Bob Yates wrote:
>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>
>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>
> Never heard of possums being farmed,

Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
Then Davey gets down there and kills'em. Davey thinks that it's okay
since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.

<snip>

Jahnu evaded:
<snip>

Try again. This time try addressing the points.

---RESTORE---
Jahnu wrote:

>>> Whatever.
>>
>>
>> No, not "whatever." You made the claim that the list is some set of
proofs; it clearly isn't.
>
>
> It clearly is.


It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
are incorrect.

>> You got the list off a vegan activist site,
>
>
> I didn't.


You did. I pasted a link to the identical list last week (or week
before) when I tried to get you to address it. You didn't then, you're
not now. Here it is:

http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

> And even if I did, so what?


It goes to the list's AND your credibility. I've already noted several
points which are in error. You have yet to challenge those points, or
support any of the others, with any evidence.

> Obviously vegans care about what
> they eat and how animals are treated,


I don't think that's obvious, especially given your own callous
indifference to rats, mice, frogs, snakes, etc., killed in the
harvesting of your own food.

> which shows that they think about stuff.


No, it only shows they give lip-service to "issues." IOW, they talk the
talk. They do NOT walk the walk. This is apparent when you dismiss
Professor Davis' work without addressing its points: that your diet
causes casualties and deaths in its production, and that a diet
consisting of grazed ruminants and home-grown produce causes fewer
casualties. You just cannot get past the idea that some meat is humane,
ethical, nutritious, and superior in terms of CDs than a veg-n diet.

> Meat-heads on the other hand are bereft of empathy with
> other living entities, so obviously they cannot be trusted.


You're engaging in hyperbole rather than seriously addressing issues.
Care to try again?

>> and like so many things on the Internet, the information contained
in it has been altered.
>
>
> How do you know that?


For starters, a review of NYT archives will show they never wrote that.
A search in John Robbins' book DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA will show you he
wrote it. Compare the list to Robbins' versions and see if it matches
completely. Then ask yourself, Where's the proof that he got any of it
correct?

>> This is at least true with your citation, and I suspect it's true
with some of the already inflated propaganda from Mr Robbins.
>
>
> I really could't care less what you suspect.


I know; you're disingenuous when it comes to the Truth. That's why
you're seeking "enlightenment" in a third-world country without flush
toilets and where infanticide is the leading cause of death for females.

>>> The NY Times posted the article.
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit. I did a search and couldn't find the article in the NYT
archives.
>
>
> Can you prove that? I think you are lying.


Check with your local library. The online archive goes back to 1996:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/advanced

>>> Besides it doesn' become
>>> less true because it originally came from John Robbins.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't become any more true for that reason, either. The details
stand or fall on their own merits.
>
>
> That's right. Therefore they are true.


No, you haven't established any reason to believe they're true. I showed
you that several of them are false. Why don't you take some time and
research those I asked you to prove?

>> Ipse dixit, appeal to popularity, and appeal to authority. Many
health experts would also disagree with some of the points contained
therein. So, too, would experts in hunger and resource management: I
listed information from a hunger site which showed many of your points
are in error.
>
>
> No it didn't.


Let me again repeat the same information you keep denying:

Not only is it true that a hunger free world is totally
attainable, we are, right now in fact, gaining on it and well
on the winning side of achieving it. Today, about 24,000 people
die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down
from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago.
Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age
of five. This is down from 28% fifty years ago. All of this
despite the increase in world population during this time.
http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerInfo.htm

So hunger is on the decline. Furthermore, the *cause* of hunger is
related to distribution of existing resources. We already have enough to
feed everyone in the world. Wars and politics are the chief issues
affecting distribution.

> What it shows is that you feel guilty about eating meat.


I neither eat meat nor feel guilty.

> If you didn't you wouldn't get so defensive about it.


If you had a brain cell you would address the points in that errant list.

>>> It doesn't matter how much you meat-heads
>>
>>
>> I'm vegetarian, asswipe. I'm having fresh fruit and mixed raw nuts
as I write this.
>
>
> Can you prove it, mince head?


Want me to send you my shit so you can analyze it?

> No vegetarian would appear so brain dead


You do.

> as you do defending such a vile habit.


Why is it a vile habit?

>>> try to obfuscate the issue to divert the
>>> attention from your sinful ways,
>>
>>
>> Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
>> What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but
>> what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
>> Matthew 15:10-11
>
>
> That figures. You are a Christian meat head.


Christian vegetarian.

>> You surely know accounts of saddhus and yogis eating meat *by choice*.
>
>
> No sadhus and yogis eat meat.


They do.

> If they did, by definition, they
> wouldn't be sadhus and yogis.


Ipse dixit.

>> The Vedas do not have an absolute prohibition against meat-eating.
>
>
> That may be,


No, that is so.

> but they sure have prohibitions against cow killing, and
> they sure do have prohibitions against the mindless wanton slaughter
> of animals that take place in he modern culture.


The production of food is not mindless or wanton.

>> Even the Buddha ate meat when it was offered to him.
>
>
> As if you would have a clue about what Buddha would or would not eat.


The Buddha ate meat and therefore was not a vegetarian. Indeed,
it is thought that he died from food poisoning after eating
contaminated pork.... Others may argue that if they are not
directly involved in the slaughter of such animals then it is
not ethically unwholesome. Indeed, in countries whose cultural
orientation is Buddhist, you will find meat being eaten which
has involved the killing of animals specially for this purpose.
http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm

See also:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze..._eat_meat.html
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut034.htm

What else haven't you learned in that yellow dress?

>> I don't eat meat, yet you assail me as a "meat head."
>
>
> Of course you eat meat.


No, I really don't. Look at my recipes in this and other groups.

http://snipurl.com/4byu
http://snipurl.com/4byv
http://snipurl.com/4byw
http://snipurl.com/4byx

Now tell me why I would even experiment for two freaking weeks to make
meatless meatballs if I weren't vegetarian?

> I can detect a meat eater miles away.


Try again, idiot.

> You are a liar and a meat head.


Why do I know so much about veg-n restaurants?
http://snipurl.com/4bz0
http://snipurl.com/4bz3
http://snipurl.com/4bz4

Note the last one is in praise of your group's restaurants. Perhaps you
need to go do kirtan for a while and check back before you impugn my
character. It's people like you who give ISKCON a bad name.

> Who do you think you are fooling?


You're a fool, so why don't you figure it out.
---END RESTORE---

Bob Yates wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>
>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>
>
>
> Never heard of possums being farmed, some new fangled, city slicker,
> yuppie thing? No redneck would be dumb enough to do anything like that,
> might be one of those weird Nazi gun control cultist.

As Mr. Suspect points out in his own reply to you,
there are a couple of separate issues here.

I think you probably don't have much experience of
David Harrison ), aka ****WIT.
****WIT believes that "getting to experience life",
i.e. being conceived and born, is some kind of
"benefit". ****WIT is an "animal rights activist" at
heart, even though he frantically tries not to appear
to be one. ****WIT believes "farm animals", as some
kind of class of animals, have a right to be born and
(in his sewage prose) "get to experience life". He
believes humans are doing some kind of moral good deed
by breeding farm animals. He believes this, because he
feels a massive amount of GUILT over the fact that we
kill animals in order to eat them and make other use of
them.

It appears I need to repost my FAQ concerning ****WIT.
Look for it on your newsserver soon.

jitney wrote:

> There is nothing "sinful" about it, Janhu, according to Godfrom
> Genesis 2, 3)
> 2

<snip>

It is important to note that, while various Christian group have
different interpretations, there are also many people who accept
that the Bible supports vegetarianism as the most Christian of diets,
and that Christianity supports animal rights, as it does human rights.
People can bandy proof-texts back and forth on any subject, and
various Biblical texts have been used to support everything from
slavery, and oppression of women and gays, to the Holocaust. But there
is also a long tradition in the church of saints who expressed
concern for animals, and a growing number of modern theologians are
expressing support for animal rights.

I'm currently reading a newer book by one of the best-known pro-AR
theologians, Andrew Linzey, called _Animal Rites_, which is a group
of liturgies for animals, such as an animal burial,healing,a vigil for
suffering animal, and eucharistic prayers for all creatures.

Rat
<snip>

degeneRat the Apostate wrote:
>> There is nothing "sinful" about it, Janhu, according to Godfrom
>> Genesis 2, 3)
>> 2
>
> <snip>
>
> It is important to note that, while various Christian group have
> different interpretations,

Of which yours is the most marginal.

> there are also many people

Exaggeration. Very few people.

> who accept
> that the Bible supports vegetarianism as the most Christian of diets,

Ipse dixit. A careful analysis of the Bible shows people eating meat
thruoghout the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, Christ and his
disciples were much more than individual anglers; they were, rather, the
factory fishermen of the day. Christ himself ate meat at the Passover.
He ate meat after the resurrection. He taught that it's not what goes
into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of a man's mouth. The
apostle Paul similarly urged believers not to judge one another by diet
or drink.

In every single instance of the above, you and your fellow travelers
reject the words and actions of our Lord.

> and that Christianity supports animal rights, as it does human rights.

The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in
opposition to it!) than it says about the treatment of animals. Indeed,
with the exception of a couple parables, Christ was silent on the AR
issue. Why do you suggest his silence on homosexuality is some form of
approval for it but treat his silence on AR differently?

> People can bandy proof-texts back and forth on any subject,

No, the ones who have the texts can cite them. You cannot. I have shown
you this already at AAEV and TPA. Care to discuss it in all these
groups, too? I'm more than ready to do so. :-)

> and
> various Biblical texts have been used to support everything from
> slavery, and oppression of women and gays, to the Holocaust.

Oppression of any of those? NO. You clearly don't know the Bible. You
claim it supports homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and animal rights.
It doesn't. Like those who make wild claims or distort texts to promote
"oppression," you are wrong.

> But there
> is also a long tradition in the church of saints who expressed
> concern for animals,

The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have rights.

> and a growing number of modern

You mean radical. Linzey is a radical Anglican.

> theologians

In the loosest sense of the word.

> are
> expressing support for animal rights.

Because they, like you, have rejected the Bible for "doing what is right
in their own eyes."

> I'm currently reading a newer book by one of the best-known pro-AR
> theologians, Andrew Linzey,

A heretic in an ivory tower.

> called _Animal Rites_, which is a group
> of liturgies for animals, such as an animal burial,healing,a vigil for
> suffering animal, and eucharistic prayers for all creatures.

You and your evil ******* partner hate children despite Christ's
admonition against hating others or despising children. It's yet another
instance in which you follow your own dark heart over the clear
teachings of Scripture.

usual suspect wrote:

<snip>

> A careful analysis of the Bible shows people eating meat
> thruoghout the Old and New Testaments.

As well as holding people as slaves. It was a different culture.

> Furthermore, Christ and his
> disciples were much more than individual anglers; they were, rather, the
> factory fishermen of the day.

Absolutely false. There were no "factory" fisheries in Biblical
times, and even today, there really aren't many, except for a
few hatcheries. This is absurd.

> Christ himself ate meat at the Passover.

Possibly.

> He ate meat after the resurrection.

Fish, not meat -- and that may well be symbolic, not literal.

> He taught that it's not what goes
> into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of a man's mouth. The
> apostle Paul similarly urged believers not to judge one another by diet
> or drink.

Both of which refer to controversies OF THE TIME about Jewish ritual
practices ( like the issue of circumcision ) and whether they were
required for non-Jewish converts. There is no relevance to animal
rights at all.

<snip>

> The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in
> opposition to it!)

It says nothing about homosexuality as an orientation. The concept
didn't even exist then.

> than it says about the treatment of animals. Indeed,
> with the exception of a couple parables, Christ was silent on the AR
> issue.

He was silent on issues of slavery, racial relations between blacks
and white, equality of women in politics, ecological responsibility,
voting rights for minorities, and a wide variety of modern issues.
It was a different culture. Yet there is much in the Bible which
creates resonances which are reflected in animal rights thought,
as in issues of racial justice and feminism.

> Why do you suggest his silence on homosexuality is some form of
> approval for it but treat his silence on AR differently?

I don't.

>> People can bandy proof-texts back and forth on any subject,

> No, the ones who have the texts can cite them. You cannot.

People here have noted several texts which match yours, especially
the passage from Genesis supporting vegetarianism as the diet of
pre-fallen humanity.

> I have shown
> you this already at AAEV and TPA. Care to discuss it in all these
> groups, too? I'm more than ready to do so. :-)

>> and
>> various Biblical texts have been used to support everything from
>> slavery, and oppression of women and gays, to the Holocaust.

> Oppression of any of those? NO.

Oh, yes...definitely. The distant ancestor of the Holocaust was
the claim of Christians that Jews were "Christ killers,"
anti-Abolitionists claimed blacks were the "sons of Ham," and
St. Paul was often cited as supporting oppression of women
in several areas.

> You clearly don't know the Bible. You
> claim it supports homosexuality, homosexual marriage,

No, I say it says nothing about homosexuality as it is
understood today, as a genetically-disposed orientation.

> and animal rights.

Again, animal rights as it is understood today is a post-70's
movement, but the roots of a theology supporting animal rights
does exist in the Bible.

<snip>
>> But there
>> is also a long tradition in the church of saints who expressed
>> concern for animals,

> The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have rights.

It doesn't say HUMANS have rights either. None of His creatures
have rights against their Creator. But justice is a great issue,
and human and animal rights grow out of that Biblical concern.

<snip>

> You and your evil ******* partner hate children

I don't hate children at all.

<snip>

Rat

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:33:54 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>
>
>jitney wrote:
>
>> There is nothing "sinful" about it, Janhu, according to Godfrom
>> Genesis 2, 3)
>> 2
>
><snip>
>
>It is important to note that, while various Christian group have
>different interpretations, there are also many people who accept
>that the Bible supports vegetarianism as the most Christian of diets,

Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

>and that Christianity supports animal rights, as it does human rights.

Genesis 4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
and increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth
and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along
the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into
your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Exodus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
your year.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
household.
[...]
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
at twilight.
7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
lambs.
8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
[...]
14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you
shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance.

Leviticus 1
1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.
He said,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an
offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either
the herd or the flock.
3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent
of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will
be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Leviticus 12
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over,
she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a
year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for
a sin offering.
7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and
then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. " 'These are
the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.
8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young
pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this
way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "

Deuteronomy 12
15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
may eat it.

Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

1 Kings 8
5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep
and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
[...]
63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the
temple of the LORD.

Mark 7
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
"clean.")

Mark 14
12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?"
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?'

(refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)

Luke 2
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."

Luke 24
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

John 21
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they
answered.
6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will
find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
because of the large number of fish.
[...]
9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish
on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."

Acts 10
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
down to earth by its four corners.
12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
of the earth and birds of the air.
13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back
to heaven.

Romans 14
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own
master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able
to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully
convinced in his own mind.
6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He
who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and
he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself
alone.
8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.
So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he
might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down
on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:31:39 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Davey wrote:
>>>imcompetence, inc. wrote:
>
>That one applies to you, too.
>
>>>Start noting your snips, yellow-garbed clown.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It clearly isn't. None of the points is supported with any kind of
>>>>>evidence. It is the author's word. I showed you several points which are
>>>>>in error. Errors are not proof, except that those aspects of the list
>>>>>are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>You have showed
>>>
>>>...that you thoroughly lack the character and integrity to carry on an
>>>intelligent and reasoned discussion, and that you are wholly incompetent
>>>in supporting the points you make. Why? Because you are emotively driven
>>>by an agenda and care nothing about facts, reason, or logic.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>
>Which ones?

Do you believe any animals benefit from anything? If so, give some
examples. If you can't, then you're not fit to discuss it.

>How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>
>> Some don't.
>
>Why not?

If you don't know, then just keep on thinking they all do. But you
apparently think none do, even though you don't know why any of
them do not. How incredibly stupid!

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:14:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Bob Yates wrote:
>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>
>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>
>> Never heard of possums being farmed,
>
>Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
>in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
>Then Davey gets down there and kills'em.

That's a lie. What did I actually do with the possums that I trapped on
my property?

>Davey thinks that it's okay
>since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.
>
><snip>

Davey wrote:
>>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>>
>>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>>
>>>Never heard of possums being farmed,
>>
>>Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
>>in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
>>Then Davey gets down there and kills'em.
>
> That's a lie. What did I actually do with the possums that I trapped on
> my property?

You said you trapped a small one and discarded it at a state park. You
were also still hoping to catch a bigger one under the trailer.

>>Davey thinks that it's okay
>>since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.
>>
>><snip>
>
>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:23:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>Bob Yates wrote:
>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>
>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Never heard of possums being farmed, some new fangled, city slicker,
>> yuppie thing? No redneck would be dumb enough to do anything like that,
>> might be one of those weird Nazi gun control cultist.
>
>As Mr. Suspect points out in his own reply to you,
>there are a couple of separate issues here.
>
>I think you probably don't have much experience of
>David Harrison ), aka ****WIT.
>****WIT believes that "getting to experience life",
>i.e. being conceived and born, is some kind of
>"benefit".

Unless you can show how something that is not
alive can benefit--which you're proven incapable
of doing more than once--then we are left to believe
that life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

>****WIT is an "animal rights activist" at
>heart,

No, that's you Gonad:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

11 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
So far, the "debate" (huh!) has been David reposting his
observation - that billions of animals will not get to
experience life - and me pointing out that this is of no
moral importance

19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.

27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")

02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear

27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.

05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.

04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss

01 Aug 2001 by Jonathan Ball
You don't have any way of measuring the psychic value
to the cow of the welfare improvement. You only know
that *you* feel better about it

13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]

28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
We know it.

30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives

22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
wrote:

> Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,

No, they don't.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>even though he frantically tries not to appear
>to be one.

Can you post an example of your opposition to "AR"?

>****WIT believes "farm animals", as some
>kind of class of animals, have a right to be born

That's a lie.

>and
>(in his sewage prose) "get to experience life". He
>believes humans are doing some kind of moral good deed
>by breeding farm animals. He believes this, because he
>feels a massive amount of GUILT over the fact that we
>kill animals in order to eat them and make other use of
>them.

That's a lie.

>It appears I need to repost my

lies

>concerning ****WIT.

Here, I'll do it for you:
__________________________________________________ _______
>****wit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
>has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
> I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
>thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
>have correctly interpreted his writing.

No. Lie #1.

>His beliefs
>about animals, specifically his belief that animals
>"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
>*in and of itself*, is something that appears
>frequently and with (believe it or not) clarity.
>
>Read these quotes that I have culled from ****wit's
>usenet rantings over a two and a half year period, and
>judge for yourselves.
>
>All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
>****wit's own.
>
>
>
>****wit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
>morally considerable "somethings":
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> ****wit - 12/09/1999

"ARAs" also consider them morally considerable
somethings, and want to prevent them from existing.
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Don't forget, meat is a plant based food.
10 Jun 2002 04:23:54 GMT

"Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Burger King Uncowed
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There's no reason to avoid giving them as much moral
consideration as people who are making that proposal.

>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>deprivation, unfairness:
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> ****wit - 08/01/2000

As I've admitted on many many occasions, that
was a mistake in that I don't believe nonexistent
beings can experience anything. Ball knows it as
well:
__________________________________________________ _______
Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: Appreciate some help to understand.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:14:41 -0700

in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception;
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: ****wit's big problem
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:54:36 GMT

This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
sense - no one ever suggested it did
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Here's more of the quote:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: David )
Subject: animal welfare poem
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Date: 2000/08/01
[...]
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The next two quotes were not mistakes, and they
do not suggest that I believe nothing can "experience"
anything. Lie #2.

> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> ****wit - 10/12/2001
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> ****wit - 10/19/1999
>
>
>He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
>live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
>quality of their lives:
>
> *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
> it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
> ****wit - 09/04/1999
>
> All of that has nothing to do with how many
> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
> in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
> since the odds are infinite against all of us
> that *we* will actually get to experience life.
> ****wit - 12/11/1999

I believe life can have a negative value as well
as a positive value...which I've said many times:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: contemplative affections
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:56:23 GMT
Message-ID: >

wrote:

> Experiencing positive emotions gives life a positive value, and
> experiencing negative emotions gives it a negative value, imo.

But you can't say how or why. This is a religious
belief of yours.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: ****wit's big chance
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:21:35 GMT

Do *not* write your usual crapola about "life can have
a positive or negative blah blah blah..."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
What I was referring to (in case anyone reads this sad
mess) is:

1. All things who are born are lucky in the respect that
they are conceived at all--since any of the other
thousand+ sperm in the conception competition would
have produced a *different* being.

2. They are lucky in the respect that they complete
development and are born successfully, since that is
not the case for all beings who are conceived.

The quality of their lives if they are born determines
whether that life would be worth living or not. Lie #3.

>He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
>the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
>prevent them from being born:
>
> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> have IMO.
> ****wit - 09/13/1999
>
> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> future farm animals [of] living,
> ****wit - 01/08/2002
>
> That approach is illogical, since if it
> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> getting to have any life at all.
> ****wit - 07/30/1999
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> ****wit - 10/19/1999
> [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]

What I pointed out is true, and does not suggest
that preventing future animals from being born actually
hurts "anything"--which in this case is nothing. Lie #4.

>****wit *claims*, falsely, that what the animals feel
>about their lives is what matters:
>
> But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
> discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
> with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
> about their lives is what matters, and in order
> to get some idea of what that is, we have to
> ignore the things that we know, and that they
> do not (like the fact that they will be
> killed). If a person is not willing to try to
> do that, then they really don't care about the
> animals, but are worried more about their self.
> ****wit - 08/20/1999
>
>
>But of course, he's lying. It's what *****wit* feels
>about them, about his connection to them, about his
>ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
>to him:
>
> Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
> well for letting [****wit's cat] have any
> [kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
> every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
> a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
> ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
> one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
> about things. Even if it were that way, there
> is really no reason for me to encourage life
> for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
> of kittens that could get to experience life
> from a cat that I actually care about, and
> kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
> least for a little while.
> ****wit - 09/23/1999

Our interests and those of the animals are different
things. Who can't consider both? Lie #5.

>****wit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>them. But as we see, ****wit isn't at all concerned
>with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
>interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
>period, irrespective of the quality of that life.

That's a lie, as I showed above. (see Lie #3)

>And
>he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

I don't even understand how it could be evil, much
less believe that it is. (see Lie #4)

>No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
>"proposal" over another, at all, as long as ****wit is
>lying about *his* proposal - he is lying about it - and
>as long as he continues to insist on presenting the
>bogus, logically invalid choice that he does.
>
>The record, in ****wit's own words, speaks for itself.
> No one has "lied" about ****wit's beliefs.

Lie #6.

>****wit
>believes everything I have said he believes,

Lie #7.

>as
>supported by ****wit's own ranting.

No. As distorted by the person who I consider to be
the most dishonest that I have ever encountered.

The question still remains: Why would anyone be so
desperate to promote such lies?

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:44:08 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Davey wrote:
>>>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>>>
>>>>Never heard of possums being farmed,
>>>
>>>Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
>>>in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
>>>Then Davey gets down there and kills'em.
>>
>> That's a lie. What did I actually do with the possums that I trapped on
>> my property?
>
>You said you trapped a small one and discarded it at a state park.

I said that I turned it loose, which is not the same. But far be it from
you to be honest.

>You
>were also still hoping to catch a bigger one under the trailer.
>
>>>Davey thinks that it's okay
>>>since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>

Davey wrote:
>>>>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>>>>
>>>>>Never heard of possums being farmed,
>>>>
>>>>Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
>>>>in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
>>>>Then Davey gets down there and kills'em.
>>>
>>> That's a lie. What did I actually do with the possums that I trapped on
>>>my property?
>>
>>You said you trapped a small one and discarded it at a state park.
>
> I said that I turned it loose, which is not the same.

It's the same. You turned loose a baby animal, which has probably since
starved to death, so you could trap and eat its mother. What did you do
to the mother possum, Davey?

> But far be it from you to be honest.

If you were on Mars and stumbled into one of our craft, it would report
back that there are no signs of intelligent life on that planet.

>>You
>>were also still hoping to catch a bigger one under the trailer.
>>
>>
>>>>Davey thinks that it's okay
>>>>since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>

usual suspect wrote:
> Rat wrote:

<snip>
>>> He taught that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but
>>> what comes out of a man's mouth. The apostle Paul similarly urged
>>> believers not to judge one another by diet or drink.

>> Both of which

> No.

Yes

>> refer to controversies OF THE TIME about Jewish ritual
>> practices ( like the issue of circumcision ) and whether they were
>> required for non-Jewish converts.

> Read Matthew 15 and tell me where Christ was addressing converts or
> circumcision. He was addressing the legalism of the Pharisees, as well
> as your own AR legalism. St Paul addressed the same matter in a similar
> context. In both cases, it's clear that Christians should not judge
> others on the basis of diet.

Legalism is always an issue, on various topics, and I think Biblical
literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law --
a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. I
think a compassion toward God's creation and our fellow beings is
central to that.

I've been attending the Confirmation class in my parish -- I go to the
Confirmation class in every parish I attend, because it is a wonderful
way to learn how different priests approach the identity of the Church,
and their individual emphases. This priest was stressing that we look
into each others' faces and see Christ there. There was another ***
(male) couple in the class -- together for 24 years -- and it was
wonderful to see in them a reflection of our own growth in the church
and our own search, and then to look around the circle and see Christ
also in the faces of the little 12-year-old Oriental girl, the other
young people, the middle-aged ex-Presbyterian, and the middle-aged
Irish ex-Roman priest. I offered the closing prayer, which I feel is
the central commission Christ gives us: "Oh Lord, help us to see that
we are all one in Thee, and give us the grace to serve Thee
in each other."

>> There is no relevance to animal rights at all.

> Actually there is: both passages deal with forms of legalism. Both
> Christ and St Paul are saying that we're defiled by what comes out of
> our mouths and not what goes in it. You and other ARAs, like the
> Pharisees, suggest ethics and morality are based upon diet and
> lifestyle. You're diametrically at odds with Jesus and Paul about that.

Would you suggest that ethics and morality have nothing to do with
lifestyle? That certainly has no basis in Scripture or the Church's
teaching. You've been beating me on the head with complaints about
the supposed evils of my "lifestyle" for some time here. Have you
changed your opinion on that?

>> <snip>

>>> The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in
>>> opposition to it!)

>> It says nothing about homosexuality

> Liar. It says a lot against it.

Not as we understand it today, as an orientation.

<snip>

> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also
> not a manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's
> relationship with God: how it went awry, how it was put back together.
> To draw or create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- misses its
> real meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which is Christ.

If you and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that,
perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog. Our priest has spent
his life (and earned his Doctorate ) in the theory and practice of
Reconciliation, working in Ireland, the Balkans, and recently
dialoging with Moslems from Afghanistan. (I find it interesting that
so many priests in the Episcopal church have doctorates -- we have
a very educated clergy.) I wish you could meet him and talk with
him.

<snip>

>> People here have noted several texts which match yours, especially
>> the passage from Genesis supporting vegetarianism as the diet of
>> pre-fallen humanity.

> Are we pre-fallen? Do we have the new heaven and new earth yet, where
> the lion lies down with the lamb? No. Until then God has given man the
> beasts to eat as well as the herbs.

Surely the fact that we are fallen should not justify sinful behavior.
Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
image of what we should be.

<snip>

>>> You clearly don't know the Bible. You claim it supports
>>> homosexuality, homosexual marriage,

>> No, I say it says nothing about homosexuality as it is
>> understood today,

> Red herring (debunked above).

I don't accept that.

>> as a genetically-disposed orientation.

> Ipse dixit. Science is not settled on that issue at all.

Science, I think, is. It is not completely genetic, of course,
but there certainly seems to be a genetic component.

>>> and animal rights.

>> Again, animal rights as it is understood today is a post-70's
>> movement, but the roots of a theology supporting animal rights
>> does exist in the Bible.

> Ipse dixit. The dominion given man over ALL creatures is in conflict
> with your statement.

No, not at all. The dominion (stewardship ) we are given is what
compels us to recognize our obligations toward the creatures God
gives into our care and concern,

> So, too, are passages that deal with animals as
> food and beasts of burden.

As I said, a different culture.

>>> The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have rights.

>> It doesn't say HUMANS have rights either. None of His creatures
>> have rights against their Creator. But justice is a great issue,
>> and human and animal rights grow out of that Biblical concern.

> Ipse dixit. Animal rights do not grow out of Biblical concern. The issue
> is pagan and foreign to the Bible.

That is not true. The roots of animal and human rights are to be found
in the Bible and our Christian heritage.

> The Bible addresses issues of welfare
> towards animals, but not to the extent that some, if not all, species
> cannot be killed, eaten, or used for our own benefit and welfare.

As I said, a different culture. We advance, through the guidance of
the Holy Spirit.

