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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #271 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 06:20 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter ****wittedly tried to keep the charade going:
usual suspect wrote:

Karen Winter lied:



Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot.





Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did your
own son



I have not mentioned having any children. I don't discuss my private
life on unmoderated newsgroups.


Cut the shit, Karen.

  #272 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 04:14 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:



There are many protestant charities and relief organizations acting
with great compassion for humans, and many protestants, individually
and corporately, are very concerned about the environment and animal
welfare.


But which ones espouse a specifically Calvinist theological position?


Aid and relief agencies seldom "espouse" doctrine. They dispense aid.


Glorfindel wrote:

Well, there you are. Of course, there are *many* non-protestant
relief and charity organizations which do specifically identify
themselves with a theological position. On the national level, we
have such groups as the Episcopal Relief and Development fund,
of the Episcopal church, and Catholic Charities, and a wide variety of
charities identified with the various Franciscan orders. There
are Protestant groups such as the Salvation Army, but I don't know
which denomination they identify themselves with, so I can't say if
their parent group is Calvinist or not.



You've clearly said that good works are irrelevant --


Strawman. I said they're the fruit of the redeemed; good works do not
redeem sinners.


So did I.

a sort of mindless spasm resulting from a predestined salvation


Strawman -- you *don't* understand Calvin, Matthew 25, or what I wrote
about it.


I understand it. Parts of what you wrote are good Christian doctrine,
and are shared by the Catholic church. The aspect
which is so stressed in Calvinism, and which is less central to
Catholic doctrine is:



because God justifies those whom he
previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the
guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of
righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God,




Catholic doctrine generally stresses that, while the Holy Spirit
helps and encourages Christians to do good works, and we cannot
do them without God's help, yet humans do good works through
their own will, and through the good that is in them, because God
did create us good. Baptism frees us of Original Sin, and we
do express the good nature God gave us in our acts after that, as
well as doing individual sinful acts. We are not "utterly depraved"
in the Calvinist model. We cannot fulfill God's will *perfectly*
(being human and fallible) but we can fulfill God's will and His
law in part, with God as our helper.


You've said we have no real need
to see the environment as God's;


When did I say that?


see below

it's made for humans and we can
do anything we want with it.


It's for our benefit and welfare.


No, it exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit.

So why bother with environmentalism?


I think it depends on how you mean "environmentalism." You most likely
mean the old "watermelon" -- green on the outside, red on the inside --


I did not say that.

as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water, or
people.


It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A
number of socialist countries have better records on the environment
and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal
record under the last few Republican administrations, and is rapidly
degenerating.

I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to
have clean air and water.


Possibly, but it certainly helps.


While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a
"vegan":


Because I am.


  #273 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 06:06 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Karen Winter wrote:



Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot.





Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did your
own son


I have not mentioned having any children.


Cut the crap, Karen. You would've taken better care of a bird than you
did your own son and probably tried hard to keep it away from your
bestiality-inclined friends.

I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp

No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I
wouldn't want anything to do with him.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea

And when speaking of your grandson, you want him to rebel against his
father and be a marginal just like you:

Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will
rebel against his father's values, and turn out to
be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative,
socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm
really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and
I will bond eventually.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04

Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are?
  #274 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 06:08 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

Karen Winter wrote:

usual suspect wrote:

Karen Winter wrote:



Having a baby is a lot like adopting a parrot.






Ironically, you would've taken better care of a bird than you did
your own son



I have not mentioned having any children.



Cut the crap, Karen. You would've taken better care of a bird than you
did your own son and probably tried hard to keep it away from your
bestiality-inclined friends.

I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp

No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I
wouldn't want anything to do with him.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea

And when speaking of your grandson, you want him to rebel against his
father and be a marginal just like you:

Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will
rebel against his father's values, and turn out to
be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative,
socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm
really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and
I will bond eventually.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04

Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are?


She's an idiot. She's Karen Winter, she knows we know
it, and it's really funny that she's just trying to
ignore it. What a pathetic ****.
  #275 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 06:10 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are?


You don't, and I intend to keep it that way.


  #276 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 07:06 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
...
There are Protestant groups such as the Salvation Army, but I don't know
which denomination they identify themselves with


The Salvation Army is its own denomination. They're an offshoot of the
Methodists, which are an Arminian offshoot out of your church (which,
from the gist of your reply, is even more Arminian than the Wesleyans
are now).

