wife swap vegan episode
 

I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
is cheaper and more convenient. I don't eat meat or buy
animal products partly because I find the methods of production
for most such products today nauseating. But, more important,
I don't buy animal parts if I can avoid them because I believe
it is unethical to use animals as products, as commodities,
as things to be bought and sold like plants or inanimate objects.
It's the same reason I wouldn't buy an animal from a pet
store. Animals are individuals who own their own lives and
it is immoral, I believe, to buy and sell them or their parts.
That is why the CD argument is only a very secondary one for me.
It doesn't address my basic reason for being a vegan.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
> I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
> from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
> unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
> is cheaper and more convenient. I don't eat meat or buy
> animal products partly because I find the methods of production
> for most such products today nauseating. But, more important,
> I don't buy animal parts if I can avoid them because I believe
> it is unethical to use animals as products, as commodities,
> as things to be bought and sold like plants or inanimate
> objects.
> It's the same reason I wouldn't buy an animal from a pet
> store. Animals are individuals who own their own lives and
> it is immoral, I believe, to buy and sell them or their parts.
> That is why the CD argument is only a very secondary one for
> me.
======================
LOL Of course it is. Makes it very convenient for you to ignore
the millions upon millions of animals that die for crop
production, right hypocrite? Claiming an animal has a 'right' to
be free of human use, and then killing them willy-nilly for
nothing more that YOUR conveninece and entertainment is the
definition of hypocritical, killer.


> It doesn't address my basic reason for being a vegan.
==========================
You have no real reason, just a simple rule for your simple mind,
'eat no meat.'


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

wife swap vegan episode
 

I really wonder what your emotional problem is, Rick.

You clearly are not rational on this subject.

killfiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote
>
> I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
> I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
> from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
> unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
> is cheaper and more convenient.

Do you mean you *would NOT*?

> I don't eat meat or buy
> animal products partly because I find the methods of production
> for most such products today nauseating. But, more important,
> I don't buy animal parts if I can avoid them because I believe
> it is unethical to use animals as products, as commodities,
> as things to be bought and sold like plants or inanimate objects.
> It's the same reason I wouldn't buy an animal from a pet
> store. Animals are individuals who own their own lives and
> it is immoral, I believe, to buy and sell them or their parts.
> That is why the CD argument is only a very secondary one for me.
> It doesn't address my basic reason for being a vegan.

I understand that. Please understand that I do not believe that applying
such a political consideration to animals makes any sense. What makes sense
to me is considering how we cause animal suffering. From that standpoint,
cds is every bit as important as causing them to suffer in the process of
"using them".

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
>
> I really wonder what your emotional problem is, Rick.
>
> You clearly are not rational on this subject.
> ========================
LOL I'm completly rational, fool. You, om the other hand are
more than willing to remain ignorant and irrational when it comes
to the impact YOU cause just so that you can focus your hate at
others...



> killfiled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
====
Of course, when you can't refute reality with your typical lys
and delusions, run away. Thanks for proving once again that
vegans have nothing but fear, hate and willful ignorance, killer.

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Dutch" > wrote in message
news:Mg5if.625900$oW2.235858@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>>
>> I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
>> I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
>> from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
>> unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
>> is cheaper and more convenient.
>
> Do you mean you *would NOT*?
=======================
No, I think she really meant that she would buy the stuff she
decries just BECAUSE it is chaep and convenient. It fits
perfectly with the diet she now has, cheap and conveninet, and
blind to the impact.


>
>> I don't eat meat or buy
>> animal products partly because I find the methods of
>> production
>> for most such products today nauseating. But, more important,
>> I don't buy animal parts if I can avoid them because I believe
>> it is unethical to use animals as products, as commodities,
>> as things to be bought and sold like plants or inanimate
>> objects.
>> It's the same reason I wouldn't buy an animal from a pet
>> store. Animals are individuals who own their own lives and
>> it is immoral, I believe, to buy and sell them or their parts.
>> That is why the CD argument is only a very secondary one for
>> me.
>> It doesn't address my basic reason for being a vegan.
>
> I understand that. Please understand that I do not believe that
> applying such a political consideration to animals makes any
> sense. What makes sense to me is considering how we cause
> animal suffering. From that standpoint, cds is every bit as
> important as causing them to suffer in the process of "using
> them".
=====================
In her mind she has seperated the two because the guilt has
forced her to ignore one set of deaths so she can focus solely on
the other.


>
>

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Thank you, Pearl.

A pleasure. :).

> As you show, there are Biblical verses which support
> vegetarianism, as there are Biblical verses which talk about meat-eating
> and animal sacrifices. Individual verses can be pulled out of the
> Bible, and it is useful to quote verses which support the position
> someone takes, of course. The Bible is the basis for Christian and
> Jewish ethics, and the Old Testament for Muslim ethics as well.

It appears that the Bible, both OT and NT, have been corrupted.

> However, Christians who are not Biblical fundamentalists or literalists
> go more on the *meaning* of the Bible as a whole, and it is clear to
> me, as to other Christian vegetarians, that the Biblical message,
> especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.

But mostly, to the majority, service and mercy to fellow humans.

> Animal liberation/rights and ethical vegetarianism are more in keeping
> with Christian ethics than use of animal products as they are produced
> today in most cases.

.....
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/T...ist_Index.html

> Have you read Linzey at all? He is excellent on Christian support for
> rights of animals and Christian reasons for vegetarianism.

Well I've read, and also published on my site, this article
by Lindzey- http://www.iol.ie/~creature/Letting_Be.htm .

:)

<..>

wife swap vegan episode
 

"pearl" > wrote in message ...

> Well I've read, and also published on my site, this article
> by Lindzey- http://www.iol.ie/~creature/Letting_Be.htm .

Linzey, that is. Sorry for the misspelling.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Glorfindel wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>>> Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc.
>
>
>> Oh shit, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
>
>
> I thought you were interested in the discussion, Dutch.
>
> You only have Usual's claim that I am "Karen Winter."

You are Karen Winter.


> I am Glorfindel.

You are Karen Winter using another weird ****ing
posting handle. Same news reader, same ISP, same
turgid style, same rote citations of every ****ing
discredited "ar" hack in the world.

I'm going to get you again, Karen. I'm going to get in
your head, and you're not going to like it.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Dutch wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc.
>>
>>>Oh shit, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
>>
>>I thought you were interested in the discussion, Dutch.
>
>
> I am, but it's it's not worth my time talking to someone who I know for a
> fact is not the least bit interested in considering my point of view. It's
> one thing to toss off two minute replies to ****wit, but it takes a lot
> longer to compose responses to a staunch ARA. There are many other demands
> on my time that are more attractive than beating my head against a brick
> wall.
>
>
>>You only have Usual's claim that I am "Karen Winter."
>>I am Glorfindel.
>
>
> Fine, how are you different from Karen?

It *is* Karen Winter. Same everything. Just another
weird ****ing posting ID.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter lied:

>
> I really wonder what your emotional problem is, Rick.
>
> You clearly are not rational on this subject.

You aren't rational on *any* subject, Karen.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter lied:

>
> Dutch and I are discussing

You are not "discussing" anything, Karen. You're
regurgitating stale, discredited horseshit from at
least six years back.

wife swap vegan episode
 

"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message ink.net...
...
> I'm going to get you again, Karen. I'm going to get in
> your head, and you're not going to like it.

"I don't harass women in any environment. "
"I do not harass women in any post, in any environment. "
http://tinyurl.com/8g66y

You're a sad joke, Jonathan Ball.

One day your son is going to look at what his
father was doing all the time on the computer.

If he doesn't already know what a sick loser
you are, he sure will then.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote

>>I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
>>I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
>>from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
>>unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
>>is cheaper and more convenient.

> Do you mean you *would NOT*?

No, I mean I would. I know this sounds strange, but to
me, unless I believed that animals are creatures with
a value independent of their use to us, who own themselves
and have a right to be respected as individuals, I could
not believe that it is wrong to make them suffer for us.
So it wouldn't matter to me how much or how little they
suffered, how few or how many suffered for my food. If it
were ethical to buy meat under the ordinary circumstances of
my life, it would be ethical to buy any meat. Rick and
some others have gone to great efforts to show animals suffer
because of humans in all areas of life -- and I believe
that is so. If suffering were the *only* criterion, I might
as well buy battery-cage eggs and veal, because there is no
way to avoid suffering. It is the philosophy I spoke about
above which makes the suffering of animals mean something
to me.

So I think convincing me AR is wrong would probably have
the opposite effect from what you are trying to accomplish. :)
Not that I mind you trying, of course. Discussion is always good.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I understand that. Please understand that I do not believe that applying
> such a political consideration to animals makes any sense. What makes sense
> to me is considering how we cause animal suffering. From that standpoint,
> cds is every bit as important as causing them to suffer in the process of
> "using them".