<snip>

Rat

wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:14:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Yates wrote:
>>
>>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>>
>>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>>
>>>Never heard of possums being farmed,
>>
>>Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
>>in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
>>Then Davey gets down there and kills'em.
>
>
> That's a lie. What did I actually do with the possums that I trapped on
> my property?

You ****ed them up the ass, then you ate them.

>
>
>>Davey thinks that it's okay
>>since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.
>>
>><snip>
>
>

degeneRat replied to the following 1% of my post which she did not snip:
>>>> He taught that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but
>>>> what comes out of a man's mouth. The apostle Paul similarly urged
>>>> believers not to judge one another by diet or drink.
>
>>> Both of which
>
>> No.
>
> Yes

NO. Admit your error. You claimed both addressed a circumsion heresy.
You were wrong.

>>> refer to controversies OF THE TIME about Jewish ritual
>>> practices ( like the issue of circumcision ) and whether they were
>>> required for non-Jewish converts.
>
>> Read Matthew 15 and tell me where Christ was addressing converts or
>> circumcision. He was addressing the legalism of the Pharisees, as well
>> as your own AR legalism. St Paul addressed the same matter in a
>> similar context. In both cases, it's clear that Christians should not
>> judge others on the basis of diet.
>
> Legalism is always an issue, on various topics,

We're not discussing various topics. We're discussing a narrow issue
witin a Biblical context.

> and I think Biblical
> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law --

You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two aspects
of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider the
following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar, for a
quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on academic
credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a professor at
Westminster Theological Seminary.
http://snipurl.com/4er3

Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition, used to make
Law-Gospel distinctions. You are now so opposed to the law that you seek
to explain it away through different contexts, even going so far as to
suggest the Holy Spirit is leading this diametric move against
Scripture. This type of behavior is no different from when a
charismaniac tells you the Lord is speaking to him. And with all due
respect, Pat Robertson is hearing stuff more in line with God's word
than what you seem to be hearing. I don't trust *either* of you.

What you are failing to note is that Christ and Paul taught that the Law
serves a purpose even for believers. The Pharisees taught that the Law
made people holy (i.e., "what goes into a man's mouth"). That is also
the part addressed by Paul. He even asks himself in one of the epistles
if the law is meaningless, which is a point you seem to be trying to
make. His answer was NO. Yours seems to be yes.

We both have room to complain about misuse of the Law by modern
Pharisees, but you should look in the mirror and look at your own
attempts of Pharisaism: AR and veganism. You are just like those you
abhor on the right when they try to use the Bible to enforce behaviors
in the rest of society (i.e., "blue" laws, forbidding sale of alcoholic
beverages, etc.). You do that when you proselytize others with your
pro-AR and pro-vegan propaganda and represent those as "ethical" choices
when the choice is ethically neutral. Certain food and drink cannot make
us any more ethical than not buying certain things on Sunday or having a
beer: it's all BS whether right or left.

> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it.

Where do you find God or know what his will is?

> I
> think a compassion toward God's creation and our fellow beings is
> central to that.

You have a very different view of "compassion" than most people, even
among Christians. Your AR paradigms contradict the teachings of
Scripture and history and isn't a question of slavery or gang rape or
any of your other diversions.

> I've been attending the Confirmation class in my parish -- I go to the
> Confirmation class in every parish I attend, because it is a wonderful
> way to learn how different priests approach the identity of the Church,

I would endorse this, too, of attending such courses in other
congregations which have a more traditional view.

> and their individual emphases. This priest was stressing that we look
> into each others' faces and see Christ there.

The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real
Christ. The touchy-feely ones seem to prefer the Christ-in-your-face to
the real one anyway.

> There was another ***
> (male) couple in the class -- together for 24 years -- and it was
> wonderful to see in them a reflection of our own growth in the church
> and our own search,

Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the
fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican
bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly
see any of that as positive development.

> and then to look around the circle and see Christ
> also in the faces of the little 12-year-old Oriental girl,

*Asian* girl. "Oriental" is perjorative unless you're speaking of
objects like antiques.

> the other
> young people, the middle-aged ex-Presbyterian, and the middle-aged
> Irish ex-Roman priest. I offered the closing prayer, which I feel is
> the central commission Christ gives us: "Oh Lord, help us to see that
> we are all one in Thee, and give us the grace to serve Thee
> in each other."
>
>>> There is no relevance to animal rights at all.
>
>> Actually there is: both passages deal with forms of legalism. Both
>> Christ and St Paul are saying that we're defiled by what comes out of
>> our mouths and not what goes in it. You and other ARAs, like the
>> Pharisees, suggest ethics and morality are based upon diet and
>> lifestyle. You're diametrically at odds with Jesus and Paul about that.
>
> Would you suggest that ethics and morality have nothing to do with
> lifestyle?

Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering each
individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats.

> That certainly has no basis in Scripture or the Church's
> teaching. You've been beating me on the head with complaints about
> the supposed evils of my "lifestyle" for some time here. Have you
> changed your opinion on that?

No, you've simply misinterpreted what I wrote.

>>> <snip>
>
>>>> The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in
>>>> opposition to it!)
>
>>> It says nothing about homosexuality
>
>> Liar. It says a lot against it.
>
> Not as we understand it today, as an orientation.

You raise your red herring yet again. Those passages address people who
were oriented toward homosexuality back then, and they still address
them today. The only thing that has changed is the politics of it and
the condoning of it in some quarters.

> <snip>
>
>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a
>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's relationship
>> with God: how it went awry, how it was put back together. To draw or
>> create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- misses its real meaning
>> and makes a mockery of its substance, which is Christ.
>
> If you

*I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p

> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that,

I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over
anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I dislike
as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or falsely
aligning me with them.

> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog.

I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being Fred
Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue?

> Our priest has spent
> his life (and earned his Doctorate ) in the theory and practice of
> Reconciliation, working in Ireland, the Balkans, and recently
> dialoging with Moslems from Afghanistan.

So? Get him in here. Maybe he can shut your trap long enough that you'll
actually read what I write rather than lash out at me and call me a
"fundie."

> (I find it interesting that
> so many priests in the Episcopal church have doctorates -- we have
> a very educated clergy.)

Funny, the same is true within my denomination. Who'd ever think it?
Even the Catholics try to educate their priests. I've even seen BAPTISTS
with DMins and PhDs. Go figure.

BTW, have you ever seen the British comedy "Keeping Up Appearances"? You
sure do remind me of Hyacinth.

> I wish you could meet him and talk with him.

I'd set him straight.

> <snip>
>
>>> People here have noted several texts which match yours, especially
>>> the passage from Genesis supporting vegetarianism as the diet of
>>> pre-fallen humanity.
>
>> Are we pre-fallen? Do we have the new heaven and new earth yet, where
>> the lion lies down with the lamb? No. Until then God has given man the
>> beasts to eat as well as the herbs.
>
> Surely the fact that we are fallen should not justify sinful behavior.

Eating meat is not sinful. If it is, we're still without a savior
because Christ sure did eat some.

> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
> image of what we should be.

Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things.

> <snip>
>
>>>> You clearly don't know the Bible. You claim it supports
>>>> homosexuality, homosexual marriage,
>
>>> No, I say it says nothing about homosexuality as it is
>>> understood today,
>
>> Red herring (debunked above).
>
> I don't accept that.

I know. I'll pray for you, apostate.

>>> as a genetically-disposed orientation.
>
>> Ipse dixit. Science is not settled on that issue at all.
>
> Science, I think,

No, you want to think.

> is.

Not.

> It is not completely genetic, of course,

Of course it isn't. If it WERE genetic, it would find itself breeded out
of existence.

> but there certainly seems to be a genetic component.

According to whom? Media types who either accept junk science or
over-hype studies?

http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html
http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/edit...n_10_21_03.htm
etc.

>>>> and animal rights.
>
>>> Again, animal rights as it is understood today is a post-70's
>>> movement, but the roots of a theology supporting animal rights
>>> does exist in the Bible.
>
>> Ipse dixit. The dominion given man over ALL creatures is in conflict
>> with your statement.
>
> No, not at all.

Yes, completely.

> The dominion (stewardship ) we are given is what
> compels us to recognize our obligations toward the creatures God
> gives into our care and concern,

And which in NO way prevents us from eating them or using them for our
welfare.

>> So, too, are passages that deal with animals as food and beasts of
>> burden.
>
> As I said, a different culture.

Not that different. They got hungry, they ate meat. They needed
something done, they used animals. Sounds pretty familiar to me whether
we're talking food, plowing, or research.

>>>> The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have
>>>> rights.
>
>>> It doesn't say HUMANS have rights either. None of His creatures
>>> have rights against their Creator. But justice is a great issue,
>>> and human and animal rights grow out of that Biblical concern.
>
>> Ipse dixit. Animal rights do not grow out of Biblical concern. The
>> issue is pagan and foreign to the Bible.
>
> That is not true. The roots of animal and human rights are to be found
> in the Bible and our Christian heritage.

Ipse dixit. You're reading INTO texts to find that.

>> The Bible addresses issues of welfare towards animals, but not to the
>> extent that some, if not all, species cannot be killed, eaten, or used
>> for our own benefit and welfare.
>
> As I said, a different culture.

Shirking your responsibility by thinking different rules apply to you.
Will there be any sins left when our entire culture is "oriented" or
otherwise clinically-defined?

> We advance,

Tearing your church and its fellowship with other denominations apart
isn't advance, it's regression. A very tragic step back.

> through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God. It's your own belly.
You snipped the proof of that again rather than deal with it.

usual suspect wrote:

> Rat replied to the following 1% of my post which she did not snip:

>>>>> He taught that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but
>>>>> what comes out of a man's mouth. The apostle Paul similarly urged
>>>>> believers not to judge one another by diet or drink.

>>>> Both of which

>>> No.

>> Yes

> NO. Admit your error. You claimed both addressed a circumsion heresy.

No, Usual -- I said, correctly, that both addressed Jewish ritual
practices (see below). The issue of the significance of the Law
(addressed by Christ) became an issue in the early church when
applied to converts.

> You were wrong.

I was right.

>>>> refer to controversies OF THE TIME about Jewish ritual
>>>> practices ( like the issue of circumcision ) and whether they were
>>>> required for non-Jewish converts.

>>> Read Matthew 15 and tell me where Christ was addressing converts or
>>> circumcision. He was addressing the legalism of the Pharisees, as
>>> well as your own AR legalism. St Paul addressed the same matter in a
>>> similar context. In both cases, it's clear that Christians should not
>>> judge others on the basis of diet.

>> Legalism is always an issue, on various topics,

> We're not discussing various topics. We're discussing a narrow issue
> witin a Biblical context.

As I was; I am correct. The issue is not Law, but the spirit -- and
the Christian spirit, the mind of Christ, deals with compassion,
non-violence, and service and sacrifice by the higher for the lower.
Christian AR is based in this spirit.

>> and I think Biblical
>> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law --

> You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two aspects
> of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider the
> following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar, for a
> quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on academic
> credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a professor at
> Westminster Theological Seminary.
> http://snipurl.com/4er3

I'll read it later. I don't necessarily accept the teachings of
Protestants.

> Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition

Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, like the
Protestant sects.

<snip>

> What you are failing to note is that Christ and Paul taught that the Law
> serves a purpose even for believers. The Pharisees taught that the Law
> made people holy (i.e., "what goes into a man's mouth"). That is also
> the part addressed by Paul. He even asks himself in one of the epistles
> if the law is meaningless, which is a point you seem to be trying to
> make. His answer was NO. Yours seems to be yes.

The Law has a function much like the 39 Articles. It is a
historical document from a different culture and a different time,
and it is valuable as an insight into the origins of our own
beliefs, but it is no longer binding as written then.

<snip>
> Certain food and drink cannot make
> us any more ethical than not buying certain things on Sunday or having a
> beer: it's all BS whether right or left.

But AR is not about "certain food and drink." It is about our
attitude toward and treatment of God's creatures, given into our
care. Vegetarianism is just one small aspect of AR thought.

>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it.

> Where do you find God or know what his will is?

A good question, and one we all have to search out.

>> I
>> think a compassion toward God's creation and our fellow beings is
>> central to that.

> You have a very different view of "compassion" than most people, even
> among Christians.

Which, as Linzey remarks, is both true and unfortunate.

> Your AR paradigms contradict the teachings of
> Scripture and history and isn't a question of slavery or gang rape or
> any of your other diversions.

There are historical parallels and prototypes for AR thought among
saints and teachers in the Church.

>> I've been attending the Confirmation class in my parish -- I go to the
>> Confirmation class in every parish I attend, because it is a wonderful
>> way to learn how different priests approach the identity of the Church,

> I would endorse this, too, of attending such courses in other
> congregations which have a more traditional view.

I was confirmed in 1958. I've DONE traditional, thank you....

>> and their individual emphases. This priest was stressing that we look
>> into each others' faces and see Christ there.

> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real
> Christ.

No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we
thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our
priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a
living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our
fellow creatures, human and non-human.

> The touchy-feely ones seem to prefer the Christ-in-your-face to
> the real one anyway.

>> There was another *** (male) couple in the class -- together for 24
>> years -- and it was
>> wonderful to see in them a reflection of our own growth in the church
>> and our own search,

> Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the
> fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican
> bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly
> see any of that as positive development.

Nor do I. It's sad when rigid legalism and lack of charity split
the church. As I said, it's not the liberals who are splitting
the church and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are
leaving and setting up their own new denomination.

>> and then to look around the circle and see Christ
>> also in the faces of the little 12-year-old Oriental girl,

> *Asian* girl. "Oriental" is perjorative unless you're speaking of
> objects like antiques.

If you say so. O.K.

>> the other
>> young people, the middle-aged ex-Presbyterian, and the middle-aged
>> Irish ex-Roman priest. I offered the closing prayer, which I feel is
>> the central commission Christ gives us: "Oh Lord, help us to see that
>> we are all one in Thee, and give us the grace to serve Thee
>> in each other."

>>>> There is no relevance to animal rights at all.

>>> Actually there is: both passages deal with forms of legalism. Both
>>> Christ and St Paul are saying that we're defiled by what comes out of
>>> our mouths and not what goes in it. You and other ARAs, like the
>>> Pharisees, suggest ethics and morality are based upon diet and
>>> lifestyle. You're diametrically at odds with Jesus and Paul about that.

>> Would you suggest that ethics and morality have nothing to do with
>> lifestyle?

> Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering each
> individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats.

Oh -- only YOUR definitions of lifestyle. I see....