Parts of what you wrote are good Christian doctrine,


Everything I wrote is sound Christian doctrine.

and are shared by the Catholic church. The aspect
which is so stressed in Calvinism, and which is less central to
Catholic doctrine is:

because God justifies those whom he
previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the
guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of
righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God,


I'm fully aware of doctrinal distinctions between Romanist and
Protestant bodies, Karen. I know that your church hates doctrines like
election and predestination, but they're in the Bible and worthy of open
and candid discussion rather than dismissal.

Catholic doctrine


You don't understand catholic doctrine. You're still a phony who likes
using certain words to describe yourself. Today it's "Anglo-catholic."
In the past it was "Republican" and then "libertarian" and then "green,"
as though there's a coherent strand between those particular labels
you've used to describe yourself.

What about your homosexuality is in keeping with catholic (Anglo-.
Roman, whatever) doctrine? What about your views on homosexual marriage
is in keeping with catholic doctrine? What about your views on abortion
are in keeping with catholic doctrine? What about the way you abandoned
your son to engage in a life of flitting around between dress-up
communes and NAMBLA meetings has been in keeping with catholic doctrine?

You use that label because it makes you feel special, NOT because you're
actually catholic in any sense of the word.

We are not "utterly depraved" in the Calvinist model.


It isn't the "Calvinist model," it's the Bible:

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that *every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually*.
Genesis 6:5

Behold, *I was shapen in iniquity*, and in sin did my mother
conceive me.
Psalms 51:5

As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*: There
is none that understandeth, *there is none that seeketh after
God*. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become
unprofitable; *there is none that doeth good, no, not one*.
Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have
used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth
is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed
blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of
peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their
eyes.
-- Romans 3:10-18

No man can come to me, *except the Father which hath sent me
draw him*: and I will raise him up at the last day.
-- John 6:44

Therefore said I unto you, that *no man can come unto me*,
except it were given unto him of my Father.
-- John 6:65

We cannot fulfill God's will *perfectly*
(being human and fallible) but we can fulfill God's will and His
law in part, with God as our helper.


Synergism.

See: http://tinyurl.com/cg42b

You've said we have no real need
to see the environment as God's;


When did I say that?


see below


I didn't say what you accuse me of saying.

it's made for humans and we can
do anything we want with it.


It's for our benefit and welfare.


No, it exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit.


Ipse dixit and non sequitur. God did not put us here to engage in
extreme austerity. He made us in his image and gave us dominion. He
commanded us to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. He gave us
plants and animals for our benefit.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and *let them rule
over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that
move along the ground*."
Genesis 1:26

Dominion comes from the Hebrew word "raddah" which means "subjugate,
reign, or rule over."

...God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and *subdue it*.
Genesis 1:28

Subdue is from the Hebrew word "kabash" which means "to make to serve,
by force if necessary."

So why bother with environmentalism?


I think it depends on how you mean "environmentalism." You most likely
mean the old "watermelon" -- green on the outside, red on the inside --


I did not say that.


I said "most likely," and you confirmed as much by suggesting below that
leftist ideology is inherently better for the environment.

as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water,
or people.


It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A
number of socialist countries have better records on the environment
and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal
record under the last few Republican administrations,


Ipse dixit and false. It was the "last few Republican administrations"
that signed off on tightening both the Clean Water Act (Nixon) and Clean
Air Act (Bush 41). Air and water quality has also continued to improve
over the last 20 years.

and is rapidly degenerating.


Nice watching your knees jerk every time another Republican is elected.

I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to have
clean air and water.


Possibly, but it certainly helps.


Ipse dixit, and the track records of the Left around the world don't
suggest that it would help at all.

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a
"vegan":


Because I am.


No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years. That restaurant
most likely uses battery eggs and commercial cheeses made by farmers who
divert bovine offspring to beef and veal production. Killer.
  #277 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 07:23 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are?


You don't, and I intend to keep it that way.


I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but Sylvia's said just about
everything there is to know about you at alt.support.childfree.