I agree. But I think the answer is to raise people's awareness and
encourage people who already avoid either some animal products, like
meat -- or even just particularly bad products like foie gras, veal,
battery eggs, and fur -- to *also* agitate for vegetable producers
to use more humane methods and to buy at Farmers' Markets and so on.

wife swap vegan episode
 

pearl wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...

>>Thank you, Pearl.

> A pleasure. :).

Your posts are always a pleasure to read.

>>As you show, there are Biblical verses which support
>>vegetarianism, as there are Biblical verses which talk about meat-eating
>>and animal sacrifices. Individual verses can be pulled out of the
>>Bible, and it is useful to quote verses which support the position
>>someone takes, of course. The Bible is the basis for Christian and
>>Jewish ethics, and the Old Testament for Muslim ethics as well.

> It appears that the Bible, both OT and NT, have been corrupted.

Yes, I think that is so. The texts we find in the Bible were
written or composed over thousands of years. They cover several
time periods, all of which are different from the way we live
today. Those texts were picked out from all the available texts,
especially texts about the life and ministry of Jesus, by a group
of human beings, who had their own agendas. The Bible didn't
come down to us direct from heaven on golden tablets. So, while
I believe the texts found in the Bible are inspired by God and show
us something of the way God wants us to behave, I think we have to
interpret them through an understanding of who wrote them down and
why. I think there are other texts which are also inspired by God
and can also show us something of the way God wants us to behave.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>However, Christians who are not Biblical fundamentalists or literalists
>>go more on the *meaning* of the Bible as a whole, and it is clear to
>>me, as to other Christian vegetarians, that the Biblical message,
>>especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.


> But mostly, to the majority, service and mercy to fellow humans.

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't have to be true. We can help
change that, I think.

>>Animal liberation/rights and ethical vegetarianism are more in keeping
>>with Christian ethics than use of animal products as they are produced
>>today in most cases.
> ....
> http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/T...ist_Index.html

>>Have you read Linzey at all? He is excellent on Christian support for
>>rights of animals and Christian reasons for vegetarianism.

> Well I've read, and also published on my site, this article
> by Lindzey- http://www.iol.ie/~creature/Letting_Be.htm .

It's ALL good. :)

wife swap vegan episode
 

S. Maizlich wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I'm going to get you again. I'm going to get in your head, and
> you're not going to like it.

Killfiled

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter, asshole, lied:
> Seeker wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied
>
>
> It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
> cannot be used to define general, normal situations. Gary
> Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
> Rights:Your Child or The Dog_

If you're willing to quote Gary "Little Luigi"
Francione, then you're an amoral asshole, Karen. You
KNOW what he tried to do to Martin Martins. You also
know that, as loathsome a character as Sue Bishop is,
what Little Luigi attempted to do to her also was far
over the line of decency. Francione is a thug. He's a
mobster with tenure.

It figures that you'd quote him.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter, liar ordinaire, wrote:

"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."


Oh, wait - that was earlier wasn't it?


> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
>>> I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
>>> I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
>>> from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
>>> unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
>>> is cheaper and more convenient.
>
>
>> Do you mean you *would NOT*?
>
>
> No, I mean I would. I know this sounds strange,

No weirder than the "creative anachronism" bullshit...


> but to
> me, unless I believed that animals are creatures with
> a value independent of their use to us, who own themselves
> and have a right to be respected as individuals, I could
> not believe that it is wrong to make them suffer for us.

A weird, irrational all-or-nothing belief.


> So it wouldn't matter to me how much or how little they
> suffered, how few or how many suffered for my food. If it
> were ethical to buy meat under the ordinary circumstances of
> my life, it would be ethical to buy any meat. Rick and
> some others have gone to great efforts to show animals suffer
> because of humans in all areas of life -- and I believe
> that is so. If suffering were the *only* criterion, I might
> as well buy battery-cage eggs and veal, because there is no
> way to avoid suffering. It is the philosophy I spoke about
> above which makes the suffering of animals mean something
> to me.
>
> So I think convincing me AR is wrong would probably have
> the opposite effect from what you are trying to accomplish. :)
> Not that I mind you trying, of course. Discussion is always good.

You don't "discuss", Karen. You hector, from a
position of absolute perversity.



>> I understand that. Please understand that I do not believe that
>> applying such a political consideration to animals makes any sense.
>> What makes sense to me is considering how we cause animal suffering.
>> From that standpoint, cds is every bit as important as causing them to
>> suffer in the process of "using them".
>
>
> I agree. But I think the answer is to raise people's awareness and
> encourage people who already avoid either some animal products, like
> meat -- or even just particularly bad products like foie gras, veal,
> battery eggs, and fur -- to *also* agitate for vegetable producers
> to use more humane methods and to buy at Farmers' Markets and so on.

"Farmers' Markets" [sic - do you think that's a
trademark or something?] carry produce whose production
just as casually killed animals as does Safeway's or
Kroger's.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter, liar ordinaire, lied:

> pearl wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
>>> Thank you, Pearl.
>
>
>> A pleasure. :).
>
>
> Your posts are always a pleasure to read.

Lesley's posts are unadulterated horseshit. She's a
fraud, and so are you.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Do y'all know that Sue Bishop was sued for her defamatory remarks
against me in September of 2002? After a year and a half, Sue Bishop
settled the lawsuit for $5,000. Thought you might find it of interest.

Rose Volkert

wife swap vegan episode
 

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>
>>>I think I should explain something to you, Dutch, because
>>>I don't think you understand exactly where I am coming
>>>from. If I were to begin eating meat again -- highly
>>>unlikely -- I would buy factory-farmed meat because it
>>>is cheaper and more convenient.
>
>> Do you mean you *would NOT*?
>
> No, I mean I would. I know this sounds strange, but to
> me, unless I believed that animals are creatures with
> a value independent of their use to us, who own themselves
> and have a right to be respected as individuals, I could
> not believe that it is wrong to make them suffer for us.

I don't think you can know that from your present point of view. It's like
saying that if I lived in the 17th century I would feel as I do now about
women's rights or what-have-you, you don't know that. You only know what you
think is right and wrong from your present point of view, and to some extent
from memory from past points of view you have held. Once you change your
basic assumptions, your moral conclusions and priorities change along with
them. It happened to me, it happened to Usual, and others.

> So it wouldn't matter to me how much or how little they
> suffered, how few or how many suffered for my food. If it
> were ethical to buy meat under the ordinary circumstances of
> my life, it would be ethical to buy any meat. Rick and
> some others have gone to great efforts to show animals suffer
> because of humans in all areas of life -- and I believe
> that is so. If suffering were the *only* criterion, I might
> as well buy battery-cage eggs and veal, because there is no
> way to avoid suffering. It is the philosophy I spoke about
> above which makes the suffering of animals mean something
> to me.

I believe that if you did decide to eat meat, for whatever reason, say
health or other circumstances, and that is the premise we are discussing,
that you would find that the *political* component of your thinking would
change but you would find that your love of and caring about animals would
still exist as much as ever. It would be manifested in a desire to consume
products as much as possible that embodied strong animal welfare principles.
For example, my local market now has a separate free-range/organic meats
section, and that's where I buy my meat most of the time.

> So I think convincing me AR is wrong would probably have
> the opposite effect from what you are trying to accomplish. :)
> Not that I mind you trying, of course. Discussion is always good.

I don't believe that is the case. I believe that you would make every
reasonable effort to avoid suffering to animals, without turning your life
upside-down, as I do, while still living your own life in a way that makes
you comfortable and happy. I believe you would look back on your days as an
ARA and see that, although you had all the best intentions, you were
misguided. Of course that's all speculation :>)

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> I understand that. Please understand that I do not believe that applying
>> such a political consideration to animals makes any sense. What makes
>> sense to me is considering how we cause animal suffering. From that
>> standpoint, cds is every bit as important as causing them to suffer in
>> the process of "using them".
>
> I agree. But I think the answer is to raise people's awareness and
> encourage people who already avoid either some animal products, like
> meat -- or even just particularly bad products like foie gras, veal,
> battery eggs, and fur -- to *also* agitate for vegetable producers
> to use more humane methods and to buy at Farmers' Markets and so on.

Well, being a regular on this forum has certainly raised my awareness of the
issues.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Dutch wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>So I think convincing me AR is wrong would probably have
>>the opposite effect from what you are trying to accomplish. :)
>>Not that I mind you trying, of course. Discussion is always good.

> I don't believe that is the case. I believe that you would make every
> reasonable effort to avoid suffering to animals, without turning your life
> upside-down, as I do, while still living your own life in a way that makes
> you comfortable and happy. I believe you would look back on your days as an
> ARA and see that, although you had all the best intentions, you were
> misguided. Of course that's all speculation :>)

Of course. :)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Well, being a regular on this forum has certainly raised my awareness of the
> issues.

