"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>
> >>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.
<etc., etc.>

"The Nasaraeans - they were jews by nationality - originally
from Gileaditis (where the early followers of Yeshu-Maria
fled after the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother),
Bashanitis and the Transjordon . . . They acknowledged
Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this
law, however, but some other. And so, they were jews
who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not
offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful
to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that
these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs
were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference
between the Nasaraeans and the others. . . (Epiphanius,
Panarion 1:18)
...
Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating,
and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names
of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses
and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them-(2) I
mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and
Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold
that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by
Moses, and maintain that they have others. (Epiphanius,
Panarion 1:19)
...
http://essenes.net/sz17.htm

Matthew 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene."

['Versions of the word "Nazarene"
Matthew 2:23 uses the Greek word Nazoraios to refer
to Jesus; in English this has traditionally (e.g. in the
King James Bible) been translated as "Nazarene"
(plural "Nazarenes"). However Mark 1:24 refers to
Jesus as Nazarenos; in English this has traditionally
(e.g. in the King James Bible) been translated as
"of Nazareth"; however, because the correct Greek
form of "of Nazareth" would be Nazarethenos or
Nazarethaios, most modern translators prefer
"Nazarene" here as well. "Nazarene" is also spelled
in a variety of ways, including "Nazarean", "Nasarean",
"Nazorean", "Nasorean", "Nazaraean", "Nasaraean"
(plural "Nazarean", "Nasareans", "Nazoreans",
"Nasoreans", "Nazaraeans", "Nasaraeans"). Modern
groups which relate the Greek words Nazoraios and
Nazarenos to the Hebrew Netzer (branch or shoot)
prefer to use the transliteration Netzarim, the plural
form of Netzer. A common Arabic word for "Christian"
is Nasrani, believed to be derived from the same root
as Nazorean, ultimately Nozrim.
http://bibleocean.com/OmniDefinition/Nazarene ]

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

Absolutely relevant.

> How did Ouseley get to Tibet,

Wait a minute, I'll go ask him.

<further whining>

pearl wrote:
>>>>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.
>
> <etc., etc.>

RESTORE
"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.
END RESTORE

As for the rest of your heretical poppycock (you're no Jew if you buy
into it), Nazarene is also a play on Hebrew _netser_, which signifies a
branch or sprout -- as applied to the Messiah in Isaiah 11:1: And there
shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch --
_Netse_ -- shall grow forth out of his roots.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dict.../nazarene.html

See also:
http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm

pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>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.
>
> Absolutely relevant.

No, entirely 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.

>>How did Ouseley get to Tibet,
>
> Wait a minute, I'll go ask him.

Channel him the same way he channeled the pseudo-Twelve.

RESTORE

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.

END RESTORE

Stop dodging, you stupid turd.

pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>>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.

"If you are a newcomer to the Gen 1:29 Diet, this
article may not make much sense right now. Newcomers
to the diet often feel like a frisky colt in the early
going. Some even overcome serious disease on the diet.

"But if you’ve been on the diet for several years like
we were, this article may be a godsend. After only
three years on the diet, we sadly admitted to ourselves
that we were losing ground; going backwards in our
health, not forward. If you’ve experienced new and
troubling symptoms in your health on the Gen 1:29 Diet,
take heart. You haven’t failed the diet. The diet has
probably failed you.

"The Gen 1:29 Biblical Health movement is built on one
single verse in the Bible, and sets itself at odds with
the entire spectrum of Biblical teaching on diet.
Although there is no moral harm in personal
experimentation with the vegan diet, there is
everything wrong with teaching the vegan diet as 'God’s
Ideal Diet' that leads to 'ultimate health.'"

http://chetday.com/hallelujah-diet-dangers.htm



"Meat" means food. That's all.

usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel:

>>>> 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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> you're entirely disingenuous about the
> apostles' *doctrines*. Your beliefs are 180-degrees from theirs.

No, certainly not. The central message of the New Testament is
that the old Law is secondary to the new Revelation of mercy,
self-sacrifice, service. Providing aid to "the least of these"
is as providing it to Christ, and in our society, non-human
animals are certainly "the least of these." We cannot apply
the texts of the Bible literally; our society is very different
from that of any period of Biblical writing. Even you can
see that a modern factory farm bears absolutely no resemblance
to the animal care methods of Biblical days. Christ talks
about the sheep knowing the shepherd's voice, and of the shepherd
leaving the flock to go in search of a single lost sheep. That
is an approach to animal care completely different from life
for factory farm animals in their thousands, who have no
personal relationship with the humans, and who are seen as no
more than "economic units." Who among modern slaughterhouse
workers would stop the production line because one single
chicken was not stunned, or one single cow was not hit
cleanly by the bolt? Which of those factory farm workers would
find the one chicken among thousands who was too crippled to
reach the water bottle, and pull her out to nurse her personally
back to health? That is what Christ's message about animal
care demands, and it is why He called Himself the *Good*
Shepherd. Look again at Scully's _Dominion_ for a non-AR
argument against your claims about the Biblical message on
animals.

When I send a donation to Farm Sanctuary to sponsor a
rescued turkey, or the chickens they rescued from a factory
farm destroyed by Katrina, I am giving it to feed and
shelter Christ Himself, and I give it in that spirit.

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

>> 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?

Of course I do -- so do you, so does everyone. You cannot
claim you are objective about your approach to Scripture.

> 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.

There is, as much as there is a Biblical case for abolition of
human slavery, although the texts condone it, or a Biblical
case for pacifism, or a Biblical case for communism. Progressive
people through history have seen the *meaning* of Christ's
words and responded to them. AR is another of the movements
which expand Christ's message of compassion to the lowly, abused,
and oppressed.

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

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>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.

Yes.

10. In the beginning, God gave to all, the fruits of the trees,
and the seeds, and the herbs, for food; but those who loved
themselves more than God, or their fellows, corrupted their
ways, and brought diseases into their bodies, and filled the
earth with lust and violence. '
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essen...htm#Lection750

> >>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.
> >
> > <etc., etc.>

"The Nasaraeans - they were jews by nationality - originally
from Gileaditis (where the early followers of Yeshu-Maria
fled after the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother),
Bashanitis and the Transjordon . . . They acknowledged
Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this
law, however, but some other. And so, they were jews
who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not
offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful
to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that
these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs
were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference
between the Nasaraeans and the others. . . (Epiphanius,
Panarion 1:18)
...
Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating,
and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names
of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses
and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them-(2) I
mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and
Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold
that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by
Moses, and maintain that they have others. (Epiphanius,
Panarion 1:19)
...
http://essenes.net/sz17.htm

Matthew 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene."

['Versions of the word "Nazarene"
Matthew 2:23 uses the Greek word Nazoraios to refer
to Jesus; in English this has traditionally (e.g. in the
King James Bible) been translated as "Nazarene"
(plural "Nazarenes"). However Mark 1:24 refers to
Jesus as Nazarenos; in English this has traditionally
(e.g. in the King James Bible) been translated as
"of Nazareth"; however, because the correct Greek
form of "of Nazareth" would be Nazarethenos or
Nazarethaios, most modern translators prefer
"Nazarene" here as well. "Nazarene" is also spelled
in a variety of ways, including "Nazarean", "Nasarean",
"Nazorean", "Nasorean", "Nazaraean", "Nasaraean"
(plural "Nazarean", "Nasareans", "Nazoreans",
"Nasoreans", "Nazaraeans", "Nasaraeans"). Modern
groups which relate the Greek words Nazoraios and
Nazarenos to the Hebrew Netzer (branch or shoot)
prefer to use the transliteration Netzarim, the plural
form of Netzer. A common Arabic word for "Christian"
is Nasrani, believed to be derived from the same root
as Nazorean, ultimately Nozrim.
http://bibleocean.com/OmniDefinition/Nazarene ]

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
> > Absolutely relevant.
>
> No, entirely irrelevant.

You're a joke.

<usual whining>

pearl wrote:

> "S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>
>>"If you are a newcomer to the Gen 1:29 Diet,
>
>
> Meaning a vegan diet.

Right. Meaning an unhealthful, orthorexic diet.

"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...

> "If you are a newcomer to the Gen 1:29 Diet,

Meaning a vegan diet.

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message link.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >
> >
> >>"If you are a newcomer to the Gen 1:29 Diet,
> >
> >
> > Meaning a vegan diet.
>
> Right. Meaning an unhealthful, orthorexic diet.

You know better than the experts, eh. Rotfl.

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

usual suspect wrote:

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

> To other *HUMANS*.

Not only humans. Consider the example of the good shepard, or
the passage about rescuing an ox who has fallen into a pit,
even on the Sabbath, or not muzzling the ox who threshes the
grain.

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

I did not suggest it applies only to animals; it applies
to all God's creatures, human and non.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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?

It is not a question of judging other humans, but of defining
appropriate treatment of animals and humans on the basis of
Christian principles. Christ said certain behaviors were wrong,
but He died for those who do them as much as for those who don't.

I heard an interesting exchange recently, which I think responds to
what you say he

One person said (about non-Christians), "But we have to respect their
beliefs."

"No," said the other, "We don't have to respect their beliefs. But
we have to respect *them*."

The same is true of non-vegans, non-vegetarians, non-animal-rights
people: we can condemn their beliefs and acts ( and we must ) but we
cannot, as Christians, condemn *them*.

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

Karen Winter, using the ****WITTED pseudonym
"glorfindel" (what the ****?!), lied:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> the Biblical message,
>>> especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.
>
>
>> To other *HUMANS*.
>
>
> Not only humans.

Yes, ONLY to other humans. The Gospel is a message TO
HUMANS.


>
>> Too bad you gloss right over that in your rage of misanthropy and
>> instead apply it only to animals.
>
>
> I did not suggest it applies only to animals;

It doesn't apply AT ALL to animals, except in your
ahistorical reading (i.e., bullshit).