Rattie's credentials: Her mother was one of the twin daughters
of the vice-governor of Colorado. The family went waaaaay back
in the Southwest region. We always smile when we see (anywhere
in CO, AZ or NM) "Corlett Rd" or Corlett st" or Corlett
anything... it's Rattie's middle name and was her grandfather's
surname.
-- Jun 3 2003, alt.support.childfree

It *is* [Karen's] home state. Her mother's maiden name was
Corlett. For those in the Southwest, yes THAT Corlett, the vice
governor of Colorado. So Rat's family roots run DEEP in CO and
NM.
-- Jun 25 2003, alt.support.childfree

The atomic bombs over Hiershima and Nagasaki were, in fact, the
more merciful alternative. My sources for this are the reading
I have done on the subject, the history classes I've taken and
Colonel Hugh O. Winter (Ret) USAF, now deceased, who actually
took part in the reconstruction of Japan after the war. He lived
in Japan, worked with their government and people, received many
commendations FROM the Japanese government and people (we have
them, framed and hanging up) and the US government as well. He
went in almost immediately after the war had ended and he stayed
with the Japanese rebuilding effort for many years until they
were finally back on their feet. He told me that the bomb was
seen almost as a salvation, BY the Japanese people, even with
the devastation it caused. Col. Winter spoke to Hirohito, to the
Diet, to many major government people and he was able to see the
war through their eyes for a while.

This is about as close to living history as one can GET. I
believed the Colonel completely. He was *there*.
-- Sep 5 2002, alt.support.childfree

And there's all the stuff about Sanbusco, the '88 Cutlass and Kia rental
(http://snipurl.com/5v2l), that y'all are celibate
(http://tinyurl.com/ax74o :way tmi!), that your ex-husband's name is
Mark and you named your son after your dad (http://tinyurl.com/acwda), etc.

So why are you still pulling this Glorfindel crap?
  #278 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 07:32 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter lied:
usual suspect wrote:

Why are you playing this charade now when everybody knows who you are?


You don't,


We do. The headers in your posts reveal it:

- same ISP
- same newsreader software (right down the the *build level*, for
****'s sake!)
- same florid writing style
- same familiarity with ALLLLLLLLLL the idiot "ar" writers
- same highly directed/selective knowledge of weird religious crapola

It's all there. You are Karen Winter.

and I intend to keep it that way.


It isn't "that way"; we *DO* know who you are.

  #279 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 10:37 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:



I'm fully aware of doctrinal distinctions between Romanist and
Protestant bodies


Glorfindel wrote:

Not Romanist specifically, but one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

I know that your church hates doctrines like
election and predestination, but they're in the Bible


They're in Calvin's interpretation. You can claim almost
anything's "in the Bible" if you tweak the texts to your
taste.


You don't understand catholic doctrine.


Ipse dixit.


What about your views on homosexual marriage
is in keeping with catholic doctrine?


They are in keeping with the U.S. tradition of separation of
church and state. Civil marriage should be open to *** couples;
liturgical marriage is up to the denomination involved.

What about your views on abortion
are in keeping with catholic doctrine?


The catholic church has traditionally held that the fetus
is not ensouled until it quickens ( about the fourth
month).



We are not "utterly depraved" in the Calvinist model.


It isn't the "Calvinist model," it's the Bible:


No, it's not. It's Calvin's weird, self-loathing opinion,
and an insult to the God Who created us.



We cannot fulfill God's will *perfectly*
(being human and fallible) but we can fulfill God's will and His
law in part, with God as our helper.



It's for our benefit and welfare.


No, Creation exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit.


God did not put us here to engage in
extreme austerity.


Respecting our obligations of stewardship is not "extreme austerity".

He made us in his image and gave us dominion.


Yes indeed -- He made us in His image, with the self-emptying,
self-sacrificing, merciful example of Christ's death for
His lesser creatures as our template, and the dominion of
the Good Shepherd who gives His *life* for the sheep, who
sacrifices his own welfare, and suffers for his flock, as the
model for our life. Christ was the self-sacrifice, the
suffering servant, Who gave up His own welfare for the welfare
of others. Yes -- I'll agree we are made in God's image, and
intended to follow Christ's example of dominion as self-giving, and
self-sacrifice. That means we advance the welfare of others, we
don't use them for our benefit and welfare. God forbid -- in
fact He does.


So why bother with environmentalism?


I said "most likely," and you confirmed as much by suggesting below that
leftist ideology is inherently better for the environment.


Not inherently.

as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water,
or people.


It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A
number of socialist countries have better records on the environment
and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal
record under the last few Republican administrations,


Ipse dixit and false. It was the "last few Republican administrations"
that signed off on tightening both the Clean Water Act (Nixon) and Clean
Air Act (Bush 41). Air and water quality has also continued to improve
over the last 20 years.