Mine as well.

wife swap vegan episode
 

You are corredt -- there was no restriction on publication of the
lawsuit or its results. I have, nevertheless, been careful not to step
over the line and indulge any derogatory comments. Following is the
formal announcement made in August:

"You will find it of note that Sue Bishop settled the lawsuit brought
against her for defamation in Greene County, Ohio for $5,000 payable to
the Plaintiff, Rose Volkert, on July 7th of this year.

"Sue Bishop admitted in sworn deposition testimony that the many highly
derogatory statements made by her on groups and to individuals on the
Net were "not true", and stated she had acquired information published
from Brian McKee. In Ohio she was nevertheless legally responsible to
verify the truth of any statements before publication."

to which I also appended my name.

I had the support of several people who found Sue Bishop's behavior
offensive, especially when she private emailed them in very negative
tones and performed what they considered harassment. I've not seen
anything of her on the Net since and I hope it stays that way. No
small part of this effort, which was expressed to the Court, was to
eliminate her treatment of people by publishing, as she had done with
me, on groups and otherwise.

Should anyone have any questions that were not answered by the above,
please let me know. I shall remain careful in publications, but will
try to answer or will tell you I don't feel comfortable answering.

I have no information that anyone else has sued Sue Bishop. The suit
was brought while she still lived in Ohio, as I do. It became
necessary for her to fly back from Arizona to make the settlement. I
would imagine she had tangential expenses to this action in multiples
of the settlement amount.

Rose Volkert

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
>
> >>Thank you, Pearl.
>
> > A pleasure. :).
>
> Your posts are always a pleasure to read.

Awwww.. Likewise. :)

> >>As you show, there are Biblical verses which support
> >>vegetarianism, as there are Biblical verses which talk about meat-eating
> >>and animal sacrifices. Individual verses can be pulled out of the
> >>Bible, and it is useful to quote verses which support the position
> >>someone takes, of course. The Bible is the basis for Christian and
> >>Jewish ethics, and the Old Testament for Muslim ethics as well.
>
> > It appears that the Bible, both OT and NT, have been corrupted.
>
> Yes, I think that is so. The texts we find in the Bible were
> written or composed over thousands of years.

This is interesting.

Note that in the Book of Genesis 'Elohim' is The Creator.

'As far back as the 18th century, biblical scholars started to
recognize that the Pentateuch or Torah was riddled with
doublets, i.e., two versions of the same story, each complete
and self-contained. This would have been insignificant in itself,
but they also noticed that one of the versions invariably
identified the deity as Yahweh, while in the other account the
deity was Elohim. Recognizing that they were looking at a
riffling together of two older documents that had been written
independently, they called the author of the Yahweh stories
"the Jahwist," in German, or "Yahwist," in English, and for
convenience thereafter referred to him simply as "J." The
author of the Elohim stories became "the Elohist" or "E."
A little later, they came to the realization that the Elohim
stories were the work of two authors, one from the 8th
century B. C., who retained the "E" designation, and the
other a Levitical priest from the 7th century, who became
"the priestly author," or "P." When the author of
Deuteronomy was recognized as "none of the above," he
became "the Deuteronomist" or "D." Finally, in the late 20th
century, Richard Friedman of USCD demonstrated that the
person who combined the separate documents into a single
narrative, long thought to be the Priestly author, was in fact
a much later editor, whom he called "the Redactor" or "R."

While it is not unanimous, the most widely accepted dates
for the various authors are J, ca. 920 B. C.; E, ca. 770 B. C.;
D, 621 B. C.; P, 621-612 B. C. ; and R, 434 B. C. The
reasoning behind those dates is that J shows signs of having
been written during the reign of Rehoboam (ca. 922-915 B. C.),
whom he consciously flattered. E could be off by as many as
fifty years. D clearly wrote shortly before the "discovery" of
his book in Yahweh's temple in 621 B. C. (2 Kings 22:8-11).
P was written after D, which showed no awareness of P's
existence, while P referred to Assyria as an existing reality,
as he could only have done before Assyria's annihilation in
612 B. C. Since the Torah's final version, containing sections
not from J, E, D, or P, turned up in the hands of high priest
Ezra in 434 B. C., with no explanation of where it came from
or why Ezra suddenly changed the ritual for the feast of
booths from the formula in Deuteronomy to that in Leviticus,
the logical conclusion is that it did not exist seven years earlier
when a Deuteronomic booths was celebrated. Indeed, the
most logical assumption is that Ezra himself was R.
...'
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../205moses.html

> They cover several
> time periods, all of which are different from the way we live
> today.

'By the 12th century B.C.E., the Hebrews assumed an identity
unique enough in the archaeological record to become discernible
for the first time. In the mountains and plateaus of the northern
highlands of Canaan, from Jerusalem north to the Jezreel Valley,
the highland settlements, poor for their day, begin to show a single
distinguishing feature from other, similar highland settlements in
regions around them. There is little to go on - pottery shows an
impoverished lifestyle, with little decoration and use other than as
storage and cooking vessels. Yet one thing is clear - the bones of
pigs become absent from the archaeological record. The prohibition
on eating pork is therefore the oldest archaeologically supported
feature of Jewish culture. It is representative of the beginnings of
the transformation of the god "El" into "El-ohim," the god of gods,
the god of Israel.

We now know this Mesopotamian god as "El-ohim," and our
author "E," one of the earliest scriptorialists writing about this time,
first has El introducing himself to Abraham as "El Shaddai"
(El of the Mountain). He also appears as El Elyon, or El of Bethel
in other, non-canonized scripture, and his name is also preserved
in such Hebrew names as Isra-El and Ishma-El. The word Elohim
was originally a plural of El.2

To the south, from Bethel to the Valley of Beersheba, a similar
transformation is taking place. In this climatically and geologically
harsher place, a place with a much smaller and less settled population
with greater geographical isolation, the Canaanite god Yahweh is
being transformed by a culturally similar people of the land of Judah.
The unknown author known to scholars simply as "J" has his god
being familiar with and comfortable with Abraham, and he casually
appears to Abraham in Genesis 18, introducing himself as Yahweh.
But "J's" contemporary, author "E" in the north can't have God
being so casual, and first appears as a voice, commanding
Abraham to leave his people in Mesopotamia and settle in Canaan.3

Yahweh, in his transformation from a pagan Canaanite god to the
god of the Jews, becomes a cruel and vindictive god in the hands
of author "J." He commands Abraham to sacrifice his first born son,
an act which is not at all surprising given the nature of the pagan
religions of the time. Many of these pagan religions (and remember
that Yahweh got his start as a Canannite pagan god) considered
the first-born to be the seed of a god. Because of this, they were
often sacrificed to the god who presumably sired them.

Yet Elohim in the north continues to be a much more subtle god,
who directs the affairs of men by revelation of the voice, hidden
from the view of mere mortals. There is a tension among these
peoples, both of whom identify themselves as culturally decendants
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One people, perhaps, but two gods.
......'
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Jeremiah Chapter 7
30 For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in
My sight, saith the LORD; they have set their detestable
things in the house whereon My name is called, to defile it.

Isaiah Chapter 1
10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give
ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto
Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams,
and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of
bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to
appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to
trample My courts?

> Those texts were picked out from all the available texts,
> especially texts about the life and ministry of Jesus, by a group
> of human beings, who had their own agendas.

And anyone who disagreed with them was an heretic!

'Medieval Sourcebook:
Bernard Gui on the Albigensians

An experienced inquisitor describes the Albigensians

It would take too long to describe in detail the manner in
which these same Manichaean heretics preach and teach
their followers, but it must be briefly considered here.

In the first place, they usually say of themselves that they are
good Christians, who do not swear, or lie, or speak evil of
others; that they do not kill any man or animal, nor anything
having the breath of life, and that they hold the faith of the
Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel as the apostles taught.
They assert that they occupy the place of the apostles, and
that, on account of the above- mentioned things, they of
the Roman Church, namely the prelates, clerks, and monks,
and especially the inquisitors of heresy persecute them and
call them heretics, although they are good men and good
Christians, and that they are persecuted just as Christ and
his apostles were by the Pharisees.

Moreover they talk to the laity of the evil lives of the clerks
and prelates of the Roman Church, pointing out and setting
forth their pride, cupidity, avarice, and uncleanness of life,
and such other evils as they know. They invoke with their
own interpretation and according to their abilities the
authority of the Gospels and the Epistles against the
condition of the prelates, churchmen, and monks, whom
they call Pharisees and false prophets, who say, but do no.
....
From the Inquisitor's Manual of Bernard Gui [d.1331],
early 14th century, translated in J. H. Robinson,
Readings in European History, (Boston: Ginn, 1905),
pp. 381-383
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gui-cathars.html

> The Bible didn't
> come down to us direct from heaven on golden tablets.

:)
http://www.thenazareneway.com/essene...tm#BookOfMoses

> So, while
> I believe the texts found in the Bible are inspired by God and show
> us something of the way God wants us to behave, I think we have to
> interpret them through an understanding of who wrote them down and
> why.