>> That certainly has no basis in Scripture or the Church's
>> teaching. You've been beating me on the head with complaints about
>> the supposed evils of my "lifestyle" for some time here. Have you
>> changed your opinion on that?

> No, you've simply misinterpreted what I wrote.

Uh-huh. Only YOUR particular hobby-horses. I see....

>>>> <snip>

>>>>> The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in
>>>>> opposition to it!)

>>>> It says nothing about homosexuality

>>> Liar. It says a lot against it.

>> Not as we understand it today, as an orientation.

> You raise your red herring yet again. Those passages address people who
> were oriented toward homosexuality back then, and they still address
> them today. The only thing that has changed is the politics of it and
> the condoning of it in some quarters.

I doubt we'll ever agree, so I'll just leave it at that.

>> <snip>

>>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a
>>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's relationship
>>> with God: how it went awry, how it was put back together. To draw or
>>> create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- misses its real
>>> meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which is Christ.

>> If you

> *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p

>> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that,

> I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over
> anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I dislike
> as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or falsely
> aligning me with them.

>> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog.

> I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being Fred
> Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue?

Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other
Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out.

>> Our priest has spent
>> his life (and earned his Doctorate ) in the theory and practice of
>> Reconciliation, working in Ireland, the Balkans, and recently
>> dialoging with Moslems from Afghanistan.

<snip>

>> I wish you could meet him and talk with him.

> I'd set him straight.

You think you know more about me than my priest -- or
understand better what being a Christian means? Fine --
do what you want, believe what you want, I have no quarrel
with that. But my priest is my priest, and if I want
spiritual direction, I'll go to him, not you.

Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very
good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through
our own efforts. We do what we can, accept it will never be
enough, and put the rest in God's hands. It was a hard
lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other
good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart
and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once,
and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and
my "nervous breakdown." If I ever DID change my mind on
anything, or have any doubts about my actions, you can be
DAMN sure I'd never admit it again here. You are not honest
searchers after truth and fellow Christians with concern
for animals and our ethical obligations toward them. You
are a bunch of vicious hyenas waiting to leap on any sign
of weakness. I know you now, and I will never trust
any of you in discussing serious issues ever again.

<snip>
>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
>> image of what we should be.

> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things.

How so?
<snip>
>>> Ipse dixit. The dominion given man over ALL creatures is in conflict
>>> with your statement.

>> No, not at all.

> Yes, completely.

No, no more than the Kingship of God indicates earthly kings should
be tyrants.

>> The dominion (stewardship ) we are given is what
>> compels us to recognize our obligations toward the creatures God
>> gives into our care and concern,

> And which in NO way prevents us from eating them or using them for our
> welfare.

Ipse dixit.

<snip>

>>>>> The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have
>>>>> rights.

>>>> It doesn't say HUMANS have rights either. None of His creatures
>>>> have rights against their Creator. But justice is a great issue,
>>>> and human and animal rights grow out of that Biblical concern.

>>> Ipse dixit. Animal rights do not grow out of Biblical concern. The
>>> issue is pagan and foreign to the Bible.

>> That is not true. The roots of animal and human rights are to be found
>> in the Bible and our Christian heritage.

<snip>
> The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God.

Ipse dixit.

<snip>

Rat

degeneRat wrote:
<...>
>>> and I think Biblical
>>> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law --
>
>> You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two
>> aspects of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider
>> the following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar,
>> for a quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on
>> academic credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a
>> professor at Westminster Theological Seminary.
>> http://snipurl.com/4er3
>
> I'll read it later. I don't necessarily accept the teachings of
> Protestants.

From Grace Cathedral (SF) Episcopal Church's website:

So... What, exactly, is Anglicanism?
The Anglican Church is both Protestant and Catholic; it retains
the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic tradition and
incorporates theological insights of the Protestant reformation.
http://www.20s30satgracecathedral.org/links.htm

IOW, your church is Protestant in teaching (substance) and Romanist in
hierarchy (form).

From another Episcopal Church's FAQ:
Q: What is the difference between the Episcopal and the Roman
Catholic Churches? The Episcopal service seems very similar to
the Roman Catholic Mass.

So does my church's liturgy; so much so that one of my RC ex-girlfriends
had no problem attending our services.

A: They are similar. Some parts, in fact, are identical. We,
however, are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion – the
group of Churches that are "in communion" with the Church of
England. We have some doctrinal differences with the Roman
Church

That should read "MANY doctrinal differences," but again it's a matter
of form as noted next:

– and, in places, we have differing interpretations of
Christ's moral teachings.

You can say that again. And again. And again. And again...

But, in our basic structure, order,
liturgy and spititual life, we are indeed very similar to the
Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, in the more outward vestiges of liturgy and hierarchy; some
Reformed churches are also high church, but style isn't what the
Reformation was about. Even some Lutheran denominations like ELCA
maintain a bishop-oriented hierarchy, though it's a matter of adiaphora
-- neither commanded nor forbidden -- for good order in the church.

>> Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition
>
> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine,

Yes, you did. My church claims to be catholic as well, and we are. You
differ tremendously over the following Roman Catholic doctrines:

* female ordination
* contraception and abortion
* papal infallibility
* perpetual virginity of Mary
* immaculate conception of Mary
* assumption of Mary

There are many more.

> like the Protestant sects.

Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website.

<snip>
>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it.
>
>> Where do you find God or know what his will is?
>
> A good question, and one we all have to search out.

Where do you start?

<snip>
>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real
>> Christ.
>
> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we
> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our
> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a
> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our
> fellow creatures, human and non-human.

If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a
homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone who
chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc.

I would not see the one who lived a perfect life in my place, suffered
and died for my sins, and was raised again for my justification. That
Christ still lives and is seated at the right hand of the Father to make
intercession for me and for you. He is not a spiritual "presence" whose
grunt work is carried out in leftwing political activism.

<snip>
>> Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the
>> fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican
>> bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly
>> see any of that as positive development.
>
> Nor do I. It's sad when rigid legalism

I don't call their charitable efforts to discuss the matter "rigid
legalism." I do call the uncharitable and radical moves away from
Scripture and tradition, and away from good order in the church, schism.

> and lack of charity split the church.

I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just disagree
with you which side showed the lack of charity.

> As I said, it's not the liberals who are splitting
> the church

Yes, it's the radicals who want homosexual bishops who are causing
schism and division.

> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are
> leaving and setting up their own new denomination.

They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred. Guess who'll have
fellowship with the other Anglican bodies and resume dialogues with the
Roman Catholics and other churches.

<...>
>> Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering
>> each individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats.
>
> Oh -- only YOUR definitions of lifestyle. I see....

No, the one in the context of this discussion.

<snip>
>>>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a
>>>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's
>>>> relationship with God: how it went awry, how it was put back
>>>> together. To draw or create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE --
>>>> misses its real meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which
>>>> is Christ.
>
>>> If you
>
>> *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p

The *least* you could do is apologize for being so uncharitable.

>>> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that,
>
>> I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over
>> anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I
>> dislike as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or
>> falsely aligning me with them.
>
>>> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog.
>
>> I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being Fred
>> Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue?
>
> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other
> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out.

Then why do you even bother replying?

<snip>
>>> I wish you could meet him and talk with him.
>
>> I'd set him straight.
>
> You think you know more about me than my priest --

I don't know what your priest knows about you, I only know what you've
told these newsgroups.

> or
> understand better what being a Christian means?

You can't even tell me where to find God or learn his will. You offer
Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism. I don't think it
is. I think those are tangential issues which Christianity can address,
but they are so far from the center of Christianity's reality that
they're unimportant.

> Fine --
> do what you want, believe what you want, I have no quarrel
> with that. But my priest is my priest, and if I want
> spiritual direction, I'll go to him, not you.

That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is that
he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word. I already know you
don't care about the full counsel for various reasons. So long as you
offer your opinions as statements of fact, I will (a) clarify what the
Bible actually says about those things and (b) state the historical
perspective (novelty, etc) of what you opine.

Homosexual and AR activism both are antithetical to the Bible and both
are historical novelties. Your positions about homosexuality being an
orientation are not supported by Scripture, history, or science, but
rather by modern sociologists with political agendas.

> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very
> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through
> our own efforts.

See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a
lot of effort.

> We do what we can, accept it will never be
> enough, and put the rest in God's hands.

Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in God's
hands.

> It was a hard
> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other
> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart
> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once,
> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and
> my "nervous breakdown."

If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a
*spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those
tangential issues.

> If I ever DID change my mind on
> anything, or have any doubts about my actions, you can be
> DAMN sure I'd never admit it again here.

Why not? I admitted my errors. Of course, that meant the vegans didn't
like me anymore, but that was after they showed their true colors (red,
pink, yellow).

> You are not honest searchers after truth

I'm honest and I do search after truth.

> and fellow Christians with concern
> for animals and our ethical obligations toward them.

I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have my
own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR isn't
about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR views
don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't incline
me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for reasons
given in texts you snipped two messages ago.

> You
> are a bunch of vicious hyenas waiting to leap on any sign
> of weakness.

Take a good look at that sidekick of yours. There's your vicious hyena:

Do I hate kids? Yes!
-- Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

Hate the very social structure that created me? Oh,
Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury that writhes within
my form like a rotting pestilential tumor crying for its
freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW myself to think back
to the pastel stucco houses, each with a tricycle or a swingset
in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a kitty named Mister
Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do worse than that... I
want to tear down those prim little houses, each festering in
its own self-assured vileness! I want to firebomb the Chevy
Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every dichondra infested
lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his ****ing GONADS and rip
his belly oepn to expose the wretched vomiting hypocrisy that
fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in the African sun.
I want to smash the windows to let in the wind and maybe
dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's rotting viviparous
snatch! Then I want to visit their neighbors, Ozzie and
Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in a squirming
******* love-fest, if either of them can stand the stretched-out
stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get lucky and see Ricky
buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel hard social
frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay they call you 'Beaver'
you little faggot!"

....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT 'em! Bitter? Try
so ****ing disgusted at a society that worships people in exact
inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier than the soaked
Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but after that, it's
ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing FETUS, worry about
the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and SHITSCREW the poor
senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that he is! **** Granny,
but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee!

Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting in you living room!
You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no matter HOW hard you
try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze and my rage STILL
stinks to the high heavens, because when you get a whiff of ME
you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced and splattered over
your Sunday picnic!

Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR
children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty
flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!
-- Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8

I don't see what anyone could ever see in her.

> I know you now, and I will never trust
> any of you in discussing serious issues ever again.

That's your loss, not mine.

> <snip>
>
>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
>>> image of what we should be.
>
>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things.
>
> How so?

As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and
veganism and judge others on it. IOW, you judge a man by what he puts in
his mouth rather than what comes out of it -- going against Christ's
teaching -- and you judge others on the basis of meat and drink -- going
against St Paul's teaching. You are a legalist and a Pharisee, albeit
one whose standards are set by caprice (it isn't the Holy Spirit) rather
than Scripture.

<snip>
>> The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God.
>
> Ipse dixit.

This has already been demonstrated by all the stuff you keep snipping. I
know you don't like the Bible and seek to marginalize it, but it doesn't
support what you're trying to put forward as Christian.

usual suspect wrote:

> degeneRat wrote:
> <...>
>
>>>> and I think Biblical
>>>> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law --
>>
>>
>>> You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two
>>> aspects of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider
>>> the following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar,
>>> for a quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on
>>> academic credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a
>>> professor at Westminster Theological Seminary.
>>> http://snipurl.com/4er3
>>
>>
>> I'll read it later. I don't necessarily accept the teachings of
>> Protestants.

Karen doesn't accept all kinds of things she finds
inconvenient. She's a cafeteria Christian.

