
rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic to
a Protestant nation. By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country
was complete.
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
----------
Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
restored Englandís honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil, English
Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
------------
When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set up
a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme leadership.
http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
------------
Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.

Maybe YOU should get back to ME.

snip

The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and
Luther had historical precedents.


It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.


Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
cannot name ONE.


Everyone at the
time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.


No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it.
The differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol


Yes, Nitwit -- Henry disagreed with the Protestants on every one of
those issues,


That isn't the issue, degeneRat. Not everyone considered every aspect of
the Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in
areas, e.g., the sale of indulgences.

coming down firmly on the Roman side of the controversy,


Not so firmly. The link to Britannia above notes his flirtation with
reformed doctrine for some time.

except for the issue of the Pope's authority in England, where again,
as I said, his dissent was not based on Protestant grounds,


One who protests. He was protestant in the broad sense, though not
altogether with respect to doctrine (despite his brief flirtations with it).

but on much earlier Constantinian grounds.


Which were also grounds noted by Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, et al.

Henry supported transubstantiation. He
forbade priests to marry (leading Cranmer to have to hide his wife ),
and he did not believe in sufficiency of Scripture.


See above.

He was not Protestant.


Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.

snip



Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.



Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.



Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?



NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.


But you are incorrect to do so.


No, I am correct. Scholars agree. Only sophists with axes to grind don't
-- and funny that they're the same ones who don't accept the *whole*
context of AW movement and its ******* spawn you call "post-1970s AR"
and make similarly narrow distinctions to avoid dealing with real issues.

You are inventing a new meaning for
Protestant which is not historically valid for the period.


Not at all. I've said repeatedly Protestant in a broad manner, meaning
one who was/is at odds with Rome, as distinguished from Reformed
*doctrine*. That is valid and accepted use of the term.

snip



Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
in terms of doctrine.



I'd disagree.


I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.


*LOL* That rich, coming from someone who doesn't even know what
Protestant means.


I do, and as noted in the links above, Henry was protestant in two
senses. First, doctrinally: he did dabble in reformed doctrine for a
while but he did return to a conservative Catholicism sans the papacy.
Second, his act of PROTEST against the pope was, inherently, protestant.
It's not my shortcoming that you refuse to accept the generally accepted
broad meanings of words.

snip

  #633 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2004, 03:47 PM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII



Words, Humpty Dumpty, words -- obviously mean to you only what you
want them to mean, not anything having any relationship to reality.

usual suspect wrote:

snip
...[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
centres of pilgrimage.


Cromwell, not Henry; churches, not individuals. Cromwell WAS a supporter
of the continental reformers/Protestants, which was why he wanted Henry
to marry a German Protestant princess, a tactic which backfired for him
and the Protestants in England disastrously.

It's interesting the Cromwell funded the publication and distribution of
those Bibles, too. He's been given a bum rap by a lot of popular fiction.

These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII.


Pretty small "high watermark".

The King was a keen
theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his
new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the
alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous
policies.
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
----------


Yes -- he reversed his policies.

King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that criticised
the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of the things
that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII
ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land
from the church.


NOTE

* However Henry did this for political gains, not because
he supported the ideas of Luther. *


NOTE

Also, the Roman church had many internal protests against abuses by
the hierarchy and the religious orders. By your definition, St. Francis
was a "Protestant" and the founder of the Cistercians was a
"Protestant." Since both of them are Roman saints, I don't think the
Roman church agrees with you on that.

However because of his actions Henry
VIII laid the foundations of Protestantism in England which


NOTE
* * under the
rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic to
a Protestant nation.*


NOTE

Not under the rule of Henry. Which was what I said.

By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country
was complete.
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
----------
Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
restored Englandís honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil,


English
Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
------------


Who are these "English Protestants"?

When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set up
a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme leadership.
http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
------------


Not (Protestant) or Protestant. Merely non-Roman. The Orthodox Church
broke with Rome over doctrinal and organizational issues; that did not
make it Protestant.

Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.


Popularly, not correctly.

snip


That isn't the issue, Rat. Not everyone considered every aspect of
the Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in
areas, e.g., the sale of indulgences.


Yes -- after the Reformation pushed the Romans into the
Counterreformation.

snip

He was not Protestant.


Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.


Thank you. I agree. That was my point. Protestant/reformed
mean the same thing here. "protestant" may mean something else,
but it is not the word I am using, or the term I intend to
use. Henry was not a Protestant. You agree.

You are the most niggling, sophistical person I have ever
read. You present material AGAIN (as in the homosexual
animal controversy) which supports my position -- because my
position is correct -- and evidently don't even realize you
are doing so.

snip
First, doctrinally: he did dabble in reformed doctrine for a
while but he did return to a conservative Catholicism sans the papacy.
snip


As I said.

Rat

  #634 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2004, 04:12 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII

degeneRat & Sewer wrote:
Words, Humpty Dumpty, words -- obviously mean to you only what you
want them to mean, not anything having any relationship to reality.


I use words appropriately. You don't.

...[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
centres of pilgrimage.


Cromwell, not Henry;


From whence did the "royal permission" come?

churches, not individuals. Cromwell WAS a supporter
of the continental reformers/Protestants, which was why he wanted Henry
to marry a German Protestant princess, a tactic which backfired for him
and the Protestants in England disastrously.

It's interesting the Cromwell funded the publication and distribution of
those Bibles, too. He's been given a bum rap by a lot of popular fiction.

These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII.


Pretty small "high watermark".

The King was a keen theologian, and was prepared to incorporate
evangelical ideas into his new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't
comfortable with the alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed
most of his previous policies.
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
----------


Yes -- he reversed his policies.

King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that
criticised the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of
the things that Luther said should happen, did happen in England.


NOTE. Hehe.