What nonsense. These last few administrations, especially George
Bush's, are removing protections for the environment, gutting
the Endangered Species Act, removing controls on pollution,
refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement, or even recognize the threat
of global warming and our major contributions to it. There is
not a single mainstream environmental organization or animal
welfare organization which does not regard Bush and his land-raping
buddies as an unmitigated disaster for everybody except his rich
campaign contributers. Even the radical right ideologues who
thought he was one of them see now that he's out for nothing but
money and power. Or rather his handlers are. He's too stupid
to run a model railroad by himself.



I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to have
clean air and water.


Possibly, but it certainly helps.


Ipse dixit, and the track records of the Left around the world don't
suggest that it would help at all.


Oh, you're wrong there. The socialist countries in Europe
have been outstanding models for environmental protection
and social justice. They are the ones leading in laws against
factory farming methods.



While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a
"vegan":


Because I am.


No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years.


No, I did not.


  #280 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2005, 11:01 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter lied:
usual suspect wrote:



I'm fully aware of doctrinal distinctions between Romanist and
Protestant bodies


Karen Winter lied:
[...]
While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a
"vegan":


Because I am.


No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years.


No, I did not.


Yes, you did. Sylvia, the piece of FAS flotsam, "ratted" you out.



  #281 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 05:16 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Tweaker Karen Winter wrote:
I know that your church hates doctrines like election and
predestination, but they're in the Bible


They're in Calvin's interpretation. You can claim almost
anything's "in the Bible" if you tweak the texts to your
taste.


"Tweaking" is how *you* find AR and veganism in the Bible. Quoting is
how I find doctrines you find so objectionable.

You snipped out the verses I listed -- just a few of the many I could've
offered. Tell me how St Paul "tweaked" the OT when he wrote to the
church in Rome:

As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*: There
is *none that understandeth*, *there is none that seeketh after
God*. They are *all* gone out of the way, they are together become
unprofitable; *there is none that doeth good, no, not one*.
Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have
used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth
is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed
blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of
peace have they not known: There is *no fear of God* before their
eyes.
-- Romans 3:10-18

Tell me how quoting that verse -- or any of the others about man's
depravity and man's unwillingness to seek God on God's terms ("no man
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father") --
constitutes tweaking. It constitutes QUOTING.

Once you've explained that, please distinguish between my quoting and
your tweaking. Your views on "biblical AR" are founded on both tweaking
irrelevant passages to fit the subject and ignoring relevant ones
because they're diametrically opposed to what you claim the Bible
supports. The Bible speaks to certain issues of animal *welfare*, but
the only restrictions against eating meat or using animals for our
benefit pertain to meat offered to idols and specific animals deemed to
be "unclean." The other proscriptions relate to how meat is prepared
(e.g., not mixing meat from different kinds of animals, cooking calves
in their mothers' milk, etc.).

You don't understand catholic doctrine.


Ipse dixit.


No, *demonstrated* -- established below:

What about your views on homosexual marriage is in keeping with
catholic doctrine?


They are in keeping with the U.S. tradition


I didn't ask you about US tradition, which has nothing to do with
catholic doctrine or practice. Marriage is both a civil and religious
institution. As a religious institution, marriage is between a man and a
woman -- not a man and two women, not a man and a dog, not between two
men or two women. Catholic teachings, from the Bible through the
patristics and through today, have opposed deviations from the norm of
marriage between one man and one woman.

Radicals like yourself, otoh, have fought that norm, doctrine, and
tradition. I'm not surprised you avoided discussing the issue at hand
because you know you're outside the "one holy, catholic, apostolic
church" on this.

What about your views on abortion are in keeping with catholic doctrine?


The catholic church has traditionally held that the fetus
is not ensouled until it quickens ( about the fourth
month).


Ipse dixit and false. The traditional view that it begins at conception
precedes the early fathers. St Gregory of Nyssa (yes, I can refer to
saints) "advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to
a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism
from the first moment of its individual existence until its death."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

Furthermo
The early Christians are the first on record as having
pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their
public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix
(Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that
a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the
Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of
murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the
Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth
century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion
should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her
deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her
child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole
Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the
punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and
enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the
later stages of gestation.
Ibid.

You also have to look at the prevailing thought in the world around the
early church. The following site notes that "to early rabbinic thought,
the preborn took on fetal form (i.e., was 'formed') quite early."
Contrary to your assertion about the fourth month, the rabbis
"determined that fetal formation was complete by the forty-first day -
about halfway into the first trimester of intrauterine development."
http://www.all.org/issues/ab99x.htm

Abortion was also frowned upon by certain of the "enlightened" Greeks
(though, to be fair, the practice was generally accepted). The original
Hippocratic Oath, for example, included a refusal to induce abortion:

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my
ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients,
and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will
give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any
such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a
pessary to produce abortion.
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/hippooath.html

Thus, your view is outside catholic thought and tradition.