>
>
> From Grace Cathedral (SF) Episcopal Church's website:
>
> So... What, exactly, is Anglicanism?
> The Anglican Church is both Protestant and Catholic; it retains
> the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic tradition and
> incorporates theological insights of the Protestant reformation.
> http://www.20s30satgracecathedral.org/links.htm
>
> IOW, your church is Protestant in teaching (substance) and Romanist in
> hierarchy (form).
>
> From another Episcopal Church's FAQ:
> Q: What is the difference between the Episcopal and the Roman
> Catholic Churches? The Episcopal service seems very similar to
> the Roman Catholic Mass.
>
> So does my church's liturgy; so much so that one of my RC ex-girlfriends
> had no problem attending our services.
>
> A: They are similar. Some parts, in fact, are identical. We,
> however, are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion – the
> group of Churches that are "in communion" with the Church of
> England. We have some doctrinal differences with the Roman
> Church
>
> That should read "MANY doctrinal differences," but again it's a matter
> of form as noted next:
>
> – and, in places, we have differing interpretations of
> Christ's moral teachings.
>
> You can say that again. And again. And again. And again...
>
> But, in our basic structure, order,
> liturgy and spititual life, we are indeed very similar to the
> Roman Catholic Church.
>
> Yes, in the more outward vestiges of liturgy and hierarchy; some
> Reformed churches are also high church, but style isn't what the
> Reformation was about. Even some Lutheran denominations like ELCA
> maintain a bishop-oriented hierarchy, though it's a matter of adiaphora
> -- neither commanded nor forbidden -- for good order in the church.
>
>>> Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition
>>
>>
>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine,
>
>
> Yes, you did. My church claims to be catholic as well, and we are. You
> differ tremendously over the following Roman Catholic doctrines:
>
> * female ordination
> * contraception and abortion
> * papal infallibility
> * perpetual virginity of Mary
> * immaculate conception of Mary
> * assumption of Mary
>
> There are many more.
>
>> like the Protestant sects.
>
>
> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
>>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it.
>>
>>
>>> Where do you find God or know what his will is?
>>
>>
>> A good question, and one we all have to search out.
>
>
> Where do you start?
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real
>>> Christ.
>>
>>
>> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we
>> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our
>> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a
>> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our
>> fellow creatures, human and non-human.
>
>
> If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a
> homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone who
> chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc.
>
> I would not see the one who lived a perfect life in my place, suffered
> and died for my sins, and was raised again for my justification. That
> Christ still lives and is seated at the right hand of the Father to make
> intercession for me and for you. He is not a spiritual "presence" whose
> grunt work is carried out in leftwing political activism.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the
>>> fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican
>>> bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly
>>> see any of that as positive development.
>>
>>
>> Nor do I. It's sad when rigid legalism
>
>
> I don't call their charitable efforts to discuss the matter "rigid
> legalism." I do call the uncharitable and radical moves away from
> Scripture and tradition, and away from good order in the church, schism.
>
>> and lack of charity split the church.
>
>
> I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just disagree
> with you which side showed the lack of charity.
>
>> As I said, it's not the liberals who are splitting
>> the church
>
>
> Yes, it's the radicals who want homosexual bishops who are causing
> schism and division.
>
>> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are
>> leaving and setting up their own new denomination.
>
>
> They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred. Guess who'll have
> fellowship with the other Anglican bodies and resume dialogues with the
> Roman Catholics and other churches.
>
> <...>
>
>>> Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering
>>> each individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats.
>>
>>
>> Oh -- only YOUR definitions of lifestyle. I see....
>
>
> No, the one in the context of this discussion.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a
>>>>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's
>>>>> relationship with God: how it went awry, how it was put back
>>>>> together. To draw or create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE --
>>>>> misses its real meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which
>>>>> is Christ.
>>
>>
>>>> If you
>>
>>
>>> *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p
>
>
> The *least* you could do is apologize for being so uncharitable.
>
>>>> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that,
>>
>>
>>> I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over
>>> anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I
>>> dislike as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or
>>> falsely aligning me with them.
>>
>>
>>>> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog.
>>
>>
>>> I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being
>>> Fred Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue?
>>
>>
>> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other
>> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out.
>
>
> Then why do you even bother replying?
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I wish you could meet him and talk with him.
>>
>>
>>> I'd set him straight.
>>
>>
>> You think you know more about me than my priest --
>
>
> I don't know what your priest knows about you, I only know what you've
> told these newsgroups.
>
>> or
>> understand better what being a Christian means?
>
>
> You can't even tell me where to find God or learn his will. You offer
> Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism. I don't think it
> is. I think those are tangential issues which Christianity can address,
> but they are so far from the center of Christianity's reality that
> they're unimportant.
>
>> Fine --
>> do what you want, believe what you want, I have no quarrel
>> with that. But my priest is my priest, and if I want
>> spiritual direction, I'll go to him, not you.
>
>
> That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is that
> he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word. I already know you
> don't care about the full counsel for various reasons. So long as you
> offer your opinions as statements of fact, I will (a) clarify what the
> Bible actually says about those things and (b) state the historical
> perspective (novelty, etc) of what you opine.
>
> Homosexual and AR activism both are antithetical to the Bible and both
> are historical novelties. Your positions about homosexuality being an
> orientation are not supported by Scripture, history, or science, but
> rather by modern sociologists with political agendas.
>
>> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very
>> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through
>> our own efforts.
>
>
> See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a
> lot of effort.
>
>> We do what we can, accept it will never be
>> enough, and put the rest in God's hands.
>
>
> Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in God's
> hands.
>
>> It was a hard
>> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other
>> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart
>> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once,
>> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and
>> my "nervous breakdown."
>
>
> If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a
> *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those
> tangential issues.
>
>> If I ever DID change my mind on
>> anything, or have any doubts about my actions, you can be
>> DAMN sure I'd never admit it again here.
>
>
> Why not? I admitted my errors. Of course, that meant the vegans didn't
> like me anymore, but that was after they showed their true colors (red,
> pink, yellow).
>
>> You are not honest searchers after truth
>
>
> I'm honest and I do search after truth.
>
>> and fellow Christians with concern
>> for animals and our ethical obligations toward them.
>
>
> I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have my
> own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR isn't
> about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR views
> don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't incline
> me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for reasons
> given in texts you snipped two messages ago.
>
>> You
>> are a bunch of vicious hyenas waiting to leap on any sign
>> of weakness.
>
>
> Take a good look at that sidekick of yours. There's your vicious hyena:
>
> Do I hate kids? Yes!
> -- Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>
> Hate the very social structure that created me? Oh,
> Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury that writhes within
> my form like a rotting pestilential tumor crying for its
> freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW myself to think back
> to the pastel stucco houses, each with a tricycle or a swingset
> in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a kitty named Mister
> Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do worse than that... I
> want to tear down those prim little houses, each festering in
> its own self-assured vileness! I want to firebomb the Chevy
> Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every dichondra infested
> lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his ****ing GONADS and rip
> his belly oepn to expose the wretched vomiting hypocrisy that
> fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in the African sun.
> I want to smash the windows to let in the wind and maybe
> dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's rotting viviparous
> snatch! Then I want to visit their neighbors, Ozzie and
> Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in a squirming
> ******* love-fest, if either of them can stand the stretched-out
> stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get lucky and see Ricky
> buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel hard social
> frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay they call you 'Beaver'
> you little faggot!"
>
> ....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT 'em! Bitter? Try
> so ****ing disgusted at a society that worships people in exact
> inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier than the soaked
> Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but after that, it's
> ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing FETUS, worry about
> the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and SHITSCREW the poor
> senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that he is! **** Granny,
> but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee!
>
> Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting in you living room!
> You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no matter HOW hard you
> try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze and my rage STILL
> stinks to the high heavens, because when you get a whiff of ME
> you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced and splattered over
> your Sunday picnic!
>
> Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR
> children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty
> flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!
> -- Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>
> I don't see what anyone could ever see in her.
>
>> I know you now, and I will never trust
>> any of you in discussing serious issues ever again.
>
>
> That's your loss, not mine.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
>>>> image of what we should be.
>>
>>
>>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things.
>>
>>
>> How so?
>
>
> As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and
> veganism and judge others on it. IOW, you judge a man by what he puts in
> his mouth rather than what comes out of it -- going against Christ's
> teaching -- and you judge others on the basis of meat and drink -- going
> against St Paul's teaching. You are a legalist and a Pharisee, albeit
> one whose standards are set by caprice (it isn't the Holy Spirit) rather
> than Scripture.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God.
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit.
>
>
> This has already been demonstrated by all the stuff you keep snipping. I
> know you don't like the Bible and seek to marginalize it, but it doesn't
> support what you're trying to put forward as Christian.
>

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:02:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Davey wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which ones? How do the possums you eat benefit from being born?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Never heard of possums being farmed,
>>>>>
>>>>>Two questions on separte issues, Mr Yates. The possums and raccoons get
>>>>>in the crawl space under Davey's trailer and commence to making a fuss.
>>>>>Then Davey gets down there and kills'em.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie. What did I actually do with the possums that I trapped on
>>>>my property?
>>>
>>>You said you trapped a small one and discarded it at a state park.
>>
>> I said that I turned it loose, which is not the same.
>
>It's the same. You turned loose a baby animal, which has probably since
>starved to death,

What makes you "think" it was a baby or that it starved to death?

>so you could trap and eat its mother. What did you do
>to the mother possum, Davey?

LOL! You people think that "The Beverly Hillbillys" and "The Lion King"
are documentaries, and want everyone else to think so too.
I never did catch the larger possum I thought was coming around, but
did catch another small one which I turned loose in a different park.

>> But far be it from you to be honest.
>
>If you were on Mars and stumbled into one of our craft, it would report
>back that there are no signs of intelligent life on that planet.

That's probably another lie. If a probe discovered a living creature in
a climate controlled suit or vehicle I doubt it would report back that there
are no signs of intelligent life on that planet.

>>>You
>>>were also still hoping to catch a bigger one under the trailer.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Davey thinks that it's okay
>>>>>since they benefitted from being born and got to experience life.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:19:56 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

<snip>

>Check with your local library. The online archive goes back to 1996:
>http://query.nytimes.com/search/advanced

But the article is from 1989.

>No, you haven't established any reason to believe they're true. I showed
>you that several of them are false.

You didn't show that. You just offered your opinion.

>Why don't you take some time and
>research those I asked you to prove?

Because I don't have to. I know the meat industry is evil and anyone
who supports is either grossly foolish and uninformed or evil himself.

<snip>

You didn't really think I'd waste my time bickering with some half-wit
who tries to make us believe that vegetarianism is as evil as the meat
industry, did you?

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although
they didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause pf
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood preassure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart diesase. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:43:27 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> You are just saying that because you are really ****ed off that your
>> obfuscation techniques don't work here
>
>No, punk, I'm saying it because your material is stale
>and unperusasive.
>
>You really are stupid, punk. You are seen to be a
>hypocrite and liar.

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although
they didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause pf
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood preassure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart diesase. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

Jahnu wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:43:27 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jahnu wrote:
>
>
>>>You are just saying that because you are really ****ed off that your
>>>obfuscation techniques don't work here
>>
>>No, punk, I'm saying it because your material is stale
>>and unperusasive.
>>
>>You really are stupid, punk. You are seen to be a
>>hypocrite and liar.
>
>
> "Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
> certain diseases?

This is not the issue, punk. You are not
(pseudo)-"vegan" for health reasons. You make the
uninformed choice for allegedly "ethical" reasons. We
see, clearly, that your ethics is bogus, because you
STILL cause suffering an death for animals with your
dietary choice.

usual suspect wrote:

> Rat wrote:
<...>

>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine,

> Yes, you did.

No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology.
Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death.
The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth
over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up
in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant."
OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish.

We are, however, not Roman (thank God).

> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website.

Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman.

<snip>

>>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
>>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it.

>>> Where do you find God or know what his will is?

>> A good question, and one we all have to search out.

> Where do you start?

With Scripture, Tradition, and Reason -- and listening to what God
sends you in meditation and prayer, for me.

> <snip>

>>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real
>>> Christ.

>> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we
>> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our
>> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a
>> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our
>> fellow creatures, human and non-human.

> If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a
> homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone who
> chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc.

But God and the Church tell us also, the image of Christ. Even Jon
Ball, despite his wizened, black, and shriveled spirit and his
cruelty, bears the image of Christ, and Christ died for him also, as
for you and me. I pray for him.

<snip>
> I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just disagree
> with you which side showed the lack of charity.

Well, there you are. That's often the problem, isn't it?

<snip>

>> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are
>> leaving and setting up their own new denomination.

> They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred.

Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out....

<snip>

>> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other
>> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out.

> Then why do you even bother replying?

Probably for the same reason you bother replying to me. I truly believe
that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world
and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation
and God's relationship with His creation.

<snip>
> You offer
> Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism.

I think those reflect one aspect of God's justice in the world.

> I don't think it
> is. I think those are tangential issues which Christianity can address,
> but they are so far from the center of Christianity's reality that
> they're unimportant.

I think they are a central aspect of Christ's sacrifice for the
abused, downtrodden, and poor. Surely there are no creatures more
helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more.
Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals. Swan often says
that she sees God in the image from the Animal Planet show of the
starved, abused, dying dog whose last act as he died was to feebly wag
his tail for the humans who had killed him. Surely, this is an image
of Christ-like forgiveness and perfect love.

<snip>

> That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is that
> he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word.

In YOUR opinion. Not mine.

<snip>

>> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very
>> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through
>> our own efforts.

> See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a
> lot of effort.

Ah -- I did read St. Paul. Jon, et. al. just provided the concrete
experience in my own life. And, as is often the case, Jon's
(and Mercer's) malice and cruelty brought about the opposite of their
intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at
peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me
through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks.

>> We do what we can, accept it will never be
>> enough, and put the rest in God's hands.

> Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in God's
> hands.

Tell that to Jon.

>> It was a hard
>> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other
>> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart
>> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once,
>> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and
>> my "nervous breakdown."

> If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a
> *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those
> tangential issues.

Yes, the reality of understanding I am not evil because I am fallible,
human, and imperfect.

<snip>

>> You are not honest searchers after truth

> I'm honest and I do search after truth.

Will you accept that I am also?

<snip>

> I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have my
> own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR isn't
> about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR views
> don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't incline
> me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for reasons
> given in texts you snipped two messages ago.

Accept that I disagree for the reasons I have given, but am equally
a Christian.

<snip>

> I don't see what anyone could ever see in her. (Swan)

That's because you don't know her in real life. She is
fun, creative, intelligent, deeply loving and compassionate,
honest, and God-centered. She has given herself to her
fellow humans in a variety of ways, and cares for them
in many ways. She sat death-watch with many terminal
patients -- including her own grandmother -- and has showed
tremendous love toward many of the least lovable people.
She has amazing patience with them. You see a persona, a
Web-creation. I see the real human being and thank God
daily that she is a part of my life.

>> I know you now, and I will never trust
>> any of you in discussing serious issues ever again.

> That's your loss, not mine.

If you say so.

>> <snip>

>>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
>>>> image of what we should be.

>>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things.

>> How so?

> As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and
> veganism and judge others on it.

Actually, I don't. Many times, I have said that I don't believe most
meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory
farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil.
I believe it sincerely and with all my heart. I believe it on the
basis of what I read in the Bible, the traditions ( minority, but there
) of the Church's history, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in
my life. You disagree. I don't think you are an evil person either --
but I do think and believe you are absolutely wrong, just as absolutely
as you believe I am wrong. You will not convince me otherwise by
throwing proof-texts at me -- Linzey throws them at you with equal
facility, and I trust him a lot more than I trust you.

God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship
and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny.

Rat
<snip>

<snipped>


I have a personal anecdote that beats that. During my
childhood/teenage years, my parents were devout members of the local
United Methodist Church so all eight of their children were in Church
52 Sundays a year and a lot of days in between. After graduation, one
of my older brothers joined the Marine Corps. While in Basic Training
at Parris Island, he sent my parents a letter stating that there were
only two choices for Christian worship at boot camp: Catholic and
Protestant. He decided against Catholicism for some reason. In a very
apologetic letter, he stated he hoped my parents didn't object to the
fact he was attending a Protestant Church.

Kevin

degeneRat wrote:
>>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
>>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine,
>
>> Yes, you did.
>
> No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology.

No, the issue was Henry's divorce -- A POINT OF DOCTRINE. Following the
split with Rome, Canterbury continued to reform on matters of DOCTRINE.

> Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death.

Ipse dixit. Had he been a staunch Roman Catholic, he would have very
well accepted their DOCTRINE of marriage and divorce.

> The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth
> over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up
> in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant."

So does my church, but it is a matter of semantics since "Reformed" and
"Evangelical" are synonymous with "Protestant." Your church is not
RC-with-a-different-hierarchy. There are real doctrinal differences
between you.

> OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish.

Snob.

> We are, however, not Roman (thank God).

Snob.

>> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website.
>
> Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman.

So?

> <snip>
>
>>>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important
>>>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it.
>
>>>> Where do you find God or know what his will is?
>
>>> A good question, and one we all have to search out.
>
>> Where do you start?
>
> With Scripture, Tradition,

Good answers there...