Henry VIII ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much
money and land from the church.


NOTE

* However Henry did this for political gains, not because he
supported the ideas of Luther. *


A point I have repeatedly made and you repeatedly denied.

NOTE

Also, the Roman church had many internal protests against abuses by
the hierarchy and the religious orders. By your definition, St. Francis
was a "Protestant" and the founder of the Cistercians was a
"Protestant." Since both of them are Roman saints, I don't think the
Roman church agrees with you on that.


In the sense and to the extent that they protested, they are protestants.

However because of his actions Henry VIII laid the foundations of
Protestantism in England which

NOTE


Laid the foundations of ProtestantISM. That applies to doctrine, not the
mere act of protest. I stand by my use of the term.

* * under the
rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic
to a Protestant nation.*

NOTE

Not under the rule of Henry. Which was what I said.


I did not make any claim that Henry VIII did anything different. My only
claim is that he is a Protestant insofar as he broke with Rome.

By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country was complete.
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
----------
Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
restored Englandís honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil,



English Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
------------


Who are these "English Protestants"?


Your progenitors.

When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set
up a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme
leadership.
http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
------------


Not (Protestant) or Protestant. Merely non-Roman.


No. He protested and broke with Rome, and is a protestant in that sense
of the word.

The Orthodox Church
broke with Rome over doctrinal and organizational issues; that did not
make it Protestant.


Some Orthodox think Romanists are Protestants, and they may be correct
in the broader meaning the word.

Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.


Popularly, not correctly.


No, correctly. Words can have broad and narrow meanings. I have been
emphatic in distinguishing between the two. You have obstinately refused
to cede the legitimacy of any such distinction which is why this whole
discussion of semantics is amusing me.

snip

That isn't the issue, Rat. Not everyone considered every aspect of the
Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in areas,
e.g., the sale of indulgences.


Yes -- after the Reformation pushed the Romans into the
Counterreformation.


*yawn*

snip

He was not Protestant.


Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.


Thank you. I agree. That was my point.


No, you self-absorbed WHORE, it was not.

Protestant/reformed mean the same thing here.


No, I very carefully and CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY distinguished between
the two when calling Henry a protestant.

"protestant" may mean something else,


No, it DOES mean something else -- something which you seem to have
previously not known or considered. Face it, you are hardly the
intellectual giant you think you are.

but it is not the word I am using, or the term I intend to
use.


The world doesn't revolve around child-abandoning *******s in Santa Fe.
I deliberately distinguished between protestant and reformed, and you
failed to accept such a legitimate distinction.

...

You agree.


No, you don't understand the definitions of protestant beyond what you
intend it to mean -- which is a narrow definition. I repeatedly and
clearly distinguished between that definition and the broader meaning of
the word. I am correct, and you are nothing but a sophist ignorantly
quibbling over semantics.


snip self-absorbed delusions of grandeur

  #635 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2004, 04:26 PM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII



Whatever, Usual

Say hello to the homosexual animals you deny exist and the
non-Protestant king you deny existed, and
ignore reality all you want. You are biologically and
historically illiterate, as well as uncharitable, rude and
bigoted. But what else should I expect from an anti-AR type?

snip

Rat



  #636 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2004, 04:46 PM
-Rick-
 
Posts: n/a
Default Jesus and Vegetarianism

All good occultists are vegetarians and Jesus was not one of them.

-Rick-
Return of the Stargods
Site: http://stargods.org
Download Book: http://stargods.org/BookAd.htm

..
"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Swan wrote:
Swan, here, to offer some context.


You failed.

Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.

We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.

It's among the safest assumptions one can make, like the sun will rise
in the East tomorrow morning.

There are now services which have been written for a vegetarian
Passover supper, which are used by vegetarian and AR-supporting
Jews.

Pretty recent developments. A Jew of that era -- with very, very few
exceptions -- ate the Passover lamb as commanded.


Of course they did. But they didn't eat the lamb we eat today.


Yes, they did. Your argument is as specious as the Baptist
tee-totallers' about the alcohol content in wine of that era. Remember
the parable of the wineskins: why would they burst if the grape juice
didn't ferment? The foods eaten in that era are much the same as today.

The lamb
(and the ox, the cattle, etc) was not penned in tiny cages,


Most sheep today are grazed. So are cattle, bison, etc.

fed on scraps of its dead kindred,


Perhaps you were unaware that such practices have been banned in the US
and most countries.

injected with hormones and antibiotics


Not all meat is injected with hormones or antibiotics. You know this,
don't you?

and deprived of its mother's care.


Funny you would choose that argument after Karen abandoned her son.

snip rest of hyperbole



  #637 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-02-2004, 07:17 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII

degeneRat & Sewer wrote:
Whatever, Usual


Hehehehehe. No, not "whatever." Words mean things and I proved it to you
yet again. I even got you -- unintentionally, I might add -- when
playing with words in the subject another thread. In your benighted zeal
to one-up me on vulturine versus vultural, you proved what a bitter old
crank you really are.

Your trite and petty dismissal of the facts about your church and its
history shows your lack of erudition, not mine. It also proves you're
disingenuous when it comes to issues, which was no surprise given your
categorical rejection of the historical continuum of AW and AR. As Jon
has rightly noted, you are a classical one-upper and a rank sophist.

snip of ad hominem lies



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animalsí Lives U.S. Janet B. General Cooking 25 09-04-2017 05:26 PM
How producing ďethical, zero-harmĒ plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. ImStillMags General Cooking 87 05-01-2012 11:14 PM
"Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] Vegan 13 24-06-2010 08:36 PM
Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals [email protected] Vegan 70 10-02-2005 03:58 AM
A day on the farm Boron Elgar General Cooking 30 05-11-2003 05:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017