Indeed.

'.. explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies
and Recognitions. After pointing out various passages
in the Torah that are false pericopes, Peter declares:

"For the scriptures have had added to them many
falsehoods against God. The prophet Moses having
by the order of God delivered the true law... it was
not long before the written law had added to it certain
falsehoods contrary to the law of God.... If, therefore,
some of the scriptures are true and some false, for
good reason our Master revealed to us the mystery
of his saying 'Be ye wise money changers', inasmuch
as in the scriptures there are some true sayings and
some spurious."

.... Peter concludes:

"Wherefore, Clement, my spiritual son, beware of
those scriptures which portray God as... fond of
burnt animal fat, bloody animal sacrifice and war....
For if God is portrayed as loving war, what sort
of 'God' is that?"
...
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm

> I think there are other texts which are also inspired by God
> and can also show us something of the way God wants us to behave.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/from_e...ea_scrolls.htm

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>However, Christians who are not Biblical fundamentalists or literalists
> >>go more on the *meaning* of the Bible as a whole, and it is clear to
> >>me, as to other Christian vegetarians, that the Biblical message,
> >>especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.
>
>
> > But mostly, to the majority, service and mercy to fellow humans.
>
> Yes, that's true. But it doesn't have to be true. We can help
> change that, I think.

I think so too.

> >>Animal liberation/rights and ethical vegetarianism are more in keeping
> >>with Christian ethics than use of animal products as they are produced
> >>today in most cases.
> > ....
> > http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/T...ist_Index.html
>
> >>Have you read Linzey at all? He is excellent on Christian support for
> >>rights of animals and Christian reasons for vegetarianism.
>
> > Well I've read, and also published on my site, this article
> > by Linzey- http://www.iol.ie/~creature/Letting_Be.htm .
>
> It's ALL good. :)

Very good. :)

wife swap vegan episode
 

Ted Kerasote in his book, Bloodties (I think that is the title),
compared hunting to veganism in terms of petroKcalolries usage, which
is an index of the amount of fossil fuel used in production of a
standardized amount of edible calories.

An interesting approach, not just because of the oil problems facing
the world, but also because there seems to be a strong relation between
petro usage and environmental damage (which relates to real animal
suffering and death).

He found hunting did the least harm per calorie consumed, even figuring
in the petroKcalories required to produce a 4x4 vehicle. Potatoes and
such required about an order of magnitude more petroKcalories.

It wouldn't surprise me, if trapping produced less animal suffering per
coat made, than say a goretex synthetic coat.

As they say, there is no "free lunch".

Paul Shepard, the prohunting environmentalist - if not the father of
"deep ecology", probed this vein with some very interesting books
(e.g., The Tender Carnivore and The Sacred Game").

A google search on his name will bring up several websites some here
may find interesting.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Lesley lied:

> Karen Winter, decrepit hag, cackled:
>
>>Lesley lied:
>>
>>>Karen Winter, decrepit hag, cackled:
>>
>>>>Thank you, Pearl.
>>
>>>A pleasure. :).
>>
>>Your posts are always a big steaming load of shit.
>
>
> Awwww.. Likewise. :)

Too right.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Just by chance, the History Channel had a program this evening on
books which were popular in the period from the death of Christ
up to the time when the canon of the modern Bible was selected
(4th century), including the Gospel of Mary, of Nicodemus, of
Thomas, the book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Peter, and so on.
Some were preserved in Ethiopia and became part of the bible
of Ethiopian Orthodox church, some became part of the Koran, some
showed up among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there were almost
certainly some that vanished completely and may or may not be
found somewhere sometime. Various scholars interviewed on the
program gave their opinions why some text did or did not make
the final cut, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates that
the Bible as we have it today is a *selection* from many books
on the life of Jesus, based on some human beings' opinion.
I can't regard it as, by itself, the final word on anything.

There's also been a lot of new interest lately in the Celtic
tradition in Christianity and a re-thinking of the views
of Pelagius, the early British theologian who wrote some very
modern-sounding comments about God's self-expression in the
natural world and in animals. I heard J. Philip Newell give
a talk on his book about this, _Listening For The Heartbeat
of God_. You might be interested in looking up information
on him. He used to be Warden of Iona Abbey.

I think someone mentioned you live in Ireland? Or am I
mistaken on that?


Thanks again for the information you posted.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter, lying hag, lied:

>
> I think someone mentioned you live in Ireland? Or am I
> mistaken on that?

Lesley ("pearl" - more like lichen-covered granite) is
a foot-rubbing prostitute in Cork, Ireland.

wife swap vegan episode
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
>
> Just by chance, the History Channel had a program this evening on
> books which were popular in the period from the death of Christ
> up to the time when the canon of the modern Bible was selected

Heh. (Had a long argument about that not too long ago).

> (4th century), including the Gospel of Mary, of Nicodemus, of
> Thomas, the book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Peter, and so on.
> Some were preserved in Ethiopia and became part of the bible
> of Ethiopian Orthodox church, some became part of the Koran, some
> showed up among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there were almost
> certainly some that vanished completely and may or may not be
> found somewhere sometime. Various scholars interviewed on the
> program gave their opinions why some text did or did not make
> the final cut, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates that
> the Bible as we have it today is a *selection* from many books
> on the life of Jesus, based on some human beings' opinion.
> I can't regard it as, by itself, the final word on anything.

Selection, and alteration.

> There's also been a lot of new interest lately in the Celtic
> tradition in Christianity and a re-thinking of the views
> of Pelagius, the early British theologian who wrote some very
> modern-sounding comments about God's self-expression in the
> natural world and in animals. I heard J. Philip Newell give
> a talk on his book about this, _Listening For The Heartbeat
> of God_. You might be interested in looking up information
> on him. He used to be Warden of Iona Abbey.

Excellent. Thank you.

> I think someone mentioned you live in Ireland? Or am I
> mistaken on that?

Yes, I do live in Ireland.

> Thanks again for the information you posted.

That's what it's there for. ;).

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

wife swap vegan episode
 

Glorfindel wrote:
> S. Maizlich wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > I'm going to get you again. I'm going to get in your head, and
> > you're not going to like it.
>
> Killfiled

Grow up, ****.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter continued her deceit:
> I think someone mentioned you live in Ireland? Or am I
> mistaken on that?

You disingenuous wacked-out nutcase! You were beside yourself with glee
that you were going to meet Lesley last summer:

I'm very excited. The co-leader with Fr. Murphy, our priest,
is named Finbarr Ross. He's an expert on Celtic mystical
history, and he gave a slide-show last Sunday on the places
we will visit, a lot of them very old churches and pre-Christian
sites with sun-wheels, astronomical features, and all sorts of
mystical energy. As I said, I remain an agnostic on the subject
of the Sidhe, but I would love to have more evidence. :) If
we do get to go, I'll let you know where we will be visiting,
and perhaps we could get together for a visit.
Karen Winter as "rat": Dec 10 2003

Just because you assume a new nym doesn't mean others forget everything
you've written, even though Lesley is certainly gullible and
muddle-headed enough to cut you some slack about your latest identity
crisis.

wife swap vegan episode
 

heretic Karen Winter wrote:
>>> Thank you, Pearl.
>
>> A pleasure. :).
>
> Your posts are always a pleasure to read.

Her posts often amuse me, especially when she's addressing bullshit like
inner earth beings or science that's way over her head (polar fountains).

>>> As you show, there are Biblical verses which support
>>> vegetarianism, as there are Biblical verses which talk about meat-eating
>>> and animal sacrifices. Individual verses can be pulled out of the
>>> Bible, and it is useful to quote verses which support the position
>>> someone takes, of course. The Bible is the basis for Christian and
>>> Jewish ethics, and the Old Testament for Muslim ethics as well.
>
>> It appears that the Bible, both OT and NT, have been corrupted.
>
> Yes, I think that is so.

Interesting you would believe that given your snobbish views about
apostolic succession, and how you believe that issue separates you from
other Protestants:

The Anglican denomination is a part of the One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church, along with the Roman Catholics, and the
Orthodox, because the Anglican church has valid orders
continuing in the apostolic succession ( in America, through the
Church of Scotland). Protestant churches ( the Sects) do not.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis": 11 April 2005

I don't belong to that denomination. For close to a century,
the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. has been distancing itself
from the "Protestant" label. The new Prayer Book says it is
"According to the use of The *Episcopal* Church". There are
enough members of the church who do not identify themselves as
"Protestant" that the ECUSA is no longer requiring it. If we
can consider the 39 Articles as optional, we can certainly
consider the label "Protestant" optional. We are historically
protestant in that we are non-RC, which is what it originally
meant. We are NOT "Protestant" in the same way the other,
non-apostolic, churchs are Protestant with a capitol "P".
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis": 13 April 2005

I grew up in the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Episcopal Church,
which regarded Anglicans, Orthodox, and RCs as part of the
catholic church, and everybody else among the Protestants as
members of "The Sects" which did not have valid ministers, since
they did not have the Apostolic Succession.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis": 5 April 2005

Despite your weird predilection with the issue of tracing who laid hands
on whom at an ordination, you're entirely disingenuous about the
apostles' *doctrines*. Your beliefs are 180-degrees from theirs.