> and Reason --

Somewhat acceptable, but even your church teaches (or used to) that
man's ability to reason was corrupted in the fall.

> and listening to what God
> sends you in meditation and prayer, for me.

God isn't telling you stuff contrary to what he's already spoken.

You know, Karen, I have a lot more respect for people who reject the
Bible and Christianity outright than I have for you. The only difference
between them and you is that you want to wear the "Christian" name.

>>>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real
>>>> Christ.
>
>>> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we
>>> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our
>>> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a
>>> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our
>>> fellow creatures, human and non-human.
>
>> If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a
>> homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone
>> who chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc.
>
> But God and the Church tell us also, the image of Christ.

It is not in Christ's image to condone or promote bestiality and
pedophilia, nor to hate children. Shall I keep pasting those quotes from
you and Sylvia? I don't see what good it does. You only snip them.

BTW... now that I'm raising the issue again. Is the prohibition against
having sexual relations with animals also a cultural thing? Is
bestiality also an "orientation"? If not, why do you condone it and even
speak approvingly of it?

> Even Jon
> Ball, despite his wizened, black, and shriveled spirit and his
> cruelty, bears the image of Christ, and Christ died for him also, as
> for you and me. I pray for him.

That's sweet of you.

> <snip>
>
>> I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just
>> disagree with you which side showed the lack of charity.
>
> Well, there you are. That's often the problem, isn't it?

It certainly is in your case.

> <snip>
>
>>> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are
>>> leaving and setting up their own new denomination.
>
>> They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred.
>
> Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out....

See what I mean.

> <snip>
>
>>> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other
>>> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out.
>
>> Then why do you even bother replying?
>
> Probably for the same reason you bother replying to me.

I don't think so, lol.

> I truly believe
> that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world
> and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation
> and God's relationship with His creation.

Your job should be to reconcile that with Scripture. You can't, so you
make unfounded claims about culture, orientation, and Christ's and
Paul's narrowly focused messages against judging others on the basis of
what they put into their mouths.

>> You offer Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism.
>
> I think those reflect one aspect of God's justice in the world.

Why? Where besides your incontextual allusion to Matthew 25 do you get that?

>> I don't think it is. I think those are tangential issues which
>> Christianity can address, but they are so far from the center of
>> Christianity's reality that they're unimportant.
>
> I think they are a central aspect of Christ's sacrifice for the
> abused, downtrodden, and poor.

While I agree to some degree with you about AW, I don't share your view
that it's central. Soteriology is about God and man reconciling in the
work, passion, and resurrection of Christ. It is not about AR.

> Surely there are no creatures more
> helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more.

Have you seen how Christians are treated in China, Somalia, parts of
Nigeria, or in all of Arabia?

> Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals.

Ipse dixit.

> Swan often says
> that she sees God in the image from the Animal Planet show of the
> starved, abused, dying dog whose last act as he died was to feebly wag
> his tail for the humans who had killed him. Surely, this is an image
> of Christ-like forgiveness and perfect love.

Projecting an AR bias and trying to "Christianize" it.

> <snip>
>
>> That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is
>> that he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word.
>
> In YOUR opinion. Not mine.

I know. I don't expect you to agree with me about that considering your
low opinion of the Bible and your high opinion of what you 'feel' during
meditations.

> <snip>
>
>>> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very
>>> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through
>>> our own efforts.
>
>> See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a
>> lot of effort.
>
> Ah -- I did read St. Paul. Jon, et. al. just provided the concrete
> experience in my own life. And, as is often the case, Jon's
> (and Mercer's) malice and cruelty

Where's your condemnation of Sylvia's hatred of children? Why do you
condone and approve of her hateful vitriol? That makes you come across
as quite a hypocrite.

> brought about the opposite of their
> intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at
> peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me
> through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks.

You keep coming back despite feeling "attacked." Why?

>>> We do what we can, accept it will never be
>>> enough, and put the rest in God's hands.
>
>> Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in
>> God's hands.
>
> Tell that to Jon.

Jon is free to join the discussion if he cares to discuss religious
doctrine.

>>> It was a hard
>>> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other
>>> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart
>>> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once,
>>> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and
>>> my "nervous breakdown."
>
>> If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a
>> *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those
>> tangential issues.
>
> Yes, the reality of understanding I am not evil because I am fallible,
> human, and imperfect.

Jeremiah 17:9

> <snip>
>>> You are not honest searchers after truth
>
>> I'm honest and I do search after truth.
>
> Will you accept that I am also?

Yes, but I find you to be obstinate in the face of truth. I realize you
probably see me the same way. That's fair. But like I said above, I have
more respect for those who reject Christianity outright than those who
pick and choose and modify and receive contrary revelations.

> <snip>
>> I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have
>> my own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR
>> isn't about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR
>> views don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't
>> incline me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for
>> reasons given in texts you snipped two messages ago.
>
> Accept that I disagree for the reasons I have given, but am equally
> a Christian.

Your opinions are at odds with both Scripture and tradition, as already
shown. Whatever doesn't fit your worldview is categorized as culturally
irrelevant, a matter of new understanding (such as orientation), or from
a revelation (individually or collectively) of "progress" or "justice"
contrary to Scripture.

> <snip>
>> I don't see what anyone could ever see in her. (Swan)
>
> That's because you don't know her in real life. She is
> fun, creative, intelligent, deeply loving and compassionate,
> honest, and God-centered.

Hard to pick up on that from her posts. Very hard.

> She has given herself to her
> fellow humans in a variety of ways, and cares for them
> in many ways. She sat death-watch with many terminal
> patients -- including her own grandmother -- and has showed
> tremendous love toward many of the least lovable people.
> She has amazing patience with them. You see a persona, a
> Web-creation. I see the real human being and thank God
> daily that she is a part of my life.

You admit she *hates* children. How is that consistent with what Christ
teaches about children or brothers?

<snip>
>>>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an
>>>>> image of what we should be.
>
>>>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such
>>>> things.
>
>>> How so?
>
>> As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and
>> veganism and judge others on it.
>
> Actually, I don't.

You do.

> Many times, I have said that I don't believe most
> meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory
> farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil.

Why is it evil to try to find cures for diseases or to raise food for
others?

> I believe it sincerely and with all my heart. I believe it on the
> basis of what I read in the Bible, the traditions ( minority, but there

Very small minority, almost anomalies.

> ) of the Church's history, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in
> my life. You disagree.

Yes, especially when you claim the Holy Spirit is telling you something
completely at odds with what he told St Paul, Jude, et al. Your
revelations are no different from any televangelist's in nature.

> I don't think you are an evil person either --

You don't know me.

> but I do think and believe you are absolutely wrong, just as absolutely
> as you believe I am wrong.

That's fine.

> You will not convince me otherwise by
> throwing proof-texts at me --

I know. Your show less esteem for Scripture than your private revelations.

> Linzey throws them at you with equal
> facility,

And he's wrong in his use of them, at least to the extent that he uses a
parable (e.g., Matthew 25) to formulate doctrine related to animal
rights. His views are NOT shared among your learned clergy or by any
other theologians or scholars, only by ARAs.

> and I trust him a lot more than I trust you.

I know, because he preaches what you want to hear and I don't.

> God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship
> and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny.

Do you believe I am pro-cruelty, pro-indifference, or pro-tyranny? Who
is any of those?

K D B wrote:
> I have a personal anecdote that beats that. During my
> childhood/teenage years, my parents were devout members of the local
> United Methodist Church so all eight of their children were in Church
> 52 Sundays a year and a lot of days in between. After graduation, one
> of my older brothers joined the Marine Corps. While in Basic Training
> at Parris Island, he sent my parents a letter stating that there were
> only two choices for Christian worship at boot camp: Catholic and
> Protestant. He decided against Catholicism for some reason. In a very
> apologetic letter, he stated he hoped my parents didn't object to the
> fact he was attending a Protestant Church.

That's funny. I've heard similar anecdotes. It also reminds me of an old
joke for some reason...

This guy from Arkansas went to Washington, DC, when President Kennedy
was in office. He decided to tour the White House.

The tour wound its way through the various parts of the White House, and
the tour guide paused at a bathroom.

"Since the President and his family are devoutly Roman Catholic, they've
had the whole house blessed by a priest. In fact, now the White House
has holy water running through all the pipes, in the showers, even in
the commode."

The guy returned to Arkansas and told his friends all about Washington
and the White House.

"You know, that Kennedy fella has holy water piped in that whole house.
They even have holy water in the commode."

His friends scratched their heads. One of them asked, "What's a commode?"

The guy looked puzzled. "Gee, I don't know. I ain't Catholic."

usual suspect wrote:
> Rat wrote:

>>>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
>>>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine,

>>> Yes, you did.

>> No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology.

> No, the issue was Henry's divorce

He didn't have a divorce -- he had an annulment, and he got
it on the perfectly sound point of doctrine that the Pope did
not have the authority to set aside God's Law ( you should like that).
He considered the Pope an apostate usurping false authority --
partly because the Pope at the time was under the guns of Catherine's
nephew and didn't have much political wiggle-room. Cromwell brought
in old theory on church/state relations going back to Constantine
by claiming "This England is an Empire" and thus Henry, as king, had
the same authority in his own realm as the Emperor had had in the
Roman Empire as the representative of God. This was standard theory
in the non-Roman nations in the Reformation period.

-- A POINT OF DOCTRINE. Following the
> split with Rome, Canterbury continued to reform on matters of DOCTRINE.

True.

>> Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death.

> Ipse dixit. Had he been a staunch Roman Catholic, he would have very
> well accepted their DOCTRINE of marriage and divorce.

He did. He didn't accept the authority of the Pope in England.
He had been granted a Papal dispensation to marry his brother's
widow in the first place -- i.e., the pope had set aside church
doctrine for political reasons, because Henry VII wanted to keep
Catherine's dowry and the Spanish Alliance. So the marriage was
already questionable. Once Henry and Cromwell and Cranmer
refused to accept the authority of the Pope to grant the
dispensation, the original impediment resurfaced.

Henry's defense of his annulment was based on solidly Orthodox
theology and church doctrine -- he was, after all, very educated
in theology, and had just been declared "Defender of the Faith"
for his argument against Luther in favor of the Church. As the
second son, after Arthur, he had been intended to go into the Church
and groomed for that all his life, until Arthur died. He also
recognized that the political reasons which had led to the dispensation
in the first place now demanded that the dispensation be put aside,
so that he could (he hoped) sire a male heir to the throne.

It was the usual complex Renaissance mix of politics, theology, and
personal, on both sides. Under normal conditions, the Pope would have
granted the annulment without blinking an eye, but Catherine's
political ties to the Emperor frustrated that.

>> The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth
>> over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up
>> in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant."

> So does my church, but it is a matter of semantics since "Reformed" and
> "Evangelical" are synonymous with "Protestant." Your church is not
> RC-with-a-different-hierarchy. There are real doctrinal differences
> between you.

Absolutely. That's why we're ANGLO-Catholic, not ROMAN Catholic.


>> OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish.

> Snob.

Nope. Big Tent and all that.

>> We are, however, not Roman (thank God).

> Snob.

Nope. Doctrinal and governmental issues.

>>> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website.

>> Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman.

> So?

He believes we're Catholic.

>> <snip>

<snip>
> Good answers there...

>> and Reason --

> Somewhat acceptable, but even your church teaches (or used to) that
> man's ability to reason was corrupted in the fall.

Which explains your views.

>> and listening to what God
>> sends you in meditation and prayer, for me.

> God isn't telling you stuff contrary to what he's already spoken.

Indeed.

> You know, Karen, I have a lot more respect for people who reject the
> Bible and Christianity outright than I have for you. The only difference
> between them and you is that you want to wear the "Christian" name.

I think the same about you.

<snip>

> BTW... now that I'm raising the issue again. Is the prohibition against
> having sexual relations with animals also a cultural thing? Is
> bestiality also an "orientation"? If not, why do you condone it and even
> speak approvingly of it?

Yes, I think the prohibition is cultural, and certainly bestiality is
also an orientation. I do think that zoophilia can be loving and
respectful toward the non-human partner, and, as I said, can encourage
a real understanding of the animal's individual personhood. It also,
like any unequal power relationship, is very subject to abuse. I think
responsible zoophiles have to be very careful, but I will not condemn
such relationship categorically.

<snip>

>> I truly believe
>> that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world
>> and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation
>> and God's relationship with His creation.

> Your job should be to reconcile that with Scripture. You can't

I may not be able to, but Linzey can, and does. Indeed, he founds his
argument on Scripture.

<snip>

>> Surely there are no creatures more
>> helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more.

> Have you seen how Christians are treated in China, Somalia, parts of
> Nigeria, or in all of Arabia?

Have you seen a battery chicken house or a swine confinement facility?

>> Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals.

> Ipse dixit.

It is a common idea, and true.

<snip>

> Where's your condemnation of Sylvia's hatred of children?

It's really more fear than hatred. She doesn't hate real children,
and deals well with them unless they threaten her.

<snip>

>> brought about the opposite of their
>> intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at
>> peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me
>> through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks.

> You keep coming back despite feeling "attacked." Why?

Because I speak the truth and God has told me to speak it here,
as he told the ancient prophets to speak it even in the face
of persecution by the unrighteous.

<snip>

> Yes, but I find you to be obstinate in the face of truth. I realize you
> probably see me the same way. That's fair. But like I said above, I have
> more respect for those who reject Christianity outright than those who
> pick and choose and modify and receive contrary revelations.

I would say the same about you. There are those who reject what they
see as Christianity because the organized churches are full of people
like you. Swan was one of them for many years. But that can change,
when they get to meet real Christians full of Christ's love toward all
of Creation, as Swan did in the ECUSA.

<snip>
>> Many times, I have said that I don't believe most
>> meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory
>> farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil.

> Why is it evil to try to find cures for diseases or to raise food for
> others?

It isn't. But to do it in evil ways is evil.

<snip>

>> God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship
>> and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny.

> Do you believe I am pro-cruelty, pro-indifference, or pro-tyranny? Who
> is any of those?

No one -- as they see it. But you support a system which is, with
specious perversions of Christianity which are more harmful than any
honest non- or anti-Christian position. What you say is wrong,
because it leads toward evil. "By their fruits shall ye know them,"
and the fruits of anti-AR and homophobia are oppression, contempt of
God's creatures, needless suffering, perversion of God's creation,
pride, cruelty, and death.

I know you think the same of me. So, as I say, God will judge. I may
be wrong. You may be wrong. But I will speak what I believe is
God's truth.