We are not "utterly depraved" in the Calvinist model.


It isn't the "Calvinist model," it's the Bible:


No, it's not.


See above. This link has all the relevant passages and deals with common
objections:
http://www.mslick.com/depravity.htm

It's Calvin's weird, self-loathing opinion,


This is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men
loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds
were evil.
John 3:19

natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God
1 Cor 2:14

you were dead in your trespasses and sins
Eph 2:1

I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for
the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
Rom 7:18

The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately
sick; who can understand it?
Jer 17:9

There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who
understands. There is none who seeks for God; All have turned
aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does
good, There is not even one.
Rom 3:10ff

No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him
Jon 6:44

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to His mercy *He saved* us, through the washing of regeneration
and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom *He poured* out on us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that *having been
justified by His grace* we should become heirs according to the
hope of eternal life.
Titus 3:5ff

Note again the use of the word HEIR (cp sheep and goats in Matthew 25).
It's germane in this passage because of the nouns and verbs: God saved
us, God poured out, God justified us by his grace. That passage doesn't
say we did our part and God did his -- it says God was the mover and
shaker and we only received the benefits of his work in redeeming us.

and an insult to the God Who created us.


Not at all. The insult is your implying that we can affect any part in
our own salvation after he sent his son to live a perfect life for us,
to suffer and die for our sins, and to be raised again for our
justification.

No, Creation exists for God's glory. It is not for our benefit.


God did not put us here to engage in extreme austerity.


Respecting our obligations of stewardship is not "extreme austerity".


It is when YOU would deny us the things the Bible says GOD allows.

It depends on where, and what version, especially of socialism. A
number of socialist countries have better records on the environment
and social justice than the United States, which has a generally dismal
record under the last few Republican administrations,


Ipse dixit and false. It was the "last few Republican administrations"
that signed off on tightening both the Clean Water Act (Nixon) and
Clean Air Act (Bush 41). Air and water quality has also continued to
improve over the last 20 years.


What nonsense. These last few administrations, especially George
Bush's, are removing protections for the environment,


As they relate to cost:benefit. Some of your "protections" have proven
to be worse than what existed before. Consider the organic pesticide
DDT, the ban of which has been a worldwide crusade. People like you
"won" the battle to ban it, but millions of people in other parts of the
world have died as a result of misguided policy in banning it globally:

This crusade was begun by the much revered Rachel Carson, whose
best-selling book "Silent Spring" was based on the premise that
DDT's adverse effects on the eggs of song birds would end up
wiping out these species. After that, springtime would no longer
be marked by birds singing; hence the silent spring.

Rachel Carson and the environmentalists she inspired have
succeeded in getting DDT banned in country after country, for
which they have received the accolades of many, not least their
own accolades. But, in terms of the actual consequences of that
crusade, there has not been a mass murderer executed in the past
half-century who has been responsible for as many deaths of
human beings as the sainted Rachel Carson. The banning of DDT
has led to a huge resurgence of malaria in the Third World, with
deaths rising into the millions.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060701.asp

In that same article, Dr Sowell also explained how environmentalists are
responsible for higher energy costs and rationed power:

This pioneer of the environmental movement has not been judged
by such consequences, but by the inspiring goals and political
success of the movement she spawned. Still less are the
environmentalists held responsible for the blackouts plaguing
California in the past year or the more frequent blackouts and
more disastrous economic consequences that can be expected in
the years ahead, despite the key role of environmental
extremists in preventing power plants from being built.

The greens have likewise obstructed access to the fuels needed
to generate electricity, run automobiles and trucks, and perform
innumerable other tasks in the economy. Nationwide, the greens
have been so successful in preventing oil refineries from being
built that the last one constructed anywhere in the United
States was built during the Ford administration. But
environmentalists are seldom mentioned among the reasons for
today's short supplies of oil and the resulting skyrocketing
prices of gasoline.
Ibid.

You should want EFFECTIVE policy that accomplishes what you seek to
remedy without causing greater harm to others. As a vegan, though,
you've demonstrated that you're more interested in meaningless gestures
that make you feel better about yourself rather than actually doing
something to reduce the problem you initially sought to address.

gutting the Endangered Species Act,


How has it been "gutted"? When species recover, they should be removed
from the ESA. So should those species for which there were errors in
data. But is this something "new" and limited to this administration?
NO! Where the hell were you in 1998 when the Clinton administration was
moving to remove 33 species in one fell swoop?

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt announced on May 5,
1998, that he would recommend delisting 33 endangered or
threatened species on the endangered species list.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ent/BG1234.cfm

removing controls on pollution,


Not *removing* controls, reassessing issues on the basis of
technological innovations and cost-benefit analysis over the past 30
years since the Clean Air Act was signed.

refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement,


First, like other leftist solutions, the Kyoto Protocol would have done
nothing to solve the problem it was supposed to address. Worse, it
would've punished nations in the West who are already doing things to
clean up the environment while giving developing nations like India and
China -- which lack environmental protections -- a free pass on green
house emissions.

Second, the Bush administration is doing something the preceding
administration didn't: the US, Australia, China, India, Japan, and South
Korea are meeting to hammer out a results-based emissions agreement.
This point is important because the US Senate never ratified the Kyoto
agreement because the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION NEVER SENT IT TO CAPITOL HILL:

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be
negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel
Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate
was that the United States should not be a signatory to any
protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for
developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in
serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November
12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the
protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the
Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for
ratification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

BTW, GWB was still Governor of Texas in June of 1997. Your problem is
with Bill Clinton. Dope.

or even recognize the threat
of global warming and our major contributions to it.


The latter part of your statement: ipse dixit. The earth has undergone
warm and cold periods regularly, and long preceding the Bush administration.

Read this link first:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html

Then go through the rest of the timeline:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.html

Note that ~11,600 years ago:
Ice core records from Greenland show in less than a decade there
was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celsius (27-degrees
F)
of the annual mean temperature.

What's the amount of recent temperature rise over a century that you
have your knickers all twisted up over?
The global average surface temperature has increased over the
20th century by about 0.6°C...

The rise in temperature ~11,600 years ago was 2500% more in the span of
10 years than the tiny rise today which you and other leftist kooks
suggest is from human activities over the last hundred years or more.

Global warming is a NATURAL phenomenon. We don't need radical changes to
deal with it. We just need ice machines and air-conditioners.

There is not a single mainstream environmental organization


There aren't any "mainstream" environmental organizations. Greenpeace,
Sierra Club, et al, are leftist organizations.

Or rather his handlers are. He's too stupid
to run a model railroad by himself.


During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the
candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while
George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a
virtually identical grade average at Yale University four
decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that
Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three
years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a
non-numerical rating system during his senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76
for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to
the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He
received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but
improved his average in later years.
http://tinyurl.com/7z9ao

See also: http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?Stor...4-074349-3947r

I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to have
clean air and water.


Possibly, but it certainly helps.


Ipse dixit, and the track records of the Left around the world don't
suggest that it would help at all.


Oh, you're wrong there. The socialist countries in Europe
have been outstanding models for environmental protection


According to what standard? Work out the per capita data yourself, and
keep in mind how much of American output is related to exports of raw
materials and food for "socialist countries in Europe."

Lumbering? How many forests are left to cut in France?

Carbon monoxide? How many Scandinavian countries are net exporters of
grains?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...oa_gra_exp_cap

and social justice.


Speaking of social justice, why are you avoiding discussing your
grandfather's role in perpetuating racism by denying Native Americans
and poor farmers access to water rights along the Rio Grande and its
tributaries? You sure must've bragged to Sylvia about your relatives
given the way she emphasized things in her name-dropping at
alt.support.childfree:

Rattie's credentials: Her mother was one of the twin daughters
of the vice-governor of Colorado. The family went waaaaay back
in the Southwest region. We always smile when we see (anywhere
in CO, AZ or NM) "Corlett Rd" or Corlett st" or Corlett
anything... it's Rattie's middle name and was her grandfather's
surname.
-- Jun 3 2003, alt.support.childfree

It *is* [Karen's] home state. Her mother's maiden name was
Corlett. For those in the Southwest, yes THAT Corlett, the vice
governor of Colorado. So Rat's family roots run DEEP in CO and
NM.
-- Jun 25 2003, alt.support.childfree

Colorado Lt Gov George Corlett was one of those responsible for the Rio
Grande Compact scam. This scheme deprived Natives of water rights and it
limited the amount of water available to New Mexicans and Texans
downstream from all the dams he wanted built so Colorado could control
the Rio Grande. Are your grandpa's dams good for the environment, and
how have they contributed to "social justice" considering tribes were
blocked from participating, tribes and small family farmers could no
longer use the aquacias, etc.?
http://wrri.nmsu.edu/publish/dr/xxiii1.pdf

Also:
[T]he Rio Grande is subject to an interstate compact that
apportions annual flow between the states of Colorado, New
Mexico and Texas, as well as an international treaty that
allocates 60,000 acre-feet (more than 19 billion gallons) of
water to Mexico every year. After nearly a century, these
arrangements seem inherently flawed. *The rights of Native
Americans were recognized but not delineated, and no water was
set aside for river ecosystems.* Yet today, federal laws, such
as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, require
minimum flows for the dilution of treated wastewater and for
species habitat, leaving management agencies and water rights
holders to try and meet the mandates.
http://www.geotimes.org/may04/feature_riogrande.html

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you call yourself a
"vegan":


Because I am.


No, you ate chiles relleno in the last couple years.


No, I did not.


Liar. Sylvia said you enjoyed them:
We went for dinner at the restaurant Rat used to go to as a tiny
ratling. I had a fabulous shrimp fajita and Rattie had the chile
relleno, pronouncing it excellent. I also had one of the
restaurnat's carnivorous margaritas! MMMMMM!
-- Sylvia, Mar 9 2004, alt.support.childfree

Chiles relleno are made with cheese, and most often with eggs.
  #282 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2005, 01:21 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

I know that your church hates doctrines like election and
predestination, but they're in the Bible


Glorfindel wrote:

They're in Calvin's interpretation. You can claim almost
anything's "in the Bible" if you tweak the texts to your
taste.


"Tweaking" is how *you* find AR and veganism in the Bible.


No, because I don't depend on "proof texting" for my position.
I appeal to the spirit of God and Christ as demonstrated
in the Bible, not a string of texts.

I am more a book person than a computer person, and I think
"dueling websites" are nearly as useless of dueling texts.
But a recent book expresses a view of my denomination which
I like very much. It is _Always Open: Being an Anglican Today_
by Richard Giles. About the Bible, he says:

"So the revelation of God in Scripture is process as well
as event.

The story of how the Bible ended up the size and shape it
is now is one very good reason why Anglicans come to value
common sense as one of the highest virtues of the spiritual
life. We have learnt over the centuries to apply bucketfuls
of salt to many of the things we've been told by religious
fanatics, with the result that while it's fair to say we
Anglicans honor Scripture, reverence it and delight in it,
we fall short of worshiping it. ...(We) are people *with* a
book, not *of* a book. ...God always evades our best efforts
to contain him, and the thought that we could ever box God
in between the covers of a book is to be resisted. Our
God is bigger than that. ...Every human agent who through the
centuries has played a part in setting down what we now
call Holy Scriptures has had an angle, an agenda, a
prejudice, or simply a failing of some kind, which has to
some extent muddied the clear waters of the original
revelation. ...History shows that Scripture can be used to
support just about anything at all."

Quoting is
how I find doctrines you find so objectionable.


Proof-texting, about which Giles says, "proof texts rarely
prove anything, and to use the Scriptures so is to
abuse them."

You snipped out the verses I listed -- just a few of the many I could've
offered. Tell me how St Paul "tweaked" the OT when he wrote to the
church in Rome:


As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*: There
is *none that understandeth*, *there is none that seeketh after
God*. They are *all* gone out of the way,


The catholic church understands this and similar passages to mean
that we are all sinners, not that humanity is totally depraved.

Just by that common sense mentioned above -- if we really were
*totally* depraved, totally unable to do good, why would God
entrust His Creation to *our* care?


The Bible speaks to certain issues of animal *welfare*, but
the only restrictions against eating meat or using animals for our
benefit pertain to meat offered to idols and specific animals deemed to
be "unclean."


True -- and the Bible does not speak against many other practices
which we today consider immoral, such as human slavery. It is
culture-bound, and so not the complete guide to our modern
ethical issues. We have built on the Bible, but we have gone
beyond it.



What about your views on homosexual marriage is in keeping with
catholic doctrine?


They are in keeping with the U.S. tradition


I didn't ask you about US tradition, which has nothing to do with
catholic doctrine or practice. Marriage is both a civil and religious
institution.


Exactly, and the two versions should be kept separate.

As a religious institution, marriage is between a man and a
woman --


No, not really. We find polygamous marriage in the Bible, in
Muslim and Mormon belief, and so on.

There's also been considerable speculation in recent years
that, while *** marriage is not specifically mentioned,
*** relationships were, especially in the case of David
and Jonathan and the probable *** relationship between
the Centurion and his servant whom Jesus healed.



The catholic church has traditionally held that the fetus
is not ensouled until it quickens ( about the fourth
month).


Ipse dixit and false.


Ipse dixit -- not from what I have read.

The question of when a fetus becomes human, and thus has a
soul, has been answered in many ways.


What nonsense. These last few administrations, especially George
Bush's, are removing protections for the environment,


As they relate to cost:benefit.


Yes, indeed. As long as the rich businessmen benefit, the Bush
administration doesn't count any cost to the rest of us as too
high.

Some of your "protections" have proven
to be worse than what existed before. Consider the organic pesticide
DDT, the ban of which has been a worldwide crusade. People like you
"won" the battle to ban it, but millions of people in other parts of the
world have died as a result of misguided policy in banning it globally:


DDT weakens the shells of birds' eggs and reduces the number
which hatch, among other things. It is a major environmental hazard.

This Bush administration has *no* real concern for the environment,
as demonstrated by its efforts to allow drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge -- trying to sneak it in this last time as
an amendment on a defense bill, for heaven's sake.



gutting the Endangered Species Act,




removing controls on pollution,


Not *removing* controls, reassessing issues on the basis of
technological innovations and cost-benefit analysis over the past 30
years since the Clean Air Act was signed.


Anything, as long as Bush's oil baron buddies benefit.

refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement,


First, like other leftist solutions, the Kyoto Protocol would have done
nothing to solve the problem it was supposed to address.


It will help. It is only a small first step -- but it is *something*.

Worse, it
would've punished nations in the West who are already doing things to
clean up the environment while giving developing nations like India and
China -- which lack environmental protections -- a free pass on green
house emissions.


If our water and air go, if global warming floods our coastal areas
and brings more of the tropical storms we've seen this year,
changes weather patterns, expands desert areas through major drought,
melts the arctic ice -- it will hardly matter who is being
"punished". It will be mass death for all humanity, American and
non-American. It may already be too late. In fact, it probably is.

Second, the Bush administration is doing something the preceding
administration didn't: the US, Australia, China, India, Japan, and South
Korea are meeting to hammer out a results-based emissions agreement.
This point is important because the US Senate never ratified the Kyoto
agreement because the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION NEVER SENT IT TO CAPITOL HILL:


You can only lean on the lame "Everything's Clinton's fault" for so
long, Usual. It's getting less and less believable with every year
of Bush's and the Republicans' control. In the newspaper just today,
there was an article stating that the annual 189-nation UN climate
conference once again failed to win U.S. commitments to reduce
greenhouse emissions -- as almost all other industrialized nations
are committed to do by the Kyoto Protocol. The United States is the
*biggest* greenhouse emitter. We should set an example. But
the Climate Stewardship Act to cap and reduce pollution was defeated
just last year. You can't blame that on Clinton -- although I'm
sure you would if you could.


or even recognize the threat
of global warming and our major contributions to it.


The latter part of your statement: ipse dixit. The earth has undergone
warm and cold periods regularly, and long preceding the Bush
administration.


You're whistling in the dark, Usual. Global warming is
recognized as a fact by virtually every responsible
scientific expert today.



There is not a single mainstream environmental organization


There aren't any "mainstream" environmental organizations. Greenpeace,
Sierra Club, et al, are leftist organizations.


LOL! That certainly shows where you are on the political
continuum. You, and the other environment-rapers like you,
see any concern for God's creation as "leftist." If you
could make a profit on it, you'd turn the whole world into a
polluted desert. What you don't see is that it might bring
you a *temporary* profit, but eventually you, too, will
suffer the consequences of ignoring your responsibility of
stewardship of the earth. It's just a shame that you will
bring everybody else down with you.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on zxcvbob General Cooking 2 05-07-2012 02:54 PM
When did this FopodTV episode air? A Moose in Love General Cooking 2 13-11-2011 07:38 PM
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 Nancy Young General Cooking 13 03-02-2007 10:47 PM
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode TammyM General Cooking 17 18-12-2006 07:57 PM
wife swap vegan episode pearl Vegan 2 08-12-2005 01:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017