> The texts we find in the Bible were
> written or composed over thousands of years.

Yet you applaud Lesley for posting crap from "The Gospel of the Holy
Twelve," which is of very dubious and contrived origin. The following
three links address the historicity -- or rather lack of it -- of that
particular piece of... well, pseudo-scripture.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/s...ew_gospels.htm (veg site)
http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/twelve.html

<...>
> Those texts were picked out from all the available texts,
> especially texts about the life and ministry of Jesus, by a group
> of human beings, who had their own agendas.

And YOU don't have an agenda, right? Haha. Your agenda is wholly
antithetical to the Scriptures, so you cavalierly dismiss and disregard
them when they're diametrically opposed to "whatkarenbelieves" and
suggest they mean something they don't when you need a crutch for your
argument. There is NO biblical case for AR. The Bible allows, condones,
sanctions, approves, etc., animal sacrifice, consumption of animal
flesh, and everything else you find objectionable.

Meanwhile, you praise Lesley for posting rubbish like the aforementioned
fairy tale made up by crackpot vegetarians -- who were so clumsy about
it they left in terms and phrases that are clearly post-Nicene. This is
funny, in a sense, because of all the conspiracy theories about the
Council of Nicea (which Lesley most likely believes).

wife swap vegan episode
 

heretic "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...

> Yet you applaud Lesley for posting crap from "The Gospel of the Holy
> Twelve," which is of very dubious and contrived origin. The following
> three links address the historicity -- or rather lack of it -- of that
> particular piece of... well, pseudo-scripture.
>
> http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html

Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland.

"No penalty incurred by man ever is or can be remitted by God,
since the Divine Justice is just. "
- from;
THE PERFECT WAY, or The Finding of Christ
BY ANNA BONUS KINGSFORD AND EDWARD MAITLAND
http://www.theosophical.ca/PerfectWay2.htm

=/=

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve
Lection XCIII
The Order of the Kingdom (Part III)
1. AND another spake, saying, Master, if one have committed
a sin, can a man remit or retain his sin? And Jesus said, God
forgiveth all sin to those who repent, but as ye sow, so also
must ye reap; Neither God nor man can remit the sins of those
who repent nor forsake their sins; nor yet retain the sins of
those who forsake them. But if one being in the spirit seeth
clearly that any repent and forsake their sins, such may truly
say unto the penitent, Thy sins are forgiven thee, for All sin is
remitted by repentance and amendment and they are loosed
from it, who forsake it and bound to it, who continue it.
2. Nevertheless the fruits of the sin must continue for a season,
for as we sow so must we reap, for God is not mocked, and
they who sow to the flesh shall reap corruption, they who sow
to the spirit shall reap life, everlasting. Wherefore if any forsake
their sins and confess them, let the presbyter say unto such in
this wise, May God forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to
everlasting life. All sin against God is forgiven by God, and
sin against man by man.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essen...htm#Lection930

> http://www.compassionatespirit.com/s...ew_gospels.htm (veg site)

Kieth Aker's argument rests entirely upon the following:

' In an early twentieth century edition published in
London, an "Explanatory Preface" precedes the text.
Ouseley's name has been removed, and the Preface
is signed "The Editors of the Gospel of the Holy Twelve"
(though evidently a similar explanation appeared in
earlier English-language versions of the book, with
Ouseley's name at the bottom). Here is part of what
this Preface says: '

How can we know who this prefaced twentieth edition
was published by? Are you so naive as to think that
such a publication couldn't be thrown into the mix to
lead everyone astray? Such a document would pose a
huge threat to the Church, as ever. Kieth Akers further
writes "though evidently a similar explanation appeared
in earlier ..." "evidently"? According to whom exactly?

> http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/twelve.html

'An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have
discovered the Original Gospel from which the present
Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was
"preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet,
where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community
for safety from the hands of the corrupters, and is now
for the first time translated from the Aramaic."
This statement was made by Rev. Ouseley in a preface
to his publication of this Gospel, in a book entitled
"Gospel of the Holy Twelve."
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm

'When the soldiers of the Roman Emperor "Constantine
the Great" were sent to confiscate all copies of the original
Essene-Christian New Testament (Constantine had taken
control of the meat-eating branches of the Christian Church
-- those originally started by his hero Paul -- altered the
New Testament in favor of Paul, and created a State-run
religion known as "The Catholic Church"), some brave
Essene-Christian monks went to India and deposited a
copy of the authentic Essene-Christian New Testament in
the Mystery School Library of a Buddhist monastery.
(Several centuries later that manuscript was moved from
the Indian Buddhist Monastery to a Buddhist monastery
in Tibet.) It was that manuscript -- THE GOSPEL OF
THE HOLY TWELVE -- which was translated by Rev.
Ouseley in the 1880's. (Even before Ouseley, several
excerpts from this manuscript were known, having been
quoted in various books written by early Church Fathers;
but no complete "Holy Twelve" manuscript was available
prior to the Ouseley translation.

With assistance from a sort of "underground" spiritual
fellowship, Ouseley gained access to the manuscript
preserved in the Tibetan monastery and translated it
from Aramaic into English. He claimed that Christ and
holy angels helped him -- in fact, led him -- through the
entire process. However, mainline Christianity was not
pleased: He was forced to leave the Church of England
-- in which he was an ordained Priest -- immediately
after releasing his translation of "Holy Twelve." Several
attempts were made to assassinate him. His house was
twice set on fire. At that point he formed an underground
church called the Essene Order of At-Onement. The
main purpose of that church was to acquire and preserve
ancient Essene books for future publication.'
....
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm

> Council of Nicea

'Every church had its favored books, and since there
was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the
4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous
literary traditions.The illusion that it was otherwise is
created by the fact that the church that came out on
top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed
or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we
call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."
......
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

wife swap vegan episode
 

pearl responded in the precise manner I expected she would:
>>Yet you applaud Lesley for posting crap from "The Gospel of the Holy
>>Twelve," which is of very dubious and contrived origin. The following
>>three links address the historicity -- or rather lack of it -- of that
>>particular piece of... well, pseudo-scripture.
>>
>>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html
>
> Anna Kingsford

....had some pretty deep-seated issues.

Annie Bonus was born at Maryland Point, Stratford, Essex,
England at 5.00pm on 16 Sept. 1846.(She used various first
names, most commonly Anna.)

As a young child she could recall asking the fairy queen for
permission to come to earth to undertake a great humanitarian
work and being told she would suffer more than ordinary mortals
here on earth.Her fairy companions visited her in her dreams.
When taken to her first pantomime and seeing the fairies on
stage, Anna struggled to join "my people" and had to be taken
out of the theatre to quieten her down.

Anna always had a strong imagination....
http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~apert/kingsford.html

That's probably not a credibility-hurdle to someone who believes "inner
earth beings" inhabit Mount Shasta or who hasn't made up her mind yet
about leprechauns. Then again, neither was the Indian mystic who claimed
to get his sustenance from the sun's rays or any of the other bullshit
you believe in and peddle. Dummy.

> and Edward Maitland.

Similar story -- another charlatan.

After his return to England in 1857 he took up an advanced
humanitarian position, and claimed to have acquired a new sense
by which be was able to discern the spiritual condition of other
people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Maitland

Like Kingsford, he was a kook heavily involved in early vegetarian and
AR movements. Is it any wonder wacked-out AR freaks would find hidden
wacked-out messages in the ether and in "hidden" Scriptures about AR?

> The Gospel of the Holy Twelve

....is a fraudulent document produced by theosophist AR activists by
*channeling*.

But is it really derived from an Aramaic text, found in a
monastery in Tibet? After encountering Notovitch’s fraud, we
should certainly be suspicious of any works claiming to have
been found in Tibet. First of all, there are numerous problems
with the work. It quotes from all four of the gospels and from
the letters of Paul; it contains references to rituals from the
later church, and to the "trinity" (a word that never occurs in
the New Testament); it also contains references to such
non-Biblical species as cats, rabbits, and an ape. And in fact,
the real origin of the work is not hidden very far. In an early
twentieth century edition published in London, an "Explanatory
Preface" precedes the text. Ouseley’s name has been removed, and
the Preface is signed "The Editors of the Gospel of the Holy
Twelve" (though evidently a similar explanation appeared in
earlier English-language versions of the book, with Ouseley’s
name at the bottom). Here is part of what this Preface says:

Their "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" was communicated to
the Editors, in numerous fragments at different times,
by Emmanuel Swedenborg, Anna Kingsford, Edward Maitland,
and a priest of the former century, giving his name as
Placidus, of the Franciscan Order, afterwards a
Carmelite. By them it was translated from the original,
and given to the Editors in the flesh, to be
supplemented in their proper places, where indicated,
from the "Four Gospels" (A. V.) revised where necessary
by the same.