Rat

Good list of passages there. There are lessons to both concerned
vegetarians and quick-to-condemn Christian fundamentalists:

The Bible has also advocated stoning people who collect wood on the
Sabbath, among many other archaic, tribal and barbaric practices
(http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/D...leContents.htm). Probably
the most crucial belief one must accept is the concept of sacrifice.
The more primitive age-old belief systems (originating well before
Christianity) felt that you might take the best out of the herd, the
best of the crop, and sacrifice it to the God(s). The greedy God(s)
would be placated and not bring you special suffering. If you really
believe this, the crucifixion almost makes sense. But who today would
take his year's biggest paycheck and throw it away? Who would take his
automobile or most valuable possession and burn it? Nobody really
believes this any more and, hence, there's a tremendous disconnect.

The Way of Christ has become something to (merely) worship, no longer
something to emulate or imitate. "Thou shall not kill", "turn the other
cheek", rejecting material gain in favor of the spiritual, the Golden
Rule, forgiveness, feeding the poor, and compassion are largely
irrelevant to today's fundamentalists (of more than just Christianity).

As a Christian, one can either live in a state of denial, or focus on
the more positive messages of the New Testament, or realize that all
things must adapt over time to changing circumstances.

There are some that would attempt to change Christianity. I don't think
this is ultimately possible. It's not capable of much change (as the
curse at the end of Revelation suggests), and has a long history of
warfare, ethnic hatred, anti-science, oppression, anti-woman, etc.
behind it. Too much negative baggage, and too much writ-in-stone. Too
much emphasis on the uniquely historical and ethnic, not enough emphasis
on the transcendant universal. Although it might not have turned out
this way, had the early gnostics not been censored by the church power
structure.

Once you've brought Christianity to the 21st century, it would probably
look a lot like Buddhism. Whatever the Bible says on diet therefore
generally applies best to those people who lived a couple millenia ago.
If you want to REALLY live according the Bible, one might also reject
all post-Bronze Age technology, live in the desert, and stone people
collecting wood on the Sabbath. The problem is that the world has
changed -- in many ways improved -- and this set of beliefs, so grounded
in historical particulars, cannot.

So if one, as a vegetarian, remains Christian probably the way to
interpret it is to ask what Christ, in a modern day incarnation would be
like. There are clearly at least two different ideas:

1. Christ votes Republican. He wages wars, believes in the death
penalty (perhaps even crucifixion occasionally?), he's against abortion.
Doesn't believe in protecting the environment, minimum wage, programs
to help the poor. Prefers racial and gender-based divisions, would give
great tax breaks to the rich. Here in Minnesota, our self-professed
born-again Christian governor has legalized the carrying of concealed
weapons. So we might also add that if Christ were alive today, he'd
carry a pistol in his cloak for protection. This is how modern-day
Christian fundamentalists would "imitate" Christ, how they'd see Christ.
Or, if you take my earlier arguments, they are no longer in the
business of imitating or practicing -- only worshiping from a distance.

2. Christ is apolitical. His main empasis is on direct help to the
poor, the environment, and to all things which suffer. His message is
one of love and forgiveness, not of condemnation (that's the Old
Testament Father's job). This sort of Christ lives in all people today
who practice such behavior, living in this way, by default. It is an
"emergent" Christ. Probably the Quakers, Menonnites, and many of
non-Christian faiths (and no faiths) fall into this category.

Thus, the suffering of animals in cages, force-feeding them steroids and
animal byproducts (sometimes of their own kind!), slaughtering animals
which cannot even walk, etc. would be placed not into literal
what-does-the-Bible-say-about-21st-century-agriculture terms, but in
terms of a living spirit of the word. We might also add that modern-day
plant substitutes for protein were not at all as widely available around
the Bronze Age, particularly to only quasi-agricultural socities, and so
one wouldn't expect a modern sensibility out of a pre-modern (and
static) doctrine. At least not literally.



wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:33:54 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>jitney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is nothing "sinful" about it, Janhu, according to Godfrom
>>>Genesis 2, 3)
>>>2
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>It is important to note that, while various Christian group have
>>different interpretations, there are also many people who accept
>>that the Bible supports vegetarianism as the most Christian of diets,
>
>
> Romans 14
> 1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
> disputable matters.
> 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
> whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
>
>
>>and that Christianity supports animal rights, as it does human rights.
>
>
> Genesis 4
> 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
> as an offering to the LORD.
> 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
> flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
> 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
> was very angry, and his face was downcast.
>
> Genesis 9
> 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
> and increase in number and fill the earth.
> 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth
> and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along
> the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into
> your hands.
> 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
> you the green plants, I now give you everything.
> 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
> 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
> demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
> I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
>
> Exodus 12
> 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
> 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
> your year.
> 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
> month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
> household.
> [...]
> 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
> all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
> at twilight.
> 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
> and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
> lambs.
> 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
> along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
> 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
> the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
> [...]
> 14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you
> shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance.
>
> Leviticus 1
> 1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.
> He said,
> 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an
> offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either
> the herd or the flock.
> 3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
> a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent
> of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
> 4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will
> be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
> 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
> sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
> altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
> 6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
> 7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
> wood on the fire.
> 8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
> head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
> 9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
> is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
> made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
>
> Leviticus 12
> 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over,
> she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a
> year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for
> a sin offering.
> 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and
> then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. " 'These are
> the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.
> 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young
> pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this
> way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "
>
> Deuteronomy 12
> 15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
> towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
> gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
> God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
> may eat it.
>
> Deuteronomy 14
> 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
> goat,
> 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
> the antelope and the mountain sheep.
> 6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
> that chews the cud.
> 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
> completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
> coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
> hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
> 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
> chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
> carcasses.
> 9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
> fins and scales.
> 10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
> for you it is unclean.
> 11 You may eat any clean bird.
> 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
> 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
> 14 any kind of raven,
> 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
> 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
> 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
> 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
> 19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
> 20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
> 21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
> alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
> sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
> God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
>
> 1 Kings 8
> 5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
> gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep
> and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
> [...]
> 63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
> twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
> sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the
> temple of the LORD.
>
> Mark 7
> 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
> that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
> 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
> then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
> "clean.")
>
> Mark 14
> 12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
> was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
> asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
> for you to eat the Passover?"
> 13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
> and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
> 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
> Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
> disciples?'
>
> (refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)
>
> Luke 2
> 22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
> Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
> Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
> 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
> to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
> 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
> of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."
>
> Luke 24
> 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
> a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
> 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
> 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
> amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
> 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
> 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
>
> John 21
> 4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
> did not realize that it was Jesus.
> 5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they
> answered.
> 6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will
> find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
> because of the large number of fish.
> [...]
> 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish
> on it, and some bread.
> 10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
> 11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
> of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
> 12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."
>
> Acts 10
> 9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
> approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
> 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
> was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
> 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
> down to earth by its four corners.
> 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
> of the earth and birds of the air.
> 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
> 14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
> impure or unclean."
> 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
> that God has made clean."
> 16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back
> to heaven.
>
> Romans 14
> 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
> does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
> condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
> 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own
> master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able
> to make him stand.
> 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
> man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully
> convinced in his own mind.
> 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He
> who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and
> he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
> 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself
> alone.
> 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.
> So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
> 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he
> might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
> 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down
> on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

Rat wrote:

Before I correct more of your mistakes, I want you to consider the
following part of the coronation oath taken by the British monarch:

Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and
the *Protestant* *reformed* religion established by law, and
will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and
to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and
privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of
them?"

King and Queen, "All this I promise to do."
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/oath.htm

My emphasis. Why does the *head* of the church call it "Protestant" and
"reformed" but you won't?

>>>>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an
>>>>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine,
>
>>>> Yes, you did.
>
>>> No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology.
>
>> No, the issue was Henry's divorce
>
> He didn't have a divorce -- he had an annulment,

Distinction without any difference.

> and he got
> it on the perfectly sound point of doctrine that the Pope did
> not have the authority to set aside God's Law ( you should like that).

The grounds he sought were not on the primacy of the pope, but rather on
the grounds that Catherine could not bear him a male heir. That is not a
valid ground in Scripture *or* tradition.

> He considered the Pope an apostate usurping false authority --

That's also one reason why other monarchs stood up against the papacy
during the early 1500s.

> partly because the Pope at the time was under the guns of Catherine's
> nephew and didn't have much political wiggle-room.

The pope refused annulment on doctrinal, not political, grounds.

> Cromwell brought
> in old theory on church/state relations going back to Constantine
> by claiming "This England is an Empire" and thus Henry, as king, had
> the same authority in his own realm as the Emperor had had in the
> Roman Empire as the representative of God. This was standard theory
> in the non-Roman nations in the Reformation period.

In another sense, the Reformation was similarly based in old "theories"
about the grace, faith, and Scripture alone (pre-)dating to Augustine's
time. Luther was an Augustinian monk; his 95 theses were consistent with
Augustine and other church fathers.

>> -- A POINT OF DOCTRINE. Following the
>> split with Rome, Canterbury continued to reform on matters of DOCTRINE.
>
> True.
>
>>> Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death.
>
>> Ipse dixit. Had he been a staunch Roman Catholic, he would have very
>> well accepted their DOCTRINE of marriage and divorce.
>
> He did. He didn't accept the authority of the Pope in England.

He didn't accept his primacy anywhere except Rome, as the kings of
Sweder, Norway, Germany, etc., did.

> He had been granted a Papal dispensation to marry his brother's
> widow in the first place -- i.e., the pope had set aside church
> doctrine for political reasons, because Henry VII wanted to keep
> Catherine's dowry and the Spanish Alliance. So the marriage was
> already questionable.

Once dispensation is granted for the grounds of the marriage, annulling
it is no different than any other marriage. Henry wanted to divorce his
wife for one reason only: she didn't bear him a living male heir. That
is not grounds for divorce for king or commoner.

> Once Henry and Cromwell and Cranmer
> refused to accept the authority of the Pope to grant the
> dispensation, the original impediment resurfaced.
>
> Henry's defense of his annulment was based on solidly Orthodox
> theology and church doctrine --

No, it wasn't. It was legalistic sophistry.

> he was, after all, very educated
> in theology, and had just been declared "Defender of the Faith"
> for his argument against Luther in favor of the Church.

Specifically, he defended the Seven Sacraments -- one of which happens
to be marriage.

> As the
> second son, after Arthur, he had been intended to go into the Church
> and groomed for that all his life, until Arthur died. He also
> recognized that the political reasons which had led to the dispensation
> in the first place now demanded that the dispensation be put aside,
> so that he could (he hoped) sire a male heir to the throne.

Which is NOT sufficient grounds for divorce for king or commoner.

> It was the usual complex Renaissance mix of politics, theology, and
> personal, on both sides. Under normal conditions, the Pope would have
> granted the annulment without blinking an eye, but Catherine's
> political ties to the Emperor frustrated that.

I don't accept that it was all political, though I know *some*
historians suggest that it was.

>>> The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth
>>> over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up
>>> in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant."
>
>> So does my church, but it is a matter of semantics since "Reformed"
>> and "Evangelical" are synonymous with "Protestant." Your church is not
>> RC-with-a-different-hierarchy. There are real doctrinal differences
>> between you.
>
> Absolutely. That's why we're ANGLO-Catholic, not ROMAN Catholic.

There's much more to it than just your names imply.

>>> OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish.
>
>> Snob.
>
> Nope.

Yes.

> Big Tent and all that.

Too bad the tent's not big enough for the traditionalists: not just the
Americans, but those in the rest of Anglicanism who are breaking ties
with what's left of your church.

>>> We are, however, not Roman (thank God).
>
>> Snob.
>
> Nope. Doctrinal and governmental issues.

More doctrinal than hierarchy.

>>>> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website.
>
>>> Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman.
>
>> So?
>
> He believes we're Catholic.

So? You also think you're correct, and you're not. We can't stop either
of you from harboring your delusions.

<...>
>> Somewhat acceptable, but even your church teaches (or used to) that
>> man's ability to reason was corrupted in the fall.
>
> Which explains your views.

PKB, especially when comparing what each of us professes about
homosexuality in light of:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by
their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to
them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the
creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal
power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God
nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and
their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be
wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal
God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and
animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their
hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and
worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who
is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with
women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed
indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain
the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to
do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every
kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They
are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and
boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their
parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such
things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very
things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-32

IOW, your "orientation" is the culmination of being turned over to your
lusts and depravity.

>>> and listening to what God
>>> sends you in meditation and prayer, for me.
>
>> God isn't telling you stuff contrary to what he's already spoken.
>
> Indeed.

It's Satan, not God, telling you those things.

>> You know, Karen, I have a lot more respect for people who reject the
>> Bible and Christianity outright than I have for you. The only
>> difference between them and you is that you want to wear the
>> "Christian" name.
>
> I think the same about you.

So we're even.

> <snip>
>
>> BTW... now that I'm raising the issue again. Is the prohibition
>> against having sexual relations with animals also a cultural thing? Is
>> bestiality also an "orientation"? If not, why do you condone it and
>> even speak approvingly of it?
>
> Yes, I think the prohibition is cultural, and certainly bestiality is
> also an orientation. I do think that zoophilia can be loving and
> respectful toward the non-human partner, and, as I said, can encourage
> a real understanding of the animal's individual personhood. It also,
> like any unequal power relationship, is very subject to abuse. I think
> responsible zoophiles have to be very careful, but I will not condemn
> such relationship categorically.

I'll save that quote for future reference. I promise to use it in its
entire context, too.

> <snip>
>
>>> I truly believe
>>> that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world
>>> and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation
>>> and God's relationship with His creation.
>
>> Your job should be to reconcile that with Scripture. You can't
>
> I may not be able to, but Linzey can, and does.

Only by stretching it. The use of Matthew 25 -- the parable of the
sheeps and goats -- is instructive, but to narrowly use it as you and
Linzey do is to alter its meaning. The goats have works -- MORE works --
than the sheep. Heaven is offered not as a reward, but as an
inheritence: something earned by someone else and bestowed upon the
earner's death.

> Indeed, he founds his argument on Scripture.

Why do so many of his fellow churchmen disagree with him when they read
the same Bible? Could it *possibly* be that he's reading INTO texts
things nobody else has ever read OUT of them? He is an eisegete, not an
exegete.

> <snip>
>
>>> Surely there are no creatures more
>>> helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more.
>
>> Have you seen how Christians are treated in China, Somalia, parts of
>> Nigeria, or in all of Arabia?
>
> Have you seen a battery chicken house or a swine confinement facility?