>> 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?
>
>
> It is not a question of judging other humans,

But that's what you do. That is *all* you do.

****.

pearl wrote:

> "S. Maizlich" > wrote in message link.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"If you are a newcomer to the Gen 1:29 Diet,
>>>
>>>
>>>Meaning a vegan diet.
>>
>>Right. Meaning an unhealthful, orthorexic diet.
>
>
> You know better than the experts, eh.

I know better than you. You're a liar.

"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message et...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "S. Maizlich" > wrote in message link.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"If you are a newcomer to the Gen 1:29 Diet,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Meaning a vegan diet.
> >>
> >>Right. Meaning an unhealthful, orthorexic diet.
> >
> >
> > You know better than the experts, eh. -Rotfl.-
>
> I know better than you. You're a liar.

You're the liar, Jonathan Ball, and no, you don't.

-
'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
-

"-ian" Karen Winter wrote:
>> you're entirely disingenuous about the apostles' *doctrines*. Your
>> beliefs are 180-degrees from theirs.
>
> No, certainly not.

Your beliefs are the polar opposite of the apostles'.

> The central message of the New Testament is
> that the old Law is secondary to the new Revelation of mercy,
> self-sacrifice, service.

That shows your view of Christianity is that it's the equivalent of any
other religion, philosophy, or happy-crappy pep talk. Jesus didn't have
to die to "reveal" mercy, self-sacrifice, service, or to serve as a role
model -- those kinds of things are accomplished by the works of
Shriners, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists through various charity work.
Your definition of Christianity is just "-ianity": you take Christ and
his work out of it completely.

> Providing aid to "the least of these"
> is as providing it to Christ, and in our society, non-human
> animals are certainly "the least of these."

No, they aren't. Read the passage (Matthew 25) and note that Jesus
refers to people, not animals, in that discourse. Even more importantly,
note that the goats -- NOT the sheep -- are the ones who fit your
definition of Christianity above: the goats were active in doing
charitable works. The sheep, in contrast, weren't focused on
touchy-feely social work ("Lord, when did we do this?"). The operative
word in that whole parable is *INHERIT* -- those whom Jesus receives
into heaven *INHERIT* the kingdom, they don't earn it. An inheritence is
something earned by someone else and you obtain it when that someone
dies. Both the sheep and goats in that parable have works. You've
completely confused the Law and Gospel in that passage, which isn't
suprising given your "-ianity" beliefs.

> We cannot apply
> the texts of the Bible literally;

Yet *you* attempt to do that by literalizing parables, even suggesting
that Jesus' metaphors using animals demonstrate how we should treat
animals. The irony is you want to spiritualize texts when metaphors
AREN'T being used. I think your hermeneutic needs adjusting, if not a
complete overhaul.

> our society is very different
> from that of any period of Biblical writing.

Sin is still sin, and grace is still grace, God is still God.

> Even you can
> see that a modern factory farm bears absolutely no resemblance
> to the animal care methods of Biblical days.

I can also see that means of spreading the gospel in this age also bear
no resemblence to the means used in the Roman empire. I also don't buy
the Church of Christ arguments that we shouldn't use musical instruments
in services just because the early church didn't. Technology changes
everything.

> Christ talks
> about the sheep knowing the shepherd's voice, and of the shepherd
> leaving the flock to go in search of a single lost sheep.

He was speaking *metaphorically* -- that God seeks out his elect, and
the elect recognize their master. Look at how Jesus contrasted God's
concern for man and and concern for beasts:
Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what
you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear
those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather
fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are
not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them
falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very
hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you
are of more value than many sparrows.
-- Matthew 10:27-31

Jesus said God values man more than beasts. You're of the opinion that
the sparrow and the man are equals -- another area where your "-ianity"
views conflict with Christianity.

> That is an approach to animal care completely different from life
> for factory farm animals in their thousands, who have no
> personal relationship with the humans, and who are seen as no
> more than "economic units."

The shepherd still sold his lambs for slaughter and viewed them as
economic units, his livelihood. You're confusing metaphors for sappy
feelings about the days of primitive farming.

> ...That is what Christ's message about animal
> care demands, and it is why He called Himself the *Good*
> Shepherd.

Jesus did *not* address, much less condemn, "factory farming." He called
himself the Good Shepherd as a metaphor -- he is the leader of the
flock, which are also called the elect of God. He was not making a plea
for AR.

> When I send a donation to Farm Sanctuary to sponsor a
> rescued turkey, or the chickens they rescued from a factory
> farm destroyed by Katrina, I am giving it to feed and
> shelter Christ Himself, and I give it in that spirit.

Blasphemer.

>>> 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?
>
> Of course I do

Established.

> You cannot
> claim you are objective about your approach to Scripture.

I'm much more objective about it than you a I don't literalize
metaphors or figures of speech like you do, nor do I reflexively dismiss
parts I don't like as you do (e.g., you flagrantly practice
homosexuality in defiance of Scriptural prohibitions against
homosexuality specifically and against open sexual immorality
generally). I properly distinguish Law and Gospel. You don't -- you see
some aspects of the Law as a liberator while rejecting the Law
altogether where it doesn't suit your purposes. You chide those who
remind you what it actually says and call them names.

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.php

>> 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.
>
> There is,

No, there is *not*. We are of more value than *MANY* sparrows.

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>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.
>
> Yes.

No:

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.
END RESTORE

As for the rest of your heretical poppycock (you're no Jew if you buy
into it), Nazarene is also a play on Hebrew _netser_, which signifies a
branch or sprout -- as applied to the Messiah in Isaiah 11:1: And there
shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch --
_Netse_ -- shall grow forth out of his roots.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dict.../nazarene.html

See also:
http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm

pearl wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Absolutely relevant.
>>
>>No, entirely irrelevant.
>
> You're

You're dodging.

RESTORE FOR THIS POST

No, entirely 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.

>> How did Ouseley get to Tibet,
>
>
> Wait a minute, I'll go ask him.


Channel him the same way he channeled the pseudo-Twelve.

RESTORE [previous]

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.

END RESTORE [previous]

Stop dodging, you stupid turd.

END RESTORE FOR THIS POST

Give it one more try, loony Lesley.

Confused Karen Winter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the Biblical message,
>>> especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.
>
>> To other *HUMANS*.
>
> Not only humans.

Yes.

> Consider the example of the good shepard,

Shepherd. That's a metaphor for God and his people, the elect.

> or the passage about rescuing an ox who has fallen into a pit,

A reference to the Sabbath, not AR.

And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the
Sabbath."

> even on the Sabbath, or not muzzling the ox who threshes the
> grain.

Better read 1 Corinthians 9 to get that in context, Karen. Paul doesn't
use it to address AR, but rather how pastors are treated. Moreover, like
Jesus in the sparrows example from my previous post, Paul says God cares
more about humans than oxen:

For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an
ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned
about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow
in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his
hope.

>> Too bad you gloss right over that in your rage of misanthropy and
>> instead apply it only to animals.
>
> I did not suggest it applies only to animals; it applies
> to all God's creatures, human and non.

Ipse dixit. I don't come away with the same impression after reading the
same passages you do, and other passages I've offered (e.g., we're worth
MANY sparrows) give me quite the opposite and novel interpretation you
offer.

<...>
> I heard an interesting exchange recently, which I think responds to
> what you say he
>
> One person said (about non-Christians), "But we have to respect their
> beliefs."
>
> "No," said the other, "We don't have to respect their beliefs. But
> we have to respect *them*."
>
> The same is true of non-vegans, non-vegetarians, non-animal-rights
> people: we can condemn their beliefs and acts ( and we must ) but we
> cannot, as Christians, condemn *them*.

You're now on the same page as those you call "fundies" who love the
sinner but hate the sin. The only difference is your novel
interpretation of what sin is (e.g., eating meat, wearing leather,
animal research, fundamentalism) and isn't (e.g., homosexuality,
pedophilia, bestiality, etc.). You're pretty screwed up, dear.

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

Not nearly to the extent you've been corrupted.

usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel:

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

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

>>> To other *HUMANS*.

>> Not only humans.

> Yes.

No -- God created *all* of creation, including non-human beasts.
It is absurd to believe that God would care only about one of the
many species He brought into being. *All* of creation is
groaning in travail, suffering under sin, waiting for the second
coming of Christ and a new creation where the lion will lie down
with the lamb and no one will hurt or destroy.

>> Consider the example of the good shepard,

> Shepherd. That's a metaphor for God and his people, the elect.

Yes, it is a metaphor for God and His people, although
my denomination does not usually talk about "the elect"
as much as the communion of saints. However, the
metaphor would be meaningless unless Jesus saw the
relationship between the sheep and the shepherd in a
way different from modern factory farming methods.

>> or the passage about rescuing an ox who has fallen into a pit,

> A reference to the Sabbath, not AR.

Yes -- that mercy to an animal comes before legalisms.

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

> And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man
> for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the
> Sabbath."

>> even on the Sabbath, or not muzzling the ox who threshes the
>> grain.

> Better read 1 Corinthians 9 to get that in context.

It addresses how animals should be treated as well as how
people should be treated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>I don't come away with the same impression after reading the
> same passages you do,

So I noticed.

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

>> I heard an interesting exchange recently, which I think responds to
>> what you say he

>> One person said (about non-Christians), "But we have to respect their
>> beliefs."

>> "No," said the other, "We don't have to respect their beliefs. But
>> we have to respect *them*."

>> The same is true of non-vegans, non-vegetarians, non-animal-rights
>> people: we can condemn their beliefs and acts ( and we must ) but we
>> cannot, as Christians, condemn *them*.

> You're now on the same page as those you call "fundies" who love the
> sinner but hate the sin.

Well, that is not exclusive to fundamentalists; it is a doctrine
of the Christian church in general. Do you not believe it?

usual suspect wrote:
>
Glorfindel:

>> The central message of the New Testament is
>> that the old Law is secondary to the new Revelation of mercy,
>> self-sacrifice, service.

> That shows your view of Christianity is that it's the equivalent of any
> other religion, philosophy, or happy-crappy pep talk.

No. There are similar teachings in other faiths, but the
Revelation of Christ is unique, and the profound sacrifice
of Christ is the central model we are to follow. I can
think of no other faith where God sacrificed Himself for
His creatures.

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

>> Providing aid to "the least of these"
>> is as providing it to Christ, and in our society, non-human
>> animals are certainly "the least of these."

> No, they aren't.

Well, until we start factory-farming humans, I have to differ
on that.

> Read the passage (Matthew 25) and note that Jesus
> refers to people, not animals, in that discourse.

"The least of these" is not specific; it could refer to
any who are mistreated, ignored, and abused.

> Even more importantly,
> note that the goats -- NOT the sheep -- are the ones who fit your
> definition of Christianity above: the goats were active in doing
> charitable works.

Are not Christians supposed to engage in charitable works? We
are not saved by works, but they are the fruit of the Spirit:
by their works shall ye know them.

> The sheep, in contrast, weren't focused on
> touchy-feely social work ("Lord, when did we do this?").

For Christ. Christ responds that they did it to *Him* when
they did it to "the least of these."

> The operative
> word in that whole parable is *INHERIT* -- those whom Jesus receives
> into heaven *INHERIT* the kingdom, they don't earn it.

I don't see any requirement that we should not do good to others
in the mean time. In fact, the goats are those who do not, and
they are condemned by Christ.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> our society is very different
>> from that of any period of Biblical writing.

> Sin is still sin, and grace is still grace, God is still God.

And God still requires us to show His grace in good works which
are the fruit of the Spirit.

>> Even you can
>> see that a modern factory farm bears absolutely no resemblance
>> to the animal care methods of Biblical days.

> I can also see that means of spreading the gospel in this age also bear
> no resemblence to the means used in the Roman empire. I also don't buy
> the Church of Christ arguments that we shouldn't use musical instruments
> in services just because the early church didn't. Technology changes
> everything.

It does not excuse cruelty, selfishness, unprofitable stewardship of
God's creation, abuse of His creatures.

>> Christ talks
>> about the sheep knowing the shepherd's voice, and of the shepherd
>> leaving the flock to go in search of a single lost sheep.

> He was speaking *metaphorically*

Yes. The meaning of the metaphor depends on how a good shepherd
treats his sheep. Would you want to be part of an elect who were
treated like factory-farmed chickens? How would that demonstrate
God's mercy and love toward his flock? Do you think God would treat us
the way modern sheep are treated?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Are
> not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them
> falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.

God cares for even the least, and is concerned for even the
welfare of sparrows, because they are *His* beasts, not ours.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Jesus said God values man more than beasts. You're of the opinion that
> the sparrow and the man are equals

Only in certain respects, not in all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ...That is what Christ's message about animal
>> care demands, and it is why He called Himself the *Good*
>> Shepherd.

> Jesus did *not* address, much less condemn, "factory farming."

It didn't exist in His day. Of course He didn't address it.
He didn't address vehicular homicide either.

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

>> When I send a donation to Farm Sanctuary to sponsor a
>> rescued turkey, or the chickens they rescued from a factory
>> farm destroyed by Katrina, I am giving it to feed and
>> shelter Christ Himself, and I give it in that spirit.

> Blasphemer.

Such a lack of charity, love, and Christian mercy. God
is revealed in all His creatures, including chickens and
turkeys. God came to save and redeem all Creation, not
just humans.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> There is NO biblical
>>> case for AR.

>> There is,

> No, there is *not*. We are of more value than *MANY* sparrows.

But Christ says that sparrows *are* of value, and God is aware
of what happens to each of them, and cares about each of them.
Should we do any less, if we try to follow Christ?

Confused Karen Winter wrote:
>>>>> the Biblical message,
>>>>> especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.
>
>>>> To other *HUMANS*.
>
>>> Not only humans.
>
>> Yes.
>
> No --

Yes. Animals can't read or understand human languages. Some can be
conditioned to respond to commands, but they don't understand, _per se_.

The Bible addresses sin and salvation. Jesus came to save humans from
sin, death, and the devil. He didn't come to save pigs from factory
farms, rabbits from vivisection, cattle from Connolly Leather, minks
from furriers, fish from anglers, deer from hunters, or bees from Sue Bee.

>>> Consider the example of the good shepard,
>
>> Shepherd. That's a metaphor for God and his people, the elect.
>
> Yes, it is a metaphor for God and His people,

You admit you're literalizing a metaphor. The metaphor has nothing
whatsoever to do with AR or vegetarianism. Shepherds weren't "rescue
organizations" like the one you sent a Thanksgiving donation. They
provided meat, wool, milk, etc., to the general public. Their methods
were designed to maximize their livelihood -- which were relatively
primitive at the time, but domesticization itself is a form of
technology. Their flock sizes were important to them because they
signified their standing in their culture. Read through the OT and pay
attention to how detailed the descriptions of livestock are. For
example, from Genesis 32:
[Jacob] spent the night there, and from what he had with him he
selected a gift for his brother Esau: two hundred female goats
and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, thirty
female camels with their young, forty cows and ten bulls, and
twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys. He put them in the
care of his servants, each herd by itself, and said to his
servants, "Go ahead of me, and keep some space between the
herds."

These were not ARAs. They bought, sold, traded (for other animals and
for people), slaughtered, ate, wore, etc., animals.

> although my denomination does not usually talk about "the elect"
> as much as the communion of saints.

Either way you say it, your virulent cult within the Episcopal church
has caused tremendously painful schism within its fellowship (i.e.,
global Anglicanism) and within Christianity as a whole through your
queer apostacy and radical departure from both sound doctrine and good
order.

> However, the
> metaphor would be meaningless unless Jesus saw the
> relationship between the sheep and the shepherd in a
> way different from modern factory farming methods.

Non sequitur and your argument rests on the false premise that all
intensive livestock production is abusive. You make that assumption on
the basis of immersing yourself in propaganda rather than more fully
investigating the issues raised by activist groups.

>>> or the passage about rescuing an ox who has fallen into a pit,
>
>> A reference to the Sabbath, not AR.
>
> Yes -- that mercy to an animal comes before legalisms.

That mercy only goes as far as getting it out of the ditch or well, not
to sending it to a sanctuary where it'll be spared a life of pulling
carts or plows or being eaten by man or dogs. It is not a pro-AR or
-vegan passage.

>> And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man
>> for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the
>> Sabbath."
>
>>> even on the Sabbath, or not muzzling the ox who threshes the
>>> grain.
>
>> Better read 1 Corinthians 9 to get that in context.
>
> It addresses how animals should be treated as well as how
> people should be treated.

You snipped it:
For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an
ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned
about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow
in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his
hope.

Note that Paul answers his own question: "does He say it altogether for
our sakes? For *our sakes*, *no doubt*..."

That is NOT a pro-AR passage.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> I don't come away with the same impression after reading the same
>> passages you do,
>
> So I noticed.

Restoring context. You wrote:
I did not suggest it applies only to animals; it applies
to all God's creatures, human and non.

I replied:
Ipse dixit. I don't come away with the same impression after
reading the same passages you do, and other passages I've
offered (e.g., we're worth MANY sparrows) give me quite the
opposite and novel interpretation you offer.

In every example you've cited thus far, you've utterly failed to
establish a scriptural case for AR. Indeed, when your passages have been
put into context, they make a case *AGAINST* AR. At best, the Bible
addresses subjects related to the welfare of animals -- not to their
rights (to not be eaten, to not be used for labor, to not have their
hides worn, etc.).

Whether you realize it or not, you're making new law -- which you want
to selfishly bind on the consciences of others -- by literalizing
metaphors and parables; this is "adding to" what's written. It's
patently uncharitable, profane, and blasphemous for you to set yourself
and your anti-scriptural agenda ahead of what the scriptures allow
others to do for their own welfare and happiness in good conscience.

Confused schismatic Karen Winter wrote:
>>> The central message of the New Testament is
>>> that the old Law is secondary to the new Revelation of mercy,
>>> self-sacrifice, service.
>
>> That shows your view of Christianity is that it's the equivalent of
>> any other religion, philosophy, or happy-crappy pep talk.
>
> No.

Yes.

> There are similar teachings in other faiths, but the
> Revelation of Christ is unique, and the profound sacrifice
> of Christ is the central model we are to follow.

"Model we are to follow" or "vicarious atonement"? The latter should
cause us to desire the former, but the former is NOT Christianity. As I
stated before (and you again snipped), Shriners and pagans can be very
generous, selfless, and sacrificing in offering charity to others. That
doesn't make them Christians or Christ-like. It only makes them charitable.

>>> Providing aid to "the least of these"
>>> is as providing it to Christ, and in our society, non-human
>>> animals are certainly "the least of these."
>
>> No, they aren't.
>
> Well,

They aren't.

>> Read the passage (Matthew 25) and note that Jesus refers to people,
>> not animals, in that discourse.
>
> "The least of these" is not specific;

It refers to humans.

> it could refer to
> any

humans

> who are mistreated, ignored, and abused.

Including fetuses about to be sliced, diced, and vacuumed out of a uterus?

>> Even more importantly, note that the goats -- NOT the sheep -- are the
>> ones who fit your definition of Christianity above: the goats were
>> active in doing charitable works.
>
> Are not Christians supposed to engage in charitable works? We
> are not saved by works, but they are the fruit of the Spirit:
> by their works shall ye know them.

The Father knows us by our *faith*. He sees us "clothed in Christ" (as
Paul put it) -- he sees in the faithful everything Jesus did to keep the
law and fulfill it, he sees in the faithful Christ's perfection, he sees
that our sins have been paid for with Christ's blood. He sees CHRIST's
perfect works, not our imperfect works.

>> The sheep, in contrast, weren't focused on touchy-feely social work
>> ("Lord, when did we do this?").
>
> For Christ. Christ responds that they did it to *Him* when
> they did it to "the least of these."

Again, that refers to CHRIST's work in perfectly keeping and fulfilling
the law. Christ did it for the least of these by perfectly fulfilling
the law. God sees us as perfect as Christ for *his* works and for *his*
sake (Titus 3), clothed in *Christ's* righteousness. We *inherit* what
Christ earned *vicariously*, not because of what we do or don't do to
the "least of these." We DON'T do "unto the least of these", but Christ
did. That's the difference between the sheep and goats in Matthew 25.

>> The operative word in that whole parable is *INHERIT* -- those whom
>> Jesus receives into heaven *INHERIT* the kingdom, they don't earn it.
>
> I don't see any requirement that we should not do good to others
> in the mean time.

Strawman. You're too focused on the "do this" (Law) part of that passage
to see the "done" (Gospel) part of it. We're saved TO DO good works, not
saved BY them (Eph 2).

> In fact, the goats are those who do not

Read it again, Karen. They swear to high heaven they *DID*. "When did we
*NOT* do these things?"

> and they are condemned by Christ.

No. Re-read Matthew 25. They're self-condemned.

>>> our society is very different
>>> from that of any period of Biblical writing.
>
>> Sin is still sin, and grace is still grace, God is still God.
>
> And God still requires us to show His grace in good works which
> are the fruit of the Spirit.

More of your Law-Gospel confusion.

>>> Even you can
>>> see that a modern factory farm bears absolutely no resemblance
>>> to the animal care methods of Biblical days.
>
>> I can also see that means of spreading the gospel in this age also
>> bear no resemblence to the means used in the Roman empire. I also
>> don't buy the Church of Christ arguments that we shouldn't use musical
>> instruments in services just because the early church didn't.
>> Technology changes everything.
>
> It does not excuse cruelty, selfishness, unprofitable stewardship of
> God's creation, abuse of His creatures.

I've addressed the issue of animal cruelty. I fully support animal
welfare laws, and the enforcement of them. As I've noted, most of the
instances depicted in the AR propaganda are from cases which have been
prosecuted. Those are isolated examples of abuse that are NOT indicative
of how most farms operate. Large farming operations are not a recent
development, as I noted in my last response. The Bible is filled with
detailed accounts of how many animals various people had.
>> Jesus said God values man more than beasts. You're of the opinion that
>> the sparrow and the man are equals
>
> Only in certain respects, not in all.

Which respects?

>>> ...That is what Christ's message about animal
>>> care demands, and it is why He called Himself the *Good*
>>> Shepherd.
>
>> Jesus did *not* address, much less condemn, "factory farming."
>
> It didn't exist in His day.

Ipse dixit. It's relative. His disciples were commercial fishermen.
There were shepherds with larger flocks than others.

> Of course He didn't address it.

End of argument. The passages you've alluded to do not make a case for
AR or veganism.

>>> When I send a donation to Farm Sanctuary to sponsor a
>>> rescued turkey, or the chickens they rescued from a factory
>>> farm destroyed by Katrina, I am giving it to feed and
>>> shelter Christ Himself, and I give it in that spirit.
>
>> Blasphemer.
>
> Such a lack of charity,

No, I assessed your characterization of your donation, not the donation
itself.

> love,

I don't lack love.

> and Christian mercy.

There's nothing Christian about mercy shown to chickens, particularly
when that mercy is shown to deprive others of income (farmers, ranchers,
etc.) or food (consumers of meat) or bind their consciences over
non-scriptural prohibitions. That's the antithesis of Christianity.

usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel:

>>>> The central message of the New Testament is
>>>> that the old Law is secondary to the new Revelation of mercy,
>>>> self-sacrifice, service.

>>> That shows your view of Christianity is that it's the equivalent of
>>> any other religion, philosophy, or happy-crappy pep talk.

>> No.

>> There are similar teachings in other faiths, but the
>> Revelation of Christ is unique, and the profound sacrifice
>> of Christ is the central model we are to follow.

> "Model we are to follow" or "vicarious atonement"?

Both. Christ both gave us a message in His teaching *AND* gave
us an example in His behavior of how we are to act toward
others. Because none of us humans can be perfect, only Christ
could provide the perfect sacrifice for our sins. But we are
to do our best to imitate Him as best we can. This has been
a central message of theologians and saints since the time of
Christ. One of the greatest works of Christian thought was
titled _The Imitation of Christ_.

> The latter should
> cause us to desire the former, but the former is NOT Christianity. As I
> stated before (and you again snipped), Shriners and pagans can be very
> generous, selfless, and sacrificing in offering charity to others. That
> doesn't make them Christians or Christ-like. It only makes them charitable.

But it does not make their acts of charity less valuable or good.

>>>> Providing aid to "the least of these"
>>>> is as providing it to Christ, and in our society, non-human
>>>> animals are certainly "the least of these."

>>> No, they aren't.

They are.

>>> Read the passage (Matthew 25) and note that Jesus refers to people,
>>> not animals, in that discourse.

>> "The least of these" is not specific;

> It refers to humans.

>> it could refer to
>> any

> humans

conscious beings -- including animals.

>> who are mistreated, ignored, and abused.

>>> Even more importantly, note that the goats -- NOT the sheep -- are
>>> the ones who fit your definition of Christianity above: the goats
>>> were active in doing charitable works.

>> Are not Christians supposed to engage in charitable works? We
>> are not saved by works, but they are the fruit of the Spirit:
>> by their works shall ye know them.

> The Father knows us by our *faith*.

And by our works, which are an expression of our faith. "Faith without
works is dead" "Be ye doers of the Word, not hearers only" and so on.
That is exactly what the passage in Matthew is about.

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

>>> The sheep, in contrast, weren't focused on touchy-feely social work
>>> ("Lord, when did we do this?").

>> For Christ. Christ responds that they did it to *Him* when
>> they did it to "the least of these."

> Again, that refers to CHRIST's work in perfectly keeping and fulfilling
> the law.

Nope.

Take a look at the passage:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat (food); I was thirsty and
ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger and ye took me not in; naked and
ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. ...
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the *least
of these* , ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into
everlasting punishment...."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>We're saved TO DO good works, not
> saved BY them (Eph 2).

So I said. But we are expected and commanded to do them.

>> In fact, the goats are those who do not

> Read it again. They swear to high heaven they *DID*. "When did we
> *NOT* do these things?"

No, they don't say they did. They say:

"Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger,
or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto
*thee*?

They don't say they did it to anyone.

>> and they are condemned by Christ.

By Christ

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

>> It does not excuse cruelty, selfishness, unprofitable stewardship of
>> God's creation, abuse of His creatures.

> I've addressed the issue of animal cruelty.

Not adequately.

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

>>> Jesus said God values man more than beasts. You're of the opinion
>>> that the sparrow and the man are equals

>> Only in certain respects, not in all.

> Which respects?

That we are both God's creatures, having intrinsic worth because
God values us *as* His creatures, and because we share the same
breath and the covenant He created between Himself and us after
the Flood. We share inherent worth and a basic right to life
and respect, which are given by God and cannot be justly taken
away by man.

>>>> ...That is what Christ's message about animal
>>>> care demands, and it is why He called Himself the *Good*
>>>> Shepherd.

>>> Jesus did *not* address, much less condemn, "factory farming."

>> It didn't exist in His day.

> Ipse dixit. It's relative. His disciples were commercial fishermen.
> There were shepherds with larger flocks than others.

There were *no* factory farms as they exist today. They require
a level of technology which did not exist.

>> Of course He didn't address it.

> End of argument. The passages you've alluded to do not make a case for
> AR or veganism.

I think they do.

>>>> When I send a donation to Farm Sanctuary to sponsor a
>>>> rescued turkey, or the chickens they rescued from a factory
>>>> farm destroyed by Katrina, I am giving it to feed and
>>>> shelter Christ Himself, and I give it in that spirit.

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

> There's nothing Christian about mercy shown to chickens,

There is something Christian about mercy shown to *anyone*
when it is done in Christ's name and in following Christ's
example.

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

usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel:

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

>>>>> To other *HUMANS*.

>>>> Not only humans.

> Yes. Animals can't read or understand human languages.

The Bible was addressed to humans concerning how humans are to
behave toward others. It isn't necessary that the others
involved should read it.

> Some can be
> conditioned to respond to commands, but they don't understand, _per se_.

That depends on the animal and the species. It's been demonstrated,
for example, that African Gray parrots do understand many of the
human words they use and have the understanding of a young human
of 4 or 5. Chimpanzees and other primates use human language
appropriately and do understand it. Even dogs understand some
words. Many animals understand human language and actions.

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

> The Bible addresses sin and salvation. Jesus came to save humans from
> sin, death, and the devil. He didn't come to save pigs from factory
> farms, rabbits from vivisection, cattle from Connolly Leather, minks
> from furriers, fish from anglers, deer from hunters, or bees from Sue Bee.

He came to save all of them, and all of us. We are all His creatures.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> At best, the Bible
> addresses subjects related to the welfare of animals -- not to their
> rights

It does not address many other issues. That is why the Bible cannot
be the sole standard, and why Christ sent to Holy Spirit to us to
show where we were to go from where we were when He ascended into
Heaven. Technically, the Bible doesn't address human rights either.

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

Karen Winter wrote:
>>> There are similar teachings in other faiths, but the
>>> Revelation of Christ is unique, and the profound sacrifice
>>> of Christ is the central model we are to follow.
>
>> "Model we are to follow" or "vicarious atonement"?
>
> Both.

I correctly answered the question myself and properly distinguished
between the horse (faith) and the cart (works). You put the cart before
the horse, but the cart should *follow* the horse.

> Christ both gave us a message in His teaching *AND* gave
> us an example in His behavior of how we are to act toward
> others. Because none of us humans can be perfect, only Christ
> could provide the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

All your works are "goat works" because of that. Your works are "sheep
works" because God sees *Christ's* works -- he's the one who's done unto
the least, not you. You inherit all he earned.

> But we are
> to do our best to imitate Him as best we can.

Romans 8.

> This has been
> a central message of theologians and saints since the time of
> Christ.

It's also been the cause of pietistic movements which end up missing the
point that Christianity is based on Christ's works, not man's.

> One of the greatest works of Christian thought was
> titled _The Imitation of Christ_.

I wouldn't call it one of the greatest Christian works -- it wasn't even
intended for a "wide" audience:
It was meant for monastics and recluses. Behind and within all
its reflections runs the counsel of self-renunciation....

Excellent as these counsels are, they are set in the minor key
and are especially adapted for souls burdened with care and
sorrow and sitting in darkness. They present only one side of
the Christian life, and in order to compass the whole of it they
must be supplemented by counsels for integrity, bravery, and
constancy in the struggle of daily existence to which the vast
mass of mankind, who can not be recluses, are called.

The charge has even been made that the piety commended by the
Imitation is of a selfish monkish type. It was written by a monk
and intended for the convent; it lays stress on the passive
qualities and does not touch with firmness the string of active
service in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_of_Christ

We're told to be in the world but not of it. Christ did not instruct us
to navel-gaze in monasteries or to practice asceticism. The emphasis you
place on the Law ("do this" and "don't do that") overshadows the Gospel
("done" by Christ). That's why you continue to misinterpret the passage
about the sheep and goats.

>> The latter should cause us to desire the former, but the former is NOT
>> Christianity. As I stated before (and you again snipped), Shriners and
>> pagans can be very generous, selfless, and sacrificing in offering
>> charity to others. That doesn't make them Christians or Christ-like.
>> It only makes them charitable.
>
> But it does not make their acts of charity less valuable or good.

At a *temporal* level. That, though, is NOT the issue at hand in Matthew
25. That passage is about *eternal* judgment. Jesus' point is that
temporal acts don't save, no matter how many of them one performs -- the
goats ask, "When did we see you and NOT do these things?" The "least of
these" were served when *Christ* perfectly fulfilled the law, not by
your zany support of AR activities. God sees Christians -- as opposed to
Shriners and unbelievers -- having done "unto the least" because of
*Christ's* work, not ours. You cannot interpret that passage accurately
if you overlook the use (and definition) of "inherit" at the start of it
(as well as the reference to election: "blessed of my Father" and "from
the foundation of the world"). You do not earn an inheritance, someone
else does.

>>>>> Providing aid to "the least of these"
>>>>> is as providing it to Christ, and in our society, non-human
>>>>> animals are certainly "the least of these."
>
>>>> No, they aren't.
>
> They are.

No, they are not.

>>>> Read the passage (Matthew 25) and note that Jesus refers to people,
>>>> not animals, in that discourse.
>
>>> "The least of these" is not specific;
>
>> It refers to humans.
>
>>> it could refer to
>>> any
>
>> humans
>
> conscious beings -- including animals.

Ipse dixit. The Bible doesn't support your position.

>>> who are mistreated, ignored, and abused.
>
>>>> Even more importantly, note that the goats -- NOT the sheep -- are
>>>> the ones who fit your definition of Christianity above: the goats
>>>> were active in doing charitable works.
>
>>> Are not Christians supposed to engage in charitable works? We
>>> are not saved by works, but they are the fruit of the Spirit:
>>> by their works shall ye know them.
>
>> The Father knows us by our *faith*.
>
> And by our works,

No, and be of good cheer for that. God knows us by our *faith*. We're
robed in Christ's righteousness. Christ's righteousness is imputed to
us. God doesn't see sinful reprobate Karen Winter when he sees your
marginal work of shampooing cats and sending donations to nutty "animal
rescue" operations -- he sees only Jesus Christ, who perfectly kept the
Law, suffered and died for your sins, and who was raised for your
justification.

>>>> The sheep, in contrast, weren't focused on touchy-feely social work
>>>> ("Lord, when did we do this?").
>
>>> For Christ. Christ responds that they did it to *Him* when
>>> they did it to "the least of these."
>
>> Again, that refers to CHRIST's work in perfectly keeping and
>> fulfilling the law.
>
> Nope.

Yes.

> Take a look at the passage:

You could at least post the whole thing:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the *holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will
separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep
from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but
the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His
right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit

Note: *inherit*. Greek (transliterated): kleronmesate. Meaning: "Obtain
by right of inheritance."

the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you
gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked
and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in
prison and you came to Me.'
"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we
see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When
did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe
You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to
You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I
say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these
My brethren,

NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals.

you did it to Me.'

The sheep had works but *didn't* look at their works. They *inherited*
the kingdom. The sheep know their shepherd's voice, etc. That's the
difference between the two groups, Karen.

> "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
> cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
> For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat (food); I was thirsty and
> ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger and ye took me not in; naked and
> ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. ...

Then they also will answer *Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see
You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in
prison, and did not minister to You?'

The goats, too, had works. They say they did them for the Lord -- "when
did we not do these things for you?" The problem for the goats is their
*works-righteousness* (as opposed to the imputed righteousness of Christ
which the sheep have).

> Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the *least
> of these* , ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into
> everlasting punishment...."

Which is the result of ANY form of works-righteousness. Our works aren't
perfect; they cannot save us. Christ's were perfect, and those save us.
We inherit everything he earned by perfectly keeping the Law, by dying
for us, and because he was raised for our justification.

>> We're saved TO DO good works, not saved BY them (Eph 2).
>
> So I said. But we are expected and commanded to do them.

Commands = Law. We do not keep the Law perfectly. We're not saved by
trying to keep them according to the peculiar whims of conscience (e.g.,
supporting AR, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, or any other political
acts). We fall short of fulfilling every aspect of the Law every day of
our lives. Christ fulfilled the Law for us. Sanctification, too, is
God's work in Christ -- "work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling; for it is *God* who works in you both to will and to do for
His good pleasure."

>>> In fact, the goats are those who do not
>
>> Read it again. They swear to high heaven they *DID*. "When did we
>> *NOT* do these things?"
>
> No, they don't say they did. They say:
>
> "Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger,
> or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto
> *thee*?
>
> They don't say they did it to anyone.

Like YOU, they say they did it to Christ. "We saw THEE" and did all
these things. Unfortunately for them, God demands absolute perfection to
his commandments -- one slip up and it's all for naught. Christ, though,
fulfilled the Law and we INHERIT the fruits of his work.

>>> and they are condemned by Christ.
>
> By Christ

By their own actions and attempts to keep the law, the commandments.
Just like you say you're doing. Will you be judged by what Karen does
for animals or by what Christ did for you?

>>> It does not excuse cruelty, selfishness, unprofitable stewardship of
>>> God's creation, abuse of His creatures.
>
>> I've addressed the issue of animal cruelty.
>
> Not adequately.

I don't share your extremist views, but I believe supporting laws
against animal abuse, and enforcement of them, would go a long way to
*practically* dealing with the issues you've focused upon. I disagree
that your extremist, authoritarian approach of AR is either practical or
realistic considering how many people choose to eat meat, wear leather,
and demand cures for illness. I further find it uncharitable of you to
impose your views upon the consciences of others -- Christians or not --
and work to refuse them food, clothing, or cures. I draw the line,
though, at your blasphemous suggestion that what you do as an AR
activist is godly work. God gave animals for our benefit and welfare;
you seek to take them away.

>>>> Jesus said God values man more than beasts. You're of the opinion
>>>> that the sparrow and the man are equals
>
>>> Only in certain respects, not in all.
>
>> Which respects?
>
> That we are both God's creatures, having intrinsic worth because
> God values us *as* His creatures,

He gave us animals for our welfare and benefit.

> and because we share the same
> breath and the covenant He created between Himself and us after
> the Flood.

He also told us we could eat animals after the flood:
the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast
of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that
moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into
your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth
shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you
all things.

> We share inherent worth and a basic right to life

Right to life -- including for human fetuses, or just chicken fetuses?

> and respect, which are given by God and cannot be justly taken
> away by man.

Your view about this is contrary to the Bible, as I've already shown.

>> End of argument. The passages you've alluded to do not make a case for
>> AR or veganism.
>
> I think they do.

They don't -- I showed the Bible allows consumption of meat even in the
passages Lesley posted.

>> There's nothing Christian about mercy shown to chickens,
>
> There is something Christian about mercy shown to *anyone*

Anyone meaning to your fellow man ("*these my brethren*"), not to chickens.

Karen Winter wrote:
>>>>>>> the Biblical message,
>>>>>>> especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy.
>
>>>>>> To other *HUMANS*.
>
>>>>> Not only humans.
>
>> Yes. Animals can't read or understand human languages.
>
> The Bible was addressed to humans

Exactly.

>> Some can be conditioned to respond to commands, but they don't
>> understand, _per se_.
>
> That depends on the animal and the species. It's been demonstrated,
> for example, that African Gray parrots do understand many of the
> human words they use and have the understanding of a young human
> of 4 or 5.

This is not established, and continues to be debated among researchers:

...Dr. Pepperberg says, Alex doesn't just imitate human speech,
as other parrots do -- Alex can think. His actions are not just
an instinctive response, she says, but rather a result of
reasoning and choice.

Assertions like Dr. Pepperberg's are at the center of a highly
emotional debate about whether thought is solely the domain of
humans, or whether it can exist in other animals. Although many
people are intrigued by the idea that animals may be capable of
some form of abstract reasoning and communication, scientists
often ascribe what looks like clever behavior to mimicry or rote
learning or even, in some cases, unconscious cues by a
trainer....

Dr. Herbert Terrace, a Columbia University psychology professor,
famously repudiated his own studies in the 1970's with a
chimpanzee he called Nim Chimpsky, after the M.I.T. linguist
Noam Chomsky. Dr. Terrace taught Nim to use signs that looked as
if they were combined grammatically into sentences. But it
turned out they were clever imitations of his teacher.

Asked about Alex, Dr. Terrace said he thought that what Alex was
doing was "a rote response." He calls it "a complex
discriminative performance."

But is Alex thinking? "I would say minimally," Dr. Terrace
responded. "In every situation, there is an external stimulus
that guides his response." Thought, he said, involves the
ability to process information that is not right in front of
you.

"It shows Alex is a smart bird," he said. But if you take away
Alex's ability to vocalize in a way that seems human, he went
on, it would not seem as impressive: "The words are responses,
are not language."
http://www.123compute.net/dreaming/knocking/alex.html

> Chimpanzees and other primates use human language
> appropriately and do understand it.

Cues. Conditioning.

> Even dogs understand some words.

No. They're conditioned and respond to certain *cues* -- I don't have to
use words to get my dog to follow my commands. The dog doesn't
understand what sit means, only that praise and rewards come when moving
into a certain position. That's not understanding language because I
could just as easily make up a sound and condition the dog to sit using it.

> Many animals understand human language and actions.

Prove it.

>> The Bible addresses sin and salvation. Jesus came to save humans from
>> sin, death, and the devil. He didn't come to save pigs from factory
>> farms, rabbits from vivisection, cattle from Connolly Leather, minks
>> from furriers, fish from anglers, deer from hunters, or bees from Sue
>> Bee.
>
> He came to save

humans.

usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel:

>>>> There are similar teachings in other faiths, but the
>>>> Revelation of Christ is unique, and the profound sacrifice
>>>> of Christ is the central model we are to follow.

>>> "Model we are to follow" or "vicarious atonement"?

>> Both.

> I correctly answered the question myself and properly distinguished
> between the horse (faith) and the cart (works). You put the cart before
> the horse, but the cart should *follow* the horse.

That is simply false, as I have explained several times. I agree
with you that faith comes first, and that we are not saved by works.
How many times do I have to repeat myself? You are attacking a
strawman here.

What I have said, as the Bible says, is that "Faith without works
is dead."

I think we may be arguing a classic Catholic/Protestant difference
of emphasis here.

>> Christ both gave us a message in His teaching *AND* gave
>> us an example in His behavior of how we are to act toward
>> others. Because none of us humans can be perfect, only Christ
>> could provide the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

> All your works are "goat works" because of that. Your works are "sheep
> works" because God sees *Christ's* works -- he's the one who's done unto
> the least, not you. You inherit all he earned.

God works through us.

>> But we are
>> to do our best to imitate Him as best we can.

> Romans 8.

What, specifically, in Romans 8?

>> This has been
>> a central message of theologians and saints since the time of
>> Christ.

> It's also been the cause of pietistic movements which end up missing the
> point that Christianity is based on Christ's works, not man's.

Which specific pietistic movement, and demonstrate that it believes
Christianity is based on man's works.

>> One of the greatest works of Christian thought was
>> titled _The Imitation of Christ_.

> I wouldn't call it one of the greatest Christian works

I would. So would most Catholic Christians.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> it lays stress on the passive
> qualities and does not touch with firmness the string of active
> service in the world.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_of_Christ

-- which you have just characterized as "goat works"...

> We're told to be in the world but not of it. Christ did not instruct us
> to navel-gaze in monasteries or to practice asceticism. The emphasis you
> place on the Law ("do this" and "don't do that") overshadows the Gospel
> ("done" by Christ). That's why you continue to misinterpret the passage
> about the sheep and goats.

You misinterpret monasticism, both as to its intent and its practice.
Contemplatives do not "navel-gaze;" they offer constant praise to
God and pray for the world. The active orders work in the world in
schools and hospitals, in social work, and as missionaries. I
certainly would disagree that Christ did not instruct us to practice
a certain *degree* of asceticism. It can become extreme, but different
periods have had different ideas of what constitutes "extreme." Much
of what you recommend is seen as extreme by many people in our modern
culture.

>>> The latter should cause us to desire the former, but the former is
>>> NOT Christianity. As I stated before (and you again snipped),
>>> Shriners and pagans can be very generous, selfless, and sacrificing
>>> in offering charity to others. That doesn't make them Christians or
>>> Christ-like. It only makes them charitable.

>> But it does not make their acts of charity less valuable or good.

> At a *temporal* level. That, though, is NOT the issue at hand in Matthew
> 25.

Yes, it is. Feeding and clothing are quite temporal and material.

> That passage is about *eternal* judgment. Jesus' point is that
> temporal acts don't save, no matter how many of them one performs

His point is that if one is to *be* saved, one
will have done temporal acts of charity before judgment.

> -- the
> goats ask, "When did we see you

You, as in Christ, not you as in others in the world.

> and NOT do these things?" The "least of
> these" were served when *Christ* perfectly fulfilled the law,

No, when Christians provided them with food, clothing,
shelter, and visits.

> not by
> your zany support of AR activities. God sees Christians -- as opposed to
> Shriners and unbelievers -- having done "unto the least" because of
> *Christ's* work, not ours.

I think you are wrong. You have to torture the passage out of all
straightforward meaning to force it into that bizarre interpretation.
I don't know what denomination teaches that, but I have never heard
any priest suggest such a reading, nor read it in any book about the
Bible. I think it is, plainly, nonsense.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Take a look at the passage:

> You could at least post the whole thing:
>
> "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the *holy
> angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
> All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will
> separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep
> from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but
> the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His
> right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit

> Note: *inherit*. Greek (transliterated): kleronmesate. Meaning: "Obtain
> by right of inheritance."

> the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
> for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you
> gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked
> and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in
> prison and you came to Me.'

> "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we
> see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When
> did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe
> You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to
> You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I
> say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these
> My brethren,

> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals.

Misplaced comma: "the least of these, my Brethren." He's addressing
His brethren, not excluding others.

> you did it to Me.'
>
> The sheep had works but *didn't* look at their works. They *inherited*
> the kingdom. The sheep know their shepherd's voice, etc. That's the
> difference between the two groups.
>
>> "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
>> cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
>> For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat (food); I was thirsty and
>> ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger and ye took me not in; naked and
>> ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. ...

> Then they also will answer *Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see
> You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in
> prison, and did not minister to You?'

> The goats, too, had works.

The Bible does not say that; that is entirely your opinion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>. Will you be judged by what you do
> for animals or by what Christ did for you?

I will be *judged* by what I did, but I will be *saved*
by what Christ did for me.

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

> I don't share your extremist views, but I believe supporting laws
> against animal abuse, and enforcement of them, would go a long way to
> *practically* dealing with the issues you've focused upon.

That would help, but, as Francione argues, as long as animals are
regarded as property under the law, they can never be treated
justly.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I further find it uncharitable of you to
> impose your views upon the consciences of others

Christians must.

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

> God gave animals for our benefit and welfare;

That I find blasphemous. God gave animals into our care,
for us to nurture and protect them, and serve their
welfare, as Christ gave Himself for us. Following
His example, we are to serve others, and the weakest
and most vulnerable have the greatest claim upon us.
Animals are among them.

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

> He also told us we could eat animals after the flood:

Only as a concession to our weakness, and only with
the understanding that we are personally accountable for
every life we take, because those lives belong to God, not
to us. When we take conscious life without *absolute* need, we
sin. We are supposed to be vegetarian; that was the way
God made us, and when we eat animals, we act sinfully.

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

>> We share inherent worth and a basic right to life

> Right to life -- including for human fetuses, or just chicken fetuses?

Neither human nor chicken fetuses until either is conscious and
self-aware. It is not sinful to eat an egg; it is sinful to kill
a chicken for food without grave need, or to keep one in factory
farm conditions to produce that egg.

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

I don't think I am going to go further with this particular
series because I find myself developing distinctly
uncharitable thoughts about what appears to me to be your
deliberate obtuseness.

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

the ever fatuous Karen Winter wrote:
<...>
>> I correctly answered the question myself and properly distinguished
>> between the horse (faith) and the cart (works). You put the cart
>> before the horse, but the cart should *follow* the horse.
>
> That is simply false, as I have explained several times.

Yet you continue to contrive your law-focused, literalist interpretation
of Matthew 25, which is eschatological in nature and (as is often the
case in eschatology) given by way of symbols: goats, sheep, etc.

That passage doesn't put an emphasis on OUR works. It puts the entire
emphasis on God's work -- "blessed of my Father," "prepared from the
foundation of the world," "inherit," and so on.

> I agree with you that faith comes first, and that we are not saved by works.

The sheep are not saved because of their works (works-righteousness) or
because of faith-plus-works.

> What I have said, as the Bible says, is that "Faith without works
> is dead."

Matthew 25 is not about that issue. James 2 addresses that, but that's a
different subject altogether. James doesn't say faith plus works equals
justification or salvation or even sanctification, but rather that true
faith will bear fruits of good works. James was not preaching the kind
of social gospel -- "Christianized" politics which is of the same nature
as that espoused by the Religious Right (same coin, different side) --
you do, he was reproving those whose faith was dead.

> I think we may be arguing a classic Catholic/Protestant difference
> of emphasis here.

I think it's much more than a difference of emphasis -- you're
misinterpreting the scripture (Matthew 25) to suggest that your AR
activities are "unto the least of these." Worse, you further suggest
that the passage relates to OUR works rather than Christ's and further
blaspheme by suggesting that sending money to an "animal rescue" group
rather than giving a chicken to a needy person is ministering to Christ.

As to your catholic/protestant conundrum, see "Chapter 4 - What About
the Book of James?":
http://www.reformed.com/pub/just.htm

<...>
> I certainly would disagree that Christ did not instruct us to practice
> a certain *degree* of asceticism.

Examples.

> It can become extreme, but different
> periods have had different ideas of what constitutes "extreme." Much
> of what you recommend is seen as extreme by many people in our modern
> culture.

Such as...? I don't recall recommending any form of ascetic practice.

>>>> The latter should cause us to desire the former, but the former is
>>>> NOT Christianity. As I stated before (and you again snipped),
>>>> Shriners and pagans can be very generous, selfless, and sacrificing
>>>> in offering charity to others. That doesn't make them Christians or
>>>> Christ-like. It only makes them charitable.
>
>>> But it does not make their acts of charity less valuable or good.
>
>> At a *temporal* level. That, though, is NOT the issue at hand in
>> Matthew 25.
>
> Yes, it is. Feeding and clothing are quite temporal and material.

Spoken by symbols, metaphors: sheep, goats, etc. Your hermeneutic is
even crazier than that employed by millennialists.

>> That passage is about *eternal* judgment. Jesus' point is that
>> temporal acts don't save, no matter how many of them one performs
>
> His point is that if one is to *be* saved, one
> will have done temporal acts of charity before judgment.

Wrong. His point is about the absolute perfection demanded by the law:
fail in ONE point of the law (failed to do unto the least of these), you
fail the WHOLE law. Christ fulfilled the WHOLE law, we INHERIT the
kingdom he earned.

>> not by your zany support of AR activities. God sees Christians -- as
>> opposed to Shriners and unbelievers -- having done "unto the least"
>> because of *Christ's* work, not ours.
>
> I think you are wrong.

I *know* you're wrong.

> You have to torture the passage out of all
> straightforward meaning to force it into that bizarre interpretation.

It's not tortured. It's not a novel interpretation. My interpretation
accepts that it's eschatological (judgment) in nature and given by way
of symbols. Your interpretation, while also not novel
(works-righteousness started in the garden when Adam and Eve tried to
cover themselves), literalizes symbols.

From John Calvin's Commentaries:

Come, you blessed of my Father. We must remember Christ’s
design; for he bids his disciples rest satisfied now with hope,
that they may with patience and tranquillity of mind look for
the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom; and next, he bids them
strive earnestly, and not become wearied in the right course. To
this latter clause he refers, when he promises the inheritance
of the heavens to none but those who by good works aim at the
prize of the heavenly calling. But before speaking of the reward
of good works, he points out, in passing, that the commencement
of salvation flows from a higher source; for by calling them
blessed of the Father, he reminds them, that their salvation
proceeded from the undeserved favor of God. Among the Hebrews
the phrase blessed of God means one who is dear to God, or
beloved by God. Besides, this form of expression was not only
employed by believers to extol the grace of God towards men, but
those who had degenerated from true godliness still held this
principle. Enter, thou blessed of God, said Laban to Abraham’s
servant, (Genesis 24:31.) We see that nature suggested to them
this expression, by which they ascribed to God the praise of all
that they possessed. There can be no doubt, therefore, that
Christ, in describing the salvation of the godly, begins with
the undeserved love of God, by which those who, under the
guidance of the Spirit in this life, aim at righteousness, were
predestined to life.

To this also relates what he says shortly afterwards, that the
kingdom, to the possession of which they will be appointed at
the last day, had been prepared for them from the beginning of
the world. For though it may be easy to object, that the reward
was laid up with a view to their future merits, any person who
will candidly examine the words must acknowledge that there is
an implied commendation of the grace of God. Nay more, Christ
does not simply invite believers to possess the kingdom, as if
they had obtained it by their merits, but expressly says that it
is bestowed on them as heirs.

Yet we must observe another object which our Lord had in view.
For though the life of the godly be nothing else than a sad and
wretched banishment, so that the earth scarcely bears them;
though they groan under hard poverty, and reproaches, and other
afflictions; yet, that they may with fortitude and cheerfulness
surmount these obstacles, the Lord declares that a kingdom is
elsewhere prepared for them. It is no slight persuasive to
patience, when men are fully convinced that they do not run in
vain; and therefore, lest our minds should be east, down by the
pride of the ungodly, in which they give themselves unrestrained
indulgences—lest our hope should even be weakened by our own
afflictions, let us always remember the inheritance which awaits
us in heaven; for it depends on no uncertain event, but was
prepared for us by God before we were born,—prepared, I say, for
each of the elect, for the persons here addressed by Christ are
the blessed of the Father.

When it is here said only that the kingdom was prepared from the
beginning of the world, while it is said, in another passage,
that it was prepared before the creation of heaven and of earth,
(Ephesians 1:4) this involves no inconsistency. For Christ does
not here fix the precise time when the inheritance of eternal
life was appointed for the sons of God, but only reminds us of
God’s fatherly care, with which he embraced us before we were
born; and confirms the certainty of our hope by this
consideration, that our life can sustain no injury from the
commotions and agitations of the world.

[verse 35] For I was hungry. If Christ were now speaking of the
cause of our salvation, the Papists could not be blamed for
inferring that we merit eternal life by good works; but as
Christ had no other design than to exhort his people to holy and
upright conduct, it is improper to conclude from his words what
is the value of the merits of works. With regard to the stress
which they lay on the word for, as if it pointed out the cause,
it is a weak argument; for we know that, when eternal life is
promised to the righteous, the word for does not always denote a
cause, but rather the order of procedure. [1] But we have
another reply to offer, which is still more clear; for we do not
deny that a reward is promised to good works, but maintain that
it is a reward of grace, because it depends on adoption. Paul
boasts (2 Timothy 4:8) that a crown of righteousness is laid up
for him; but whence did he derive that confidence but because he
was a member of Christ, who alone is heir of the heavenly
kingdom? He openly avows that the righteous Judge will give to
him that crown; but whence did he obtain that prize but because
by grace he was adopted, and received that justification of
which we are all destitute? We must therefore hold these two
principles, first, that believers are called to the possession
of the kingdom of heaven, so far as relates to good works, not
because they deserved them through the righteousness of works,
or because their own minds prompted them to obtain that
righteousness, but because God justifies those whom he
previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the
guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of
righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, no
reward is due to them, but the term reward is applied to that
which is bestowed by grace.

Christ does not here specify every thing that belongs to a pious
and holy life, but only, by way of example, refers to some of
the duties of charity, by which we give evidence that we fear
God. For though the worship of God is more important than
charity towards men, and though, in like manner, faith and
supplication are more valuable than alms, yet Christ had good
reasons for bringing forward those evidences of true
righteousness which are more obvious. If a man were to take no
thought about God, and were only to be beneficent towards men,
such compassion would be of no avail to him for appeasing God,
who had all the while been defrauded of his right. Accordingly,
Christ does not make the chief part of righteousness to consist
in alms, but, by means of what may be called more evident signs,
shows what it is to live a holy and righteous life; as
unquestionably believers not only profess with the mouth, but
prove by actual performances, that they serve God.

Most improperly, therefore, do fanatics, under the pretext of
this passage, withdraw from hearing the word, and from observing the
Holy Supper, and from other spiritual exercises; for with
equal plausibility might they set aside faith, and bearing the
cross, and prayer, and chastity. But nothing was farther from
the design of Christ than to confine to a portion of the second
table of the Law that rule of life which is contained in the two
tables. The monks and other noisy talkers had as little reason
to imagine that there are only six works of mercy, because
Christ does not mention any more; as if it were not obvious,
even to children, that he commends, by means of a synacdoche,
all the duties of charity. For to comfort mourners, to relieve
those who are unjustly oppressed, to aid simple-minded men by
advice, to deliver wretched persons from the jaws of wolves, are
deeds of mercy not less worthy of commendation than to clothe
the naked or to feed the hungry.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.htm

Note that Calvin addresses the Romanist position of faith-plus-works
straight on: "If Christ were now speaking of the cause of our salvation,
the Papists could not be blamed for inferring that we merit eternal life
by good works; but as Christ had no other design than to exhort his
people to holy and upright conduct, it is improper to conclude from his
words what is the value of the merits of works. With regard to the
stress which they lay on the word for, as if it pointed out the cause,
it is a weak argument; for we know that, when eternal life is promised
to the righteous, the word for does not always denote a cause, but
rather the order of procedure. But we have another reply to offer, which
is still more clear; for we do not deny that a reward is promised to
good works, but maintain that it is a reward of grace, because it
depends on adoption." We INHERIT the kingdom through Christ, not through
what we do for others.

Also Matthew Henry's Commentary:
...The happiness the saints shall possess is very great. It is a
kingdom; the most valuable possession on earth; yet this is but
a faint resemblance of the blessed state of the saints in
heaven. It is a kingdom prepared. The Father provided it for
them in the greatness of his wisdom and power; the Son purchased
it for them; and the blessed Spirit, in preparing them for the
kingdom, is preparing it for them. It is prepared for them: it
is in all points adapted to the new nature of a sanctified soul.
It is prepared from the foundation of the world. This happiness
was for the saints, and they for it, from all eternity. They
shall come and inherit it. What we inherit is not got by
ourselves. It is God that makes heirs of heaven. We are not to
suppose that acts of bounty will entitle to eternal happiness.
Good works done for God's sake, through Jesus Christ, are here
noticed as marking the character of believers made holy by the
Spirit of Christ, and as the effects of grace bestowed on those
who do them. The wicked in this world were often called to come
to Christ for life and rest, but they turned from his calls; and
justly are those bid to depart from Christ, that would not come
to him. Condemned sinners will in vain offer excuses.
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/henry/H40C025.htm#31-46

Note that Henry emphasizes inheritance, and that the kinds of works
mentioned are "effects of grace" -- fruit of the Spirit: "They shall
come and inherit it. What we inherit is not got by ourselves. It is God
that makes heirs of heaven. We are not to suppose that acts of bounty
will entitle to eternal happiness. Good works done for God's sake,
through Jesus Christ, are here noticed as marking the character of
believers made holy by the Spirit of Christ, and as the effects of grace
bestowed on those who do them."

> I don't know what denomination teaches that,

Orthodox ones, in contrast to those with political agendas both right
(pro-GOP, anti-abortion, gun rights, etc., churches) and left
(pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-social gospel, etc., churches).

> but I have never heard
> any priest suggest such a reading,

Too bad, but that's the price you've paid for preacher-shopping to find
parishes that condone and support your licentious lifestyle.

> nor read it in any book about the
> Bible. I think it is, plainly, nonsense.

I'm sure you do:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock,
and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23-24.

>> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals.
>
> Misplaced comma: "the least of these, my Brethren." He's addressing
> His brethren, not excluding others.

Ipse dixit, and *WRONG*. Transliterated Greek:
kai apokriqeiV o basileuV erei autoiV amhn legw umin ef oson
epoihsate eni toutwn twn adelfwn mou twn elacistwn emoi
epoihsate

"Elachistos touton mou" means the least of my brothers."

Vulgate:
et respondens rex dicet illis amen dico vobis quamdiu fecistis
uni de his fratribus meis minimis mihi fecistis

"Fratribus meis minimis" means "the least among my brothers," not a term
of address.

None of the English translations I've encountered treat it as a term of
address as you allege.

Douay-Reims:
And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as
long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it
to me.

RSV:
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did
it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Young's Literal:
`And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you,
Inasmuch as ye did [it] to one of these my brethren -- the least
-- to me ye did [it].

NKJV:
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to
you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My
brethren, you did it to Me.'

NASB:
"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to
the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine,
{even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'

NIV:
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did
for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

You're wrong, Karen.

>> you did it to Me.'
>>
>> The sheep had works but *didn't* look at their works. They *inherited*
>> the kingdom. The sheep know their shepherd's voice, etc. That's the
>> difference between the two groups.
>>
>>> "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
>>> cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
>>> For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat (food); I was thirsty and
>>> ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger and ye took me not in; naked and
>>> ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. ...
>
>> Then they also will answer *Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see
>> You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in
>> prison, and did not minister to You?'
>
>> The goats, too, had works.
>
> The Bible does not say that;

Both sheep and goats had works. The sheep asked when they did these
things, the goats asked when did they not do these things.

> that is entirely your opinion.

No, that's what the text conveys.

>> God gave animals for our benefit and welfare;
>
> That I find blasphemous.

Take it up with the LORD:
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).

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.

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.

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
also 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. So is AR,
which is a modern philosophy which has nothing in common with the Bible
or Judeo-Christian culture.

> God gave animals into our care,

For food and fur. He wanted us well-fed and warm in the winter.

>> He also told us we could eat animals after the flood:
>
> Only as a concession to our weakness,

Ipse dixit. God was very generous to Israel (or what was left of it in
Noah and his sons) after the flood.

> ...We are supposed to be vegetarian;

Ipse dixit.

> that was the way God made us,

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

> and when we eat animals, we act sinfully.

Ipse dixit and false. Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth
that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). St Paul
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
(including meat) is a doctrine of devils. You believe and preach a
doctrine of devils, Karen.

>>> We share inherent worth and a basic right to life
>
>> Right to life -- including for human fetuses, or just chicken fetuses?
>
> Neither human nor chicken fetuses until either is conscious and
> self-aware.

Determined by science or by pro-abortion zealots?

http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm

> It is not sinful to eat an egg; it is sinful to kill
> a chicken for food without grave need,

Hunger is a grave need.

Karen Winter wrote:
> I don't think I am going to go further

I'm not terribly surprised at your cowardice, your mischaracterization
of my desire to discuss these matters, or your inability to control your
emotions when discussing these matters.

usual suspect wrote:

> Karen Winter wrote:

It's good that you keep correcting the name from her
latest silly pseudonym to her real name. Keep up the
good work.


>
>> I don't think I am going to go further
>
>
> I'm not terribly surprised at your cowardice, your mischaracterization
> of my desire to discuss these matters, or your inability to control your
> emotions when discussing these matters.

S. Maizlich wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter wrote:
>
> It's good that you keep correcting the name from her latest silly
> pseudonym to her real name. Keep up the good work.

She's as loathsome as ever. I don't know why she doesn't just go back to
posting as "Rat" now that the cat's out of the bag. I have a hunch it
has something to do with a, well, "gentleman's" agreement between her
and Sylvia about not posting to newsgroups after their embarrassing
debacles last year. No evidence of that, just a weird suspicion (because
they're really weird).

I thought of her last night every time Pastor Rennick repeated, "Throw
another fetus on the fire!"

>>> I don't think I am going to go further
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not terribly surprised at your cowardice, your mischaracterization
>> of my desire to discuss these matters, or your inability to control
>> your emotions when discussing these matters.

usual suspect wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:

>> I don't think I am going to go further

> I'm not terribly surprised at your cowardice, your mischaracterization
> of my desire to discuss these matters, or your inability to control your
> emotions when discussing these matters.

None of those apply. It's difficult to discuss animal cognition
with a person who refuses to accept scientific evidence in the field.

Why would one primate teach another primate to use human sign
language, and they converse with *each other* in that language,
if the first animal were simply responding to cues from a human?

Why not accept the research which has shown Alex is capable of
abstract thought and understands sets?

usual suspect wrote:
>
Glorfindel wrote:

Ah, a Calvinist. That explains it. Complete depravity,
sola scriptura and all that.

I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't accept Calvinist theology.

Karen Winter wrote:
>>> I don't think I am going to go further
>
>> I'm not terribly surprised at your cowardice, your mischaracterization
>> of my desire to discuss these matters, or your inability to control
>> your emotions when discussing these matters.
>
> None of those apply.

They all do.

> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition

It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers:

...Dr. Pepperberg says, Alex doesn't just imitate human speech,
as other parrots do -- Alex can think. His actions are not just
an instinctive response, she says, but rather a result of
reasoning and choice.

Assertions like Dr. Pepperberg's are at the center of a highly
emotional debate about whether thought is solely the domain of
humans, or whether it can exist in other animals. Although many
people are intrigued by the idea that animals may be capable of
some form of abstract reasoning and communication, scientists
often ascribe what looks like clever behavior to mimicry or rote
learning or even, in some cases, unconscious cues by a
trainer....

Dr. Herbert Terrace, a Columbia University psychology professor,
famously repudiated his own studies in the 1970's with a
chimpanzee he called Nim Chimpsky, after the M.I.T. linguist
Noam Chomsky. Dr. Terrace taught Nim to use signs that looked as
if they were combined grammatically into sentences. But it
turned out they were clever imitations of his teacher.

Asked about Alex, Dr. Terrace said he thought that what Alex was
doing was "a rote response." He calls it "a complex
discriminative performance."

But is Alex thinking? "I would say minimally," Dr. Terrace
responded. "In every situation, there is an external stimulus
that guides his response." Thought, he said, involves the
ability to process information that is not right in front of
you.

"It shows Alex is a smart bird," he said. But if you take away
Alex's ability to vocalize in a way that seems human, he went
on, it would not seem as impressive: "The words are responses,
are not language."
http://www.123compute.net/dreaming/knocking/alex.html

> Why not accept the research which has shown Alex is capable of
> abstract thought and understands sets?

Why not blindly accept "research" into cold fusion, alchemy, and
acupuncture while you're at it? It's NOT established that Alex is
capable of abstract thoughts.

I also think the questions of ethics in the Korean stem cell/cloning
controversy apply here, too. Alex is the researcher's pet parrot, and I
have to wonder to what extent Pepperberg is objective and subjective in
interpreting Alex' "words." Other researchers in the field aren't
jumping on Pepperberg's bandwagon. You're relying on the logical fallacy
of appealing to authority when, in fact, other researchers question
Pepperberg's work.

I'm open to discussing the matter further, Karen, but are you? You're
the one running away. As usual.

Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>
> Karen Winter wrote:
>
> Ah, a Calvinist.

Not in the pure sense of the word, just orthodox reformed.

> That explains it. Complete depravity,
> sola scriptura and all that.

Yes, all that stuff that offends you.

> I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't accept Calvinist theology.

We were discussing Matthew 25, not TULIP. I take it you're running away
from the discussion. As usual.

usual suspect wrote:
>Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition

> It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers:

And some people still claim the earth is flat.

Why did you not address the issue of primates teaching each other
sign language and conversing with each other in it?

There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate
their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am
thinking of right now, but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I
present on animal thought. There was the case of the parrot who
gave evidence in a murder trial as the only eye-witness, and there
was the case of the parrot who asked where his owner was after the
owner died.

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

Glorfindel wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
> >Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition
>
> > It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers:
>
> And some people still claim the earth is flat.
>
> Why did you not address the issue of primates teaching each other
> sign language and conversing with each other in it?
>
> There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate
> their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am
> thinking of right now, but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I
> present on animal thought.

I would be interested to see them.

> There was the case of the parrot who
> gave evidence in a murder trial as the only eye-witness, and there
> was the case of the parrot who asked where his owner was after the
> owner died.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>