To this explanation, the Editors cannot add, nor from it
take away. By the Divine Spirit was the Gospel
communicated to the four above mentioned, and by them
translated, and given to the writers; not in seance
rooms (where too often resort the idle, the frivolous
and the curious, attracting spirits similar to
themselves, rather than the good), but "in dreams and
visions of the night," and by direct guidance, has God
instructed them by chosen instruments; and now they give
it to the world, that some may be wiser unto Salvation,
while those who reject it, remain in their blindness,
till they will to see.

From this passage, it is clear that no manuscript in Aramaic has
ever been seen, or is claimed to have been seen, by Rev.
Ouseley. Rather, it is Swedenborg, Maitland, Kingsford, and
Placidus (all having died, some very recently, by the time
Ouseley received this work) who received the gospel, and who
simultaneously translated it into English, and then communicated
this to Ouseley and his associates in some miraculous manner. So
whenever and however Ouseley received it, it was already in
English. Presumably, although this information is not spelled
out, the fact that the manuscript is in Tibet in some monastery
was also communicated to them by Swedenborg, Maitland,
Kingsford, and Placidus. No one has every discovered any such
manuscript, in Aramaic or any other language, in any Tibetan
monastery.

However, to make things more interesting, there are several
versions of this gospel which are circulating without Ouseley’s
"Explanatory Preface." This has left some people are under the
impression that this is a text which really was originally found
in Tibet and translated from the Aramaic. In fact, in Europe
there are German and Swedish editions of this work which leave
the impression that Ouseley actually did discover the manuscript
during a trip to Tibet in 1881. Never mind that Ouseley himself
never claimed to have gone to Tibet, and in fact was fairly open
about the process by which he received it, making it clear that
this is in fact a "channeled" work. Annie Besant, one of the
leaders of the Theosophical movement, understood the situation
quite well and gave the book a rather negative review,
describing its spiritualist sources and calling it "a strange
book."
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/s...ew_gospels.htm

> Kieth Aker's argument rests entirely upon the following:

I gave you two other pages which dispute the claimed historicity of the
pseusdo-Twelve. One points out:

* Elizabeth is told that John the Baptist "shall neither eat
flesh meats, nor drink strong drink."
* Mary is told not to eat meat during her pregnancy.
* The magi are in such a hurry to find Jesus that they neglect
to attend to their thirsty camels. The star of Bethlehem
disappears from their sight until they give their camels rest
and water.
* Jesus rebukes a man who beats his horse, and later rebukes a
crowd of men who torment a cat. When one of the men gets defiant
about it, Jesus causes his arm to wither. The next day the man
returns admitting his sin, and is healed.
* In another instance Jesus rebukes a man for beating his camel,
asking, "Wherefore beatest thou thy brother?" At this, "the
camel knew Jesus, having felt the love of God in him."
* Jesus proclaims that he has come to end the temple sacrifices,
and after his resurrection, goes to the temple and puts an end
to the sacrifices with a replay of the temple cleansing episode.
* There is no Passover lamb at the Last Supper; Judas Iscariot
asks why there isn't any meat to eat.

Fairly clear, is it not? Jesus, the card-carrying member of
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals!
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html

That page also has an account from a contemporary of Ouseley's. It's
worth reading before taking Ouseley seriously. The gist of it, though,
is that your "scripture" was a channeled message much like that urgent
plea from "Lemuria" you foolishly posted was.

> Such a document would pose a
> huge threat to the Church, as ever.

No, and no more so than any of the other fakes that have surfaced from
the nutcase conspiracy theory crowd. The pseudo-Twelve you've quoted
from is more corrupt than the Scriptures you reject. Indeed, the very
fact that Ouseley, Kingsford, Maitland, et al, have to lie and produce
"hidden" scriptures from Tibet (not), channeling, or La-la Land lends
them zero credibility.

>>http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/twelve.html
>
> 'An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have
> discovered the Original Gospel

From the Swedish link above:
[i]s it not possible that the four gospels and St Paul have
quoted from this older gospel? No, because each of them have
their characteristical language and writing style which allows
us to recognize who has quoted who. The NT writers are first in
the quote sequence, no doubt about it. Ouseley's text is rich in
anachronisms:

* "Trinity" is mentioned, a theological term from the late 2nd
century,
* The Spirit is said to be "Sevenfold", an idea from Isaiah
11:2, but the expression is much later.
* The Spirit is called "lifegiver" which reveals that the writer
is familiar with the Nicene creed (325 AD).
* The spirit is said to proceed "from the holy two", revealing
that the author is affected by the so-called "filioque", a
Western addition to the Nicene creed which can not be traced
further back than the 6th century AD.
* The fauna of Palestine in the book differs from reality. Jesus
saves a cat, some rabbits and an ape. None of these animals are
mentioned in the Bible. If they existed in Palestine it would be
very interesting to know what they were called in the Aramaic;
they are not mentioned in any Aramaic manuscript so we don't
even know what the words would have been.
* A man in the text breeds hunting dogs -- clearly a 19th
century Englishman, not a 1st century Jew or Roman.
* The later part of the text has examples of liturgical uses
that are much later. The wedding ceremony is Eastern Orthodox,
the sound of churchbells is heard (a medieval invention), and so
on.

By now it should be clear that this is not a rediscovered
original gospel, but rather a not too skillfully contrived
apocryph. I am uncertain of what credence it has received in
other countries, but in Sweden it has been widely spread and
believed in the 20th century. Ouseley was an Anglican clergyman,
born in Ireland but spent his adult life in England. He was also
an occultist who wrote several books about occult subjects. He
had contacts with the theosophical and anti-vivisectionist group
around Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland (who together wrote
The Perfect Way). Ouseley's own version of the find story, in
his foreword to the gospel, clearly states that he has received
the text through spiritistic contact with Swedenborg, Kingsford,
Maitland and a Franciscan priest by the name of Placidus.
Ouseley claims that the manuscript is in Tibet, but does not say
that he has ever been there or seen it with his own eyes.
Intead, "the spirits" told him about it and translated it for
him, letting him receive the text telepathically. It is probable
that Notovitch's book (1894) and Madame Blavatsky's The Secret
Doctrine (1888) inspired him to invent the story about the
manuscript.

Hint: a "channeler" whose "hidden" and "original" text contains
references to post-Nicene issues is a fraud. Worse, your
pseudo-scripture contains issues pertaining to controversies in the
fourth and sixth centuries. It mentions animals found in 19th century
England, NOT in first century Judea, and alludes to hunting dogs. Its
wedding ceremony is medieval, not early church; its liturgy is Eastern
Orthodox, which is far removed from the influence of the synagogue on
the early Christians.

It's a fraud, Lesley, and so are you.

> Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was
> "preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet,
> where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community
> for safety from the hands of the corrupters, and is now
> for the first time translated from the Aramaic."

Channeled, not translated.

> With assistance from a sort of "underground" spiritual
> fellowship,

Meaning he CHANNELED, dummy. There were no manuscripts in Aramaic.

> He claimed that Christ and
> holy angels helped him -- in fact, led him -- through the
> entire process.

Just as Joseph Smith claimed Moroni helped him translate some tablets
from "reformed Egyptian" characters.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ck/mormon.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...k/toomany.html
Etc.

> However, mainline Christianity was not
> pleased:

Why should the Church be pleased when wolves in sheeps clothing come to
eat the lambs of Christ's flock? Ouseley was preaching another gospel;
he was already *outside* the church. The Church has no obligation to aid
or abet the work of heretics. That's YOUR job, Lesley.

2 John 9-11
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of
Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching,
he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your
house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him
a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Romans 16:17-18
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause
dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you
learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not
of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their
smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the
unsuspecting.

Titus 3:10
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing
that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being
self-condemned.

> He was forced to leave the Church of England
> -- in which he was an ordained Priest -- immediately
> after releasing his translation of "Holy Twelve."

Deservedly so.

> Several attempts were made to assassinate him.

Prove it.

> His house was twice set on fire.

Prove it.

> At that point he formed an underground
> church called the Essene Order of At-Onement.

Which was his right -- but not to spread his channeled AR heresies
WITHIN the church.

>>Council of Nicea
>
> 'Every church had its favored books,

And Ouseley's was NOT one of them.

wife swap vegan episode
 

pearl couldn't make her case Biblically:
>>There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism.
>
> Genesis
> 1:29 And Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every
> herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
> and every tree, which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;
> to you it shall be for meat.

That's not a case for vegetarianism, particularly when considering the
following:

Gen 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.

"Garments of skin" would be leather, fur. So much for AR. Fur is warm.