Yes, most such animals are treated quite well. They're not in a few
instances. Not all "factory" farming is bad.

>>> Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals.
>
>> Ipse dixit.
>
> It is a common idea,

No, it is not widely held. Your point is now appeal to popularity.

> and true.

Still ipse dixit.

> <snip>
>
>> Where's your condemnation of Sylvia's hatred of children?
>
> It's really more fear than hatred.

Fear of what?

> She doesn't hate real children,

What other kinds are there?

> and deals well with them unless they threaten her.

How do children threaten her?

> <snip>
>
>>> brought about the opposite of their
>>> intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at
>>> peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me
>>> through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks.
>
>> You keep coming back despite feeling "attacked." Why?
>
> Because I speak the truth

When?

> and God has told me to speak it here,

When did he tell you this, and what exactly did he say?

> as he told the ancient prophets to speak it even in the face
> of persecution by the unrighteous.

Delusion of grandeur. You're no Isaiah.

>> Yes, but I find you to be obstinate in the face of truth. I realize
>> you probably see me the same way. That's fair. But like I said above,
>> I have more respect for those who reject Christianity outright than
>> those who pick and choose and modify and receive contrary revelations.
>
> I would say the same about you. There are those who reject what they
> see as Christianity because the organized churches are full of people
> like you.

You still don't know me or what I believe. You seem to have a caricature
based on what you *think* I believe (Fred Phelps references, fundie,
etc.), but that's a strawman.

<snip>
>>> Many times, I have said that I don't believe most
>>> meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory
>>> farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil.
>
>> Why is it evil to try to find cures for diseases or to raise food for
>> others?
>
> It isn't. But to do it in evil ways is evil.

What's evil about testing something on monkeys and rats before giving it
to a child? What's evil about raising cattle?

>>> God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship
>>> and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny.
>
>> Do you believe I am pro-cruelty, pro-indifference, or pro-tyranny? Who
>> is any of those?
>
> No one -- as they see it. But you support a system which is,

No, I don't make the same leaps of (il)logic that you do. Nor do I
equate the life of a rodent with the life of a human.

> with
> specious perversions of Christianity

My Christian faith isn't a perversion, and it certainly isn't specious.

> which are more harmful than any
> honest non- or anti-Christian position.

Here again, I think the same of you and your apostate views.

> What you say is wrong,

Ipse dixit. I have shown you repeatedly in Scripture AND tradition that
my points are valid. Your use of Scripture is to deny it, to say it's
culturally irrelevant or obsolete, and to twist it to suit your purposes
(such as taking the parable in Matthew 25 out of context to build a
pretext).

> because it leads toward evil.

Ipse dixit. You promote what the Bible calls evil, and you condemn what
it calls good. You even condone and approve of pedophilia and
bestiality, as if your promotion of homosexuality weren't bad enough.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil...
Isaiah 5:20

Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from
the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others
to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But
whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called
greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:18-19

Heaven and earth have not passed away. Why are you teaching others to
break Christ's commandments?

> "By their fruits shall ye know them,"

Yes. We see you coming from a mile away.

> and the fruits of anti-AR and homophobia are oppression,

No. One can be anti-AR without being oppressive. One can also disapprove
of homosexuality and homosexual marriage without oppressing.

> contempt of God's creatures,

Neither opposing AR or disapproving of homosexuality is an act of
contempt. When done purposefully, as in citing Biblical reasons to
another Christian, it is quite the opposite: it is an attempt to correct
an erring brother or sister. I'm sorry you don't see it for what it
really is, but I recognize that you an agenda and don't care what the
Bible says about the matters dearest to your heart.

> needless suffering, perversion of God's creation,
> pride, cruelty, and death.

Nobody is promoting any of those.

> I know you think the same of me. So, as I say, God will judge. I may
> be wrong.

You are.

> You may be wrong.

I'm not.

> But I will speak what I believe is God's truth.

And I will refute it with what God's word actually says. :-)

And, as has been so from the beginning, we are no closer to agreement,
and probably never will be.

Think what you please. But know that I am not intimidated by your
attacks or insults, or empty threats of God's wrath, any more than
those of any other fundie. You call me "DegeneRat",and I'm supposed not
to object. What do you expect, hypocrite? Try treating me civilly,
and I'll treat you civilly. "Fundie" isn't much of an insult, next to
what you've called me, and I think it's accurate.

I also think you are wrong and uncharitable. So there it stands.

<snip>

> The grounds he sought were not on the primacy of the pope, but rather on
> the grounds that Catherine could not bear him a male heir. That is not a
> valid ground in Scripture *or* tradition.

He considered that he and Catherine were childless because he had
broken God's law. He wanted to correct that situation.

<snip>

> The pope refused annulment on doctrinal, not political, grounds.

Suuuuure he did...Nobody believed that then, and they don't now.

<snip>
> Henry wanted to divorce his
> wife for one reason only: she didn't bear him a living male heir. That
> is not grounds for divorce for king or commoner.

It is for a king whose country has just come out of generations of
civil war and who foresees -- accurately, as it turned out --
that lack of a living male heir would bring back civil wars.

<snip>
> Specifically, he defended the Seven Sacraments -- one of which happens
> to be marriage.

Indeed. If he hadn't been a committed churchman, Henry might have tried
to put Henry Fitzroy on the throne, but he wanted a legitimate heir.

<snip>

> Too bad the tent's not big enough for the traditionalists:

That's the traditionalists' fault; nobody in ECUSA is trying to
drive them out.

<snip>

>> Yes, I think the prohibition is cultural, and certainly bestiality is
>> also an orientation. I do think that zoophilia can be loving and
>> respectful toward the non-human partner, and, as I said, can encourage
>> a real understanding of the animal's individual personhood. It also,
>> like any unequal power relationship, is very subject to abuse. I think
>> responsible zoophiles have to be very careful, but I will not condemn
>> such relationship categorically.

> I'll save that quote for future reference. I promise to use it in its
> entire context, too.

Please do. I stand behind it completely. I would rather see a
person in a loving, respectful relationship of mutual personhood
with an animal -- even if it includes a little sex -- than see a
person treat an animal as a product and slaughter him/her to sell
bits of her carcass, or use him as the unwilling subject of
experiments. You people have SUCH screwed priorities. Love is bad --
killing and suffering are good. We can torture animals and treat
them as things, but we can't give them mutual sexual pleasure.
You're warped.

<snip>

>> Indeed, he (Linzey) founds his argument on Scripture.

> Why do so many of his fellow churchmen disagree with him when they read
> the same Bible?

Because they're wrong. That's been going on since the Bible was written.

<snip>
>> Have you seen a battery chicken house or a swine confinement facility?

> Yes, most such animals are treated quite well.

Liar.

<snip>

Rat

Rat wrote:

Note that I haven't called you degeneRat in several hours.

> And, as has been so from the beginning, we are no closer to agreement,
> and probably never will be.
>
> Think what you please. But know that I am not intimidated by your
> attacks or insults,

What attacks? Quoting Scripture is not an attack, Karen.

> or empty threats of God's wrath,

I don't think God's wrath is trivial or empty.

> any more than those of any other fundie.

There you go again, calling me a fundamentalist.

> You call me "DegeneRat",and I'm supposed not
> to object.

You can object. It's an accurate description of one who ignores God's
word over private revelations in support of homosexuality, bestiality,
and even pedophilia.

> What do you expect, hypocrite?

An honest debate. You keep snipping stuff and making your same old
claims, and I merely stand up to you.

> Try treating me civilly,

I have, Karen. I disagree with you, but I've tried to be more civil
about it over the past 24 hours.

> and I'll treat you civilly. "Fundie" isn't much of an insult, next to
> what you've called me, and I think it's accurate.

It couldn't be further from the truth.

> I also think you are wrong and uncharitable.

We're even.

> So there it stands.

Yep. As long as you make doctrinal (mis)statements, I will be here to
correct them.

> <snip>

You could respond to the substantive issues rather than snipping them,
or at least note that you're left without an adequate argument.

>> The grounds he sought were not on the primacy of the pope, but rather
>> on the grounds that Catherine could not bear him a male heir. That is
>> not a valid ground in Scripture *or* tradition.
>
> He considered that he and Catherine were childless because he had
> broken God's law. He wanted to correct that situation.

By breaking God's law again? lol

> <snip>
>
>> The pope refused annulment on doctrinal, not political, grounds.
>
> Suuuuure he did...Nobody believed that then, and they don't now.

According to what you add below, it was on *practical* and *political*
grounds that Henry sought the divorce.

> <snip>
>>> Henry wanted to divorce his
>
>> wife for one reason only: she didn't bear him a living male heir. That
>> is not grounds for divorce for king or commoner.
>
> It is for a king whose country has just come out of generations of
> civil war and who foresees -- accurately, as it turned out --
> that lack of a living male heir would bring back civil wars.

Those are not Biblical or doctrinal grounds. Those are practical,
political grounds. The RCC of that day was no doubt with its flaws, but
it did uphold the sanctity -- THE SACRAMENT -- of marriage.

> <snip>
>
>> Specifically, he defended the Seven Sacraments -- one of which happens
>> to be marriage.
>
> Indeed. If he hadn't been a committed churchman, Henry might have tried
> to put Henry Fitzroy on the throne, but he wanted a legitimate heir.

If he had been a committed Christian, he would have never sought the
dispensation to marry Catherine, nor an annulment of the same marriage,
nor would he have committed bigamy by marrying Anne before his divorce
was announced, nor impregnated her even before their marriage, nor had
Mary executed, nor would he have dressed up and celebrated the death of
Catherine, nor would he have been cavorting with Jane Seymour while
still married to Mary. I suppose you excuse all his excesses just as
you've tried with the grounds for his first divorce.

> <snip>
>
>> Too bad the tent's not big enough for the traditionalists:
>
> That's the traditionalists' fault; nobody in ECUSA is trying to
> drive them out.

Ipse dixit. I think it is your goal to drive them out, per your remark
about doors hitting butts. Such "charity" isn't going far to mend the
rift you caused.

> <snip>
>
>>> Yes, I think the prohibition is cultural, and certainly bestiality is
>>> also an orientation. I do think that zoophilia can be loving and
>>> respectful toward the non-human partner, and, as I said, can encourage
>>> a real understanding of the animal's individual personhood. It also,
>>> like any unequal power relationship, is very subject to abuse. I think
>>> responsible zoophiles have to be very careful, but I will not condemn
>>> such relationship categorically.
>
>> I'll save that quote for future reference. I promise to use it in its
>> entire context, too.
>
> Please do. I stand behind it completely. I would rather see a
> person in a loving, respectful relationship of mutual personhood
> with an animal -- even if it includes a little sex -- than see a
> person treat an animal as a product and slaughter him/her to sell
> bits of her carcass, or use him as the unwilling subject of
> experiments.

False dilemma. The issue isn't strictly between whether we should ****
animals or slaughter them.

> You people have SUCH screwed priorities. Love is bad --
> killing and suffering are good. We can torture animals and treat
> them as things, but we can't give them mutual sexual pleasure.

False dilemma. The issue isn't strictly between whether we should ****
animals or slaughter them. What makes you think the pleasure is mutual
when animals cannot consent?

> You're warped.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> <snip>
>
>>> Indeed, he (Linzey) founds his argument on Scripture.
>
>> Why do so many of his fellow churchmen disagree with him when they
>> read the same Bible?
>
> Because they're wrong. That's been going on since the Bible was written.

Ipse dixit. This Linzey fellow is promoting novel interpretations which
exaggerate the texts he cites and are thus contrary to sound doctrine.

<snip>
>>> Have you seen a battery chicken house or a swine confinement facility?
>
>> Yes, most such animals are treated quite well.
>
> Liar.

Ipse dixit. Most animals are treated humanely, well-fed, and given the
care required to keep them healthy. Healthy animals gain weight faster
and go to market sooner. Sick animals reduce revenue. Farmers have every
incentive to care for their livestock. Those who don't get what they
deserve both at market and in court when they're caught and prosecuted.
And I *do* favor strict enforcement of animal welfare laws.

> <snip>

That's your modus operandi.

> wrote
<snip>
>
> Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.

How about the ones you **** up the bum, do they benefit?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:39:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> "Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
>> certain diseases?
>
>This is not the issue, punk.

Do you have a hearing problem, retard? This is exactly the issue.

>You are not
>(pseudo)-"vegan" for health reasons. You make the
>uninformed choice for allegedly "ethical" reasons. We
>see, clearly, that your ethics is bogus, because you
>STILL cause suffering an death for animals with your
>dietary choice.

It doesn't matter for what reason I am a vegetarian, mince head. It
makes sense from what every angle - health wise, ethically,
ecologically, economically, it doesn't matter, the sane choice is a
vegetarian diet. Anyone who can't see that and who defends such a vile
and evil habit as meat eating is either insane or an evil, lowlife
scumbag with no consideration for other living entities. So which one
is, meatBall? Are you insane or are you a lowlife piece of garbage
with no mercy towards other living entities?

BTW, these scientifically established facts below don't go away just
because you try to discredit or dispute its source. They are there and
they are going to kick your head again and again every time you open
that stink-breath mouth of yours and spew your filth. Do you get it
yet, carcass-eater?


HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989



The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.

Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million

Human beings in America: 243 million

Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80

Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95

Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99

How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds

Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO

Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165

Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16



The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
diet: 50 times more

Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75

Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
85

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
meat-centered diet: 260 million

Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds

Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
housecat.

Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
sq.ft.

Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year



The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
vs. less than once a week: 4 times

For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times



The Natural Resources Argument

Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
livestock portion.

Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
float a destroyer.

Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25

Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500

Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound

Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
longer subsidized: 89 dollars

Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
meat-centered diet: 13

Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260

Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million

Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
factory farming of meat: 34.5

Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8

Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
meat-centered diet: 33



The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125

Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30

Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
years in medical school: 25 hours

Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack

How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds

Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.

Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.

Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
cholesterol if it is: normal

Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.



The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55

Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in
1960: 13

Percentage resistant in 1988: 91

Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of
antibiotics to livestock: ban

Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding
of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support


The Pesticide Argument

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains:
1

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits:
4

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy
products: 23

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55

Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs.
non meat-eating: 35 times higher

What USDA tells us: meat is inspected

Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin
chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004



The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000

Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker

Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in
U.S:slaughterhouse worker

Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before
slaughter.: 1 cent

Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive



The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time
winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian

Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C.


Famous pop stars - vegetarians:
-------------------------------
Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet
Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting

'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.'
--William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk