: :: Finally, i'm worthy of a response. I will answer this AGAIN. As has been stated repeatedly, when is the last time other animals have been known to hoard or overconsume meat, or sell it for profit?: Hoarding, Karen? That's your characterization of exactly what? Meat eating in general? Deep freezers? Grocery stores?
Oh, comne on, Stu. You know exactly what she's referrinbg to. She's referring to the capitalist tendency to produce fopod and then refuse to give it to starving and needy people, choosing instead to hoard it and seell it at higher prices. a disgusting tendency which, thankfully, socialist regimes have gotten rid of.
: Overconsume? Sure! You can do too much of anything. Water, soy products, celery. There is an immmoral component to anything which is done to excess. Meat is not the basis for your indignation here - only gluttony. I agree with that.
: Profit, Karen? I think we found a needle in your haystack. If we have no right to profit on meat we have no right to profit on vegetables or anything else.
correct, we ehave no "right" to profit on anything. And in certain cases, such as food or medicine, these items are so essential that they must be made accessible to all, and profit-making plaans that interfere with this should not be allowed.
: :: Humans on the other hand do this regularly. Also, when is the last time a wolf, for example, needed a triple bypass?
: When was the last time you saw a wolf perform one (old hat, I know)?
: But to answer your point (which I wish you would do on every salient point I make),
ZEvery point of yours, salient or otherwise, has been answered somewhere or other. I wish I could say the same.
:there are not nearly so many triple by-passes as there are those who eat meat. Exercise, moderation of diet, and healthy habits are going to save you from the surgeon - not meat abstainence.
: ::And as if more were needed to express this point, the animals that other species consume are in the wild, allowed to live out natural lives in their habitats, not confined to evil battery's or slaughter houses, etc. WHY oh why do you keep glossing over these very major facts?
: So what you really abhor is the specialization of man. Technology is the culprit. The evil (moral judgement) is the corral vs. the range. I'm glossing over nothing. You guys have nothing but emotion to argue a point with.
i can say the same. A lot of people regard all religion as just that- emotion. I don't for two reasons. 1) I don't personally vbelieve that, and 2) it wouldn't get the argument anywhere. This is what I really don't care for in your arguemnt, Stu. This kind of name-calling is impossible to defend against and serves as a convenient way to avoid debating. Acknowledge that her positions is based largely on facts, about environmental destruction, animal cruelty and health issues. certainly you also have facts on your isde; you also have emotions. So far I've refraoined from the classical Marxist position of dismissing your arguments as those of a bourgeious trying to protect his class interests, because that wouldn't get anywhere. If I refrin from taht, you should try and refrain from using the old "emotion" arguemnt. What eidence, precisely, do you have for saying taht her argument is based on emotion? I'd really liek to know, because I see none of this evidence so far.
: If I hunt all my food without the use of a gun - just my bare hands and wits like the wolf - are you OK with meat eating, Karen? I know you're not. If we free range all our chickens and cows are you happier for them and their impending doom? I think not!
: :: What are you afraid of?
: I'm afraid that your emotion based position will eventually be codified into law.
See above. Show me why her posiytion s more emotion based than yours.
: :: Also let me note, Your interpretation of Gods word, YOUR Interpretaion.
: That trivializes a great many brilliant minds, Karen. My positions of biblical theology are well studied and quite well accepted among great numbers of respected scholars dating back centuries.
Do you ahve evidence that the Bible is the unique and unadulterated word of God? Don't you agree that some things in teh Bible, at leaST, are not true? I agree witha great many things in the Bible. But I'm sure you don't agree that the bit about the six-day creation, the dimensions of Noah's Ark, the bit about Joshua and the sun, etc. are all true.
:Your statement suggesting that Jesus was humble borrowed a holy and redeeming facet of the prophecied Messiah in order to suboordinate it to suit your agenda - to help you win a quite trivial argument by comparison.
You've used this arguemnt before, but I frankly don't understand it.You don't ahve to accept all of a book (like the Bible) or even most of it, to use one tenet in support of an arguemnt. I agree with some of the Hindiu holy books, for example, but I just as firmly reject the parts which are immoral or unfactual, becAUSE IMMORAL OR UNFACTUAL STATEMENTS ACN'T REALLY BE DIVINELY INSPIRED. I don't undestand how anyone could use a non-selective reading of any holy book- to do that would lead to justifying slavery, racism, exploitation, etc.
: :: Did that somehow make sense to you? and who are 'you guys'? Are you calling me a communist? Because I ackowledge dogs are faithful, friendly companions? Are you on medication?
: I was pointing out the downside to loyalty.
Downside? Communsim distills the noblest virtues of teh huamn spirit. Not that has a single thing to do with what karen was arguing. i agree with her retort. Don't you ahev a retort that is at least somewhat topical, besides recycling your personal emotional antipathy towards Communism? (That bit about emotionalism was sarcastic, by the way.)
: :::: Actually Karen, freedom is knowing that guilt is crucified with Christ.
: :: I think that could be called escapism , ditching out of responisibility for ones actions, and making excuses for ones self.
I agree. Regardless of what Christ did, everypone must take responsibility for their moral; actions.
: I'm sad that you would boil down Christianty only to find the above mentioned elements.
She didn't. She said, quite reasonably, taht any philosphy that would allow you to live guilt-free, as you implied, is an escapits and irresponsbile philosphy. Read nathaniel Hawthorne's story "Young Goodman Brown"; in it, the Devil offers brown freedom from guilt as the reward for selling his soul.
: It illustrates how you dismiss this vastly large group of people by decrying thier monolithic thinking.
The same way you do wiyth communists and environmentalists.
:Doing this allows you to escape, ditch out of responsibility, and make excuses for your rejection of the biblical Christ.
My rejection of Christ as the one and only son of God is not something that I need to make excuses for, nor is it escapist.
: :: Hey, thanks for asking! There is no need to aspire to what one already is and always was. FYI I work for a non-profit club which donates time and money to many causes such as battered women, the poor, restoring beautiful places and upkeeping parks, where incidentaly I can forage for berries with the birds if i'd like, but i'm not hungry at this moment. I work part time, as I choose to live a fairly simple life, and gave up my vehicle so I can practice a little of what I preach. I will begin college in Aug. in pursuit of a degree to work in environmental conservation.
: I respect those who do live their convictions. Good for you. I don't agree with your convictions, of course, but at least you weren't driven to the U.N. conference on global warming in a limo.
: :: Would you like me to list the numerous biblical references in which Christ deifies Himself, Karen? He was "humble unto death" because He was willing to offer Himself as the "lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world" but not before He made it perfectly clear to His followers that He was God in the flesh.
: : : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...and we beheld His glory."
: : : It was quite clear to John who Jesus was - even if it isn't quite clear to you. If you would be taught anything of Jesus, learn that He is the freedom from guilt and shame that we all seek.
: :: It may or may not surprise you to know that I had a christian upbringing. I studied out of my own desire, not because mom made me. You have your own interpretation of the bible and it's verses, that 'concencus' opinion does not agree with.
: That's not true, Karen. One verse of scripture taken out of context is
: generally used to suboordinated God to the desires or wants of the person doing it. It required numerous scriptures to support a specific idea before basic Christian doctrines were established. These doctrines are widely held and common among the various Christian denominations. They may disagree with peripheral details but the deity of Christ is a basic Christian concept that is not arguable - unless you would disregard the many scriptures that support the doctrine. If you wish to suggest that my interpretation of scripture is esoteric, please provide me with an alternative explanation to the John reference provided in the previous post. This is the part of the post that I think you glossed over. It certainly is the part of Christanity that disbelieving people find most troubling. I suggest it is the best aspect of Christianity and the most illustrative of God's love for you and I.
: Stuart Gort
i'm sure you knwo about the efforts of liberation theology in South America. There is a great deal of similarity between early Christianity and communism. Plenty of epople subscribe to the commusnits interpretation of teh Gospel (sinec you seem to regard 'concensus" as so important.) Do you?
None.