Gen 4:2 Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was
a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

"Keeper of flocks" -- no AR there. Abel also made offerings from the
firstborn of his flock and their fat. Note that God was more pleased
with Abel's meat offering but not with Cain's plant-based offering,
which drove the vegan Cain to murder his meat-eating brother after a
heated conversation (v8).

Things haven't changed much since then, have they:
If you go and have a massive stroke, um, well,
never mind go ahead. :)
Skanky, 18 July 2005

"I always cheer any time I hear someone who is a hunter dies
in a war or plane crash or from cancer...
They should not receive any medical assistance or legal
assistance. They should be denied housing..."
exploratory, t.p.a. Oct 10 2003, 6:09 pm

"...I hope he dies or sooner rather than later, but I'd settle
for his institutionalization..."
frlpwr, t.p.a. Apr 18 2004, 4:44 pm

"...As for his current absence, I sincerely hope he finally
threw a clot. The world would be better place without him..."
frlpwr, t.p.a. Apr 17 2004, 5:43 pm

"...I live a couple of miles from an intensive turkkey rearing
factory, I know both directors of the company, I hope they die a
slow death asap, They are stinking lousy low life Yorkshire
scum..."
Racist Ray Slater, Feb 12 2004, 12:45 pm a.a.e.v.

We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
http://tinyurl.com/5m5ew

I hope you die slowly, and in excruciating pain from cancer or
in a house fire you worthless tramp for what you have just said.
Just one animals life is worth 10 of yours. Your wife is better
off where she is, at least she doesn't have to live with YOU. I
bet she would have committed suicide anyway rather than put up
with you. Please do like her and choke to death.
http://tinyurl.com/5lndg

I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
http://tinyurl.com/3jalp

Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter!
http://tinyurl.com/3vkss

So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal right
to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that is good --
because I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and
non-vegetarians.
http://tinyurl.com/4j4tm

Vegans aren't compassionate about humans, they're misanthropes. They
also don't have much use for animals.
www.petakillsanimals.com

> Leviticus 11:42
> Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever
> goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet
> among all creeping things that creep upon the earth,
> them ye shall not eat;

Whoa, *stupid*. You passed up all the verses in that chapter which ALLOW
meat-eating:
Lev 11:2-3 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'These are the
creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the
earth. 'Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, {and}
chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat

Lev 11:9 'These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that
have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the
rivers, you may eat.

Lev 11:21-22 'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects
which walk on {all} fours: those which have above their feet
jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 'These of them you
may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in
its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in
its kinds.

No AR, no mandatory vegetarianism. You lose. Loser.

> Jeremiah Chapter 7
> 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel:
> Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat
> ye flesh. 22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor
> commanded them in the day that I brought them out of
> the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;

That's not an argument for vegetarianism or AR. It's from God rebuking
Israel for disobedience. You should've added v20 for better context:
Jer 7:20 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, My anger and
My wrath will be poured out on this place, on man and on beast
and on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground;
and it will burn and not be quenched."

Note that the anger and wrath of God will not exclude beasts. So much
for "biblical AR."

> Isaiah Chapter 1
> 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide
> Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers,
> I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash
> you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings
> from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do
> well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the
> fatherless, plead for the widow.

Not a case for veganism, AR, or anything other than charity to *FELLOW
HUMANS*. That includes not judging others on the basis of what they
choose to eat (Matthew 15, 1 Tim 4, etc.), and certainly not supporting
AR (and other) terrorist groups like you do.

> Isaiah Chapter 11
> 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain;
> for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD,
> as the waters cover the sea.

Not a case for vegetarianism or AR.

> Isaiah Chapter 66
> 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that
> sacrificeth a lamb, as if he broke a dog's neck; he that
> offereth a meal-offering, as if he offered swine's blood;
> he that maketh a memorial-offering of frankincense, as
> if he blessed an idol; according as they have chosen their
> own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations;

That's not a case for vegetarianism or AR. In context (Isa 66:1-5), it's
a plead for Israel to focus on God rather than on their sacrifices. No
where does it say not to eat meat, not to carry out sacrifices, not to
wear leather or fur, not to experiment on animals, etc.:
Thus says the Lord:

"Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?
For all those things My hand has made,
And all those things exist,"
Says the Lord.
"But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word.

"He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog's neck;
He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine's blood;
He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol.
Just as they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations,
So will I choose their delusions,
And bring their fears on them;
Because, when I called, no one answered,
When I spoke they did not hear;
But they did evil before My eyes,
And chose that in which I do not delight."

Hear the word of the Lord,
You who tremble at His word:
"Your brethren who hated you,
Who cast you out for My name's sake, said,
'Let the Lord be glorified,
That we may see your joy.'
But they shall be ashamed."

What about the rest of the Bible? It doesn't command or even recommend
vegetarianism, and it's repeated allowances for use of animals for food,
clothing, etc., are antithetical to the beliefs of ARAs and vegans.
Consider the following.

Jesus helped COMMERCIAL fishermen:
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."

Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."

When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)

He fed fish to hungry followers:
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."

His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"

"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.

"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37

He ate fish himself:
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43

Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen -- commercial
fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and
when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Why would
he do that if he were an ARA?

Consider the Passover seder:
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?"

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. 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?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16

Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his
disciples partook in the custom of *killing* and *eating* a lamb on Pesach.

Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices:
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.

Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44

Mary and Joseph likewise offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the
animal rights or "vegan" position. Your only "sources" for claims that
he was a PETA member have been shown to be frauds. That includes the
bogus channeled messages from Ouseley.

Furthermore, the OT is filled with examples of meat-eating and animal
sacrifices. Cain and Esau are described as hunters. The OT laws
prescribe specific methods of slaughter, rules for how meat should and
shouldn't be prepared, etc. ARAs object to those scriptural slaughter
rules, but they object to *all* slaughter even though the Bible allows
for it.

Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean,
but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended
the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who
think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following
rules like "don't eat animals" and "don't wear animal hides." Worse, you
follow those who make new commands and demand others not do things which
are *permitted* scripturally.

St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not
judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat;
he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain
foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge
people according to what they eat and demand others abstain from certain
foods to be more ethical, holy, etc., when the scriptures make it clear
that those things don't make people ethical or holy.

There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism --
particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world
through proselytization -- is entirely at odds with the Bible. You rely
on fraudulent pseudo-scriptures for your arguments. *You* are a fraud.

wife swap vegan episode
 

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
responded in the precise manner expected

Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland.

"No penalty incurred by man ever is or can be remitted by God,
since the Divine Justice is just. "
- from;
THE PERFECT WAY, or The Finding of Christ
BY ANNA BONUS KINGSFORD AND EDWARD MAITLAND
http://www.theosophical.ca/PerfectWay2.htm

=/=

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve
Lection XCIII
The Order of the Kingdom (Part III)
1. AND another spake, saying, Master, if one have committed
a sin, can a man remit or retain his sin? And Jesus said, God
forgiveth all sin to those who repent, but as ye sow, so also
must ye reap; Neither God nor man can remit the sins of those
who repent nor forsake their sins; nor yet retain the sins of
those who forsake them. But if one being in the spirit seeth
clearly that any repent and forsake their sins, such may truly
say unto the penitent, Thy sins are forgiven thee, for All sin is
remitted by repentance and amendment and they are loosed
from it, who forsake it and bound to it, who continue it.
2. Nevertheless the fruits of the sin must continue for a season,
for as we sow so must we reap, for God is not mocked, and
they who sow to the flesh shall reap corruption, they who sow
to the spirit shall reap life, everlasting. Wherefore if any forsake
their sins and confess them, let the presbyter say unto such in
this wise, May God forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to
everlasting life. All sin against God is forgiven by God, and
sin against man by man.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essen...htm#Lection930

> Their "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" was communicated to
> the Editors, >
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/s...ew_gospels.htm
>
> > Kieth Aker's argument rests entirely upon the following:

' In an early twentieth century edition published in
London, an "Explanatory Preface" precedes the text.
Ouseley's name has been removed, and the Preface
is signed "The Editors of the Gospel of the Holy Twelve"
(though evidently a similar explanation appeared in
earlier English-language versions of the book, with
Ouseley's name at the bottom). Here is part of what
this Preface says: '

How can we know who this prefaced twentieth edition
was published by? Are you so naive as to think that
such a publication couldn't be thrown into the mix to
lead everyone astray? Such a document would pose a
huge threat to the Church, as ever. Kieth Akers further
writes "though evidently a similar explanation appeared
in earlier ..." "evidently"? According to whom exactly?

Well?

> http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/twelve.html

The rest of your objections are similarly unconvincing.

Jesus was a Nazarene/Nasarean. They were vegetarian,
and opposed to animal sacrifice. That is established.

'8. He also said, I am come to end the sacrifices and feasts
of blood, and if ye cease not offering and eating of flesh and
blood, the wrath of God shall not cease from you, even as it
came to your fathers in the wilderness, who lusted for flesh,
and they eat to their content, and were filled with rottenness,
and the plague consumed them.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essen...htm#Lection210

"They [the Ebionites] say that Christ was not begotten
of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels
.... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of
the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their
Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew,
or Gospel According to the Hebrews" reports: "I am
come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not
sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5 )
...
http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-the-hebrews

['The Gospel according to the Hebrews was a Gospel
which was once used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites.
Eusebius said that GH was "the especial delight of
those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah"
(Eccl. Hist. 3:25:5). When speaking of the Ebionites,
Epiphanius calls GH "their Gospel" (Pan. 30:16:4-5)
and Jerome refers to GH as "the Gospel which the
Nazarenes and Ebionites use" (On Mat. 12:13).
...
While there is no reason to presume that there were
three different Gospels called the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, it is certainly clear that Nazarenes and
Ebionites used different versions of GH. Epiphanius
describes the version of GH used by the Ebionites as
"called 'according to Matthew', which however is not
wholly complete but falsified and mutilated" (Pan. 30:13:2)
however in speaking of the Nazarenes he refers to the
"Gospel of Matthew quite complete in Hebrew. preserved.
as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Pan. 29:9:4).
So it would appear that the Ebionite version of GH
was "not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated"
while the Nazarene version was "quite complete.
preserved. as it was first written.".
http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html ]

> Romans 16:17-18
> Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause
> dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you
> learned, and turn away from them.

Uhuh.

"For the Apostolic Church much that Paul taught
was grievous error not at all in accord with the
mind and message of the Messiah. The original
Apostles could urge that the truth was known by
them. But Paul had never companied with Jesus
or heard what he said day after day [remember:
Paul had never even met Jesus], and Paul's visions
were the delusions of this own misguided mind....

"It was not only the teaching and activities of Paul
which made him obnoxious to the Christian leaders:
but their awareness that he set his revelations above
their authority and claimed an intimacy with the mind
of Jesus, greater than that of those who had
companied with him on earth and had been chosen
by him.... It was an abomination, especially as his
ideas were so contrary to what they knew of Jesus,
that he should pose as the embodiment of the
Messiah's will.... Paul was seen as the demon-driven
enemy of the Messiah.... For the legitimate Church,
Paul was a dangerous and disruptive influence, bent
on enlisting a large following among the Gentiles in
order to provide himself with a numerical superiority
with the support of which he could set at defiance
the Elders at Jerusalem. Paul had been the enemy
from the beginning, and because he failed in his
former open hostility he had craftily insinuated
himself into the fold to destroy it from within."
......'
http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

> For such men are slaves, not
> of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their
> smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the
> unsuspecting.

'Jesus Warns Of False Prophets
Who Will Twist His Words And Make A Lie Of Truth
And he went on saying to them:
"Do ye beware of false prophets, who indeed come
unto you in sheep's clothing, pretending to be innocent
and harmless as sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves,
with appetites lusting after the blood and flesh of innocent
creatures. Yea, their hands are dripping with blood and
they boast in their evil and say it is good and deceive
many at the entrance of the gate. Ye shall know them by
their works, for though they speak love, they give only
hate and by their fruits ye shall readily know their true
root-for it is they who call truth a lie, and the lie, truth.
"For do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
So shall it be, that every good tree bringeth forth holy fruit,
but a corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit. Wherefore
by their fruits ye shall know the good from the evil.
Beware lest ye be misled and find not the tree of life....
"For many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, have we
not prophesied in thy Name ... And in thy Name done
many wonderful works? But I will say unto them,
"I never knew you: depart from me, false witnesses,
ye that work only evil things."
And Jesus said unto the people many other things
as written for a testimony unto all nations. And when
he had finished his sermon on the mountain, the people
were astonished at his great perception of all things,
for Jesus taught them as one appealing to reason and
the human heart, and not as the scribes and the
Pharisees, who taught only by blind authority.
....'
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/T...3a nchor10340

> Titus 3:10
> Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing
> that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

You are a factious man, known to be perverted and sinning.

You are self-condemned, 'usual suspect'.

Considered yourself rejected.

wife swap vegan episode
 

pearl responded in the manner expected:
<...>
> Ouseley's name at the bottom). Here is part of what
> this Preface says: '
>
> How can we know who this prefaced twentieth edition
> was published by?

Irrelevant. How did Ouseley get to Tibet, and when was he there? When
did Ouseley learn Aramaic? Come on, Les, remove your head from your ass
and insert it into the real world.

> Are you so naive

No, but you are.

>>http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/twelve.html
>
> The rest of your objections are similarly unconvincing.

As I suggested earlier about Kingsford, it's probably not a
credibility-hurdle to someone who believes "inner earth beings" inhabit
Mount Shasta or who hasn't made up her mind yet about leprechauns. Then
again, neither was the Indian mystic who claimed to get his sustenance
from the sun's rays or any of the other bullshit you believe in and
peddle. Dummy.

Explain how Ouseley got to Tibet, when he went there, why the Buddhist
monks entrusted him with the document. Then we can discuss the more
amusing aspects of the pseudo-Twelve like the presence of hunting dogs
during the Roman occupation in Judea -- not to mention how Ouseley
translated the "text" spiritually.

> Jesus was a Nazarene/Nasarean. They were vegetarian,
> and opposed to animal sacrifice. That is established.

No, it isn't. "Nazarean" has several accepted definitions, and they
don't all come back to your loony conspiracy theories about the church.

<snip garbage from theosophical-based "essene" sites>

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter continued her charade:
> Thank you, Pearl. As you show, there are Biblical verses which support
> vegetarianism,

*None* of the verses she posted had anything to do with vegetarianism.
Her typical recourse was to turn to sham "scripture" from vegetarian
channelers.

> as there are Biblical verses which talk about meat-eating
> and animal sacrifices.

Which shows that the Bible doesn't promote vegetarianism or AR.

> However, Christians who are not Biblical fundamentalists or literalists
> go more on the *meaning* of the Bible as a whole,

Meaning, you completely ignore what it says and state your own opinion
even though it's contrary to what the Bible actually says. It's not
fundamentalism to point out the Bible says God *commands* animal
sacrifices and *commands* how animals are to be slaughtered and
prepared. Your AR-based eisogesis is disingenuous.

> and it is clear to me,

You're not a scholar.

> as to other Christian vegetarians,

Also not Bible scholars.

> that the Biblical message,
> especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.

To other *HUMANS*. Too bad you gloss right over that in your rage of
misanthropy and instead apply it only to animals.

> Animal liberation/rights and ethical vegetarianism

....have nothing to do with Christianity, and, in fact, are antithetical
to *Christian charity* when an AR/vegan offends those who consume meat,
wear leather, etc., or suggest they're more righteous because they don't
eat meat:

The Pharisees say: What goes into one's mouth makes one holy.

Jesus says: It's not what goes in one's mouth, but what comes
out, that makes a man holy.

Karen Winter says: What goes into one's mouth makes one holy.

Worse than the Pharisees, you're making up your *own* law as you go
along. You won't be judged according to how well you screened
ingredients from a PETA-approved list. You won't be judged according to
how much meat you ate, what kind of clothing you wore. You WILL be
judged for judging others about all that. And where's your charity for
those who benefit from medications and products tested on animals? You'd
deny them wellness because it interferes with your rules, not God's.
You'll be judged on that miserly lack of compassion for the sick and
dying, too, Karen.

wife swap vegan episode
 

Karen Winter continued her charade:
>>> Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc.
>
>> Oh shit, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
>
> I thought you were interested in the discussion, Dutch.

He is. You aren't.

> You only have Usual's claim that I am "Karen Winter."

*Claim*? Consider the following:

1. You're posting from NMIX. Just like Karen.
2. You've been posting to ARCE. Just like Karen.
3. Some of your posts at ARCE have been about the Narnia flick. Karen
prides herself as a fan of Lewis (his fiction and his church membership,
not his theology).
4. You think Linzey is the greatest thing in Christianity. Just like Karen.
5. You split hairs over competing camps within AR (even when asked not
to). Just like Karen.
6. Your nym is Glorfindel. Karen "_likes_" Glorfindel.

Besides, I _like_ Glorfindel: "...one of the mighty of the
Firstborn...an Elf-lord of a house of princes...."
-- Karen "I Wannabe Glorfindel but I Live in a Trailer Park with
My Evil FAS Defective Partner" Winter: http://tinyurl.com/9763s

I can find more common themes. Just cut the shit, because we both know
you ARE Karen.

> I am Glorfindel.

No, you're Karen Winter -- the same one who knows "responsible"
pedophiles, attended NAMBLA meetings and receives their newsletter, who
thinks bestiality is cool, who doesn't like her son as a person, and who
wants her grandson to grow up homosexual (as you said, if you're "really
lucky" that he rebels in that sense, etc.). You're not fooling anyone.
Except maybe yourself.