Think God would be vegan?

[veggymeggy]

And CG, don't be embarrassed of your fervor! I'd take passionate over apathetic any day!

[V VII Hero]

And CG, don't be embarrassed of your fervor! I'd take passionate over apathetic any day!

 

me too.

[robert]

i think that it was also said that this board is special due to everyone respecting one another. whilst i fully agree with that statement, we also need to respect that we are a very diverse group of people.

 

what really defines a board in my opinion is the ability for members to hae intelligent debate without it resulting in a brawl. i am not one for a board where someone states something controversial as fact, and for everyone to agree, even if they dont, in order not to spoil the 'special' nature of the board.

 

I've always thought of this board as the most friendly and supportive vegan forum I've been on. It feels like we have a "family" atmosphere here and I really like that. We also have a lot of fun!

 

So it is my hope that people don't get offended by posts on here. That would make me sad.

 

It is ok to disagree and strongly argue our points, but in the end, we're still all friends, we're all focused on the same greater cause to save animals and save and enrich the quality of our planet.

 

I just don't want anyone to lose sight of the bigger picture, or have their feelings hurt.

 

Thanks to everyone for expressing honest opnions. Honesty is important and I respect all of you.

 

Have a great week

 

I'm glad to have you all as supportive friends.

[Crash]

Geez I go away for a few days and I miss a drama. Sorry, as my response will be a looong one....

 

CG emotional responses are nothing to be ashamed of and preferable to apathetic ones. Emotions with facts will always bring an extra punch.

Hey CG, Crash, etc, how can you be christian when your bible advocates such atrocities as listed in the link below? http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm#kill-all-unbelievers That's just a few examples by the way, there are many, many more in the bible like that. My favorite is where some guys lock the doors of the temple to a rival god and kill everyone inside and god rewards them by "making their seed unto a great nation." Really, a few mistakes are one thing but come on, I'd think by like the 10th advocation of genocide you might figure out that they really mean it?

Jay in response to your......um... question..... where to begin ? First of all, it is not "my bible" as it was not written by me or who I believe God and Jesus to be, but by flawed men (please re-read my previous posts). As for the genocide stuff, I agree it's horrible, but this is not due to God or Jesus. It is due to the struggle between men to prove who's religion was right and whose was wrong (and it unfortunately continues to this day ).

What most christians say (of the very very few who will even really face this,) is that the new testament totally supersedes the old. Which means that the pro-vegan stuff in genesis has to go out the window.

Actually historians believe that the old testament is a conglomeration of other religions, not actually an original version, but paraphrased from older teachings. As for the new testament, I will re-iterate again, that while it was written by men inspired by God, they were just men with foibles and prejudices.

Obviously he didn't know what he was doing in the beginning seeing as he advocated genocide and all that so I have no idea why you think what he did in the beginning should carry more weight than what he did 1/4th of the way in?

Again, God and Jesus did not advocate genocide (remember "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ?). You seem to be falling for the schlaboo that just because people in charge wrote down what they wanted to be the right thing, was actually what God meant. All of the advocacy falls to the human "leaders" of the movement.

Especially considering the very beginning is much older and even more likely to be wrong. Doesn't make any sense at all. Seems like you are just picking out the parts that you like and ignoring the rest. I don't think that will convince very many christians.

Again Jay, historians believe the old testament is a conglomeration of other, older religions and is not an original text, but a paraphrasing of what older philosophies and religions said.

If the message of this Jesus fellow really was consistently and clearly vegan you should maybe stick to talking about him. As it stands because you decided to talk about the OT which is overflowing with genocide and rape just because you found a pro-vegan part

What's your point ? I consider myself a Christian and I am not afraid to admit that there are many things committed by people that were recorded in the bible in God's name that I do not agree with (again I was not at the ecumenical conference and since I'm female and a regular person, I would definitely not have gotten to vote).

If you do believe there is a higher power & people corrected the writings of the original god/s, then what makes something written (& corrupted) by the hebrews a few millenia ago anymore relevent than any of the writings of any of the other religions. Infact because all the texts would by the nature of their corruption be just about invalid , or at least you & I would be unable to descern which is truth & which is lies, then wouldn't actually forgetting the organising in any sort of formal religious belief be the best way forward. If someone wishes to believe in something, nothing in my eyes makes the Greek, Eygtian, Nordic, Pagan or the Aztec gods any less likely than the Hebrew creation, or indeed any MORE likely.

Agreed Pete, but there has to be some seed that remains that we can take and grow from. IMO the bible should be considered nothing more than a recording of history and a glimpse into the life of Jesus and the struggle for Christianity. The fact that many have decided to take it as verbatim is not agreed to by me. But this debate has changed direction from, Is God Vegan, to Is the Bible Vegan and these are 2 different things imo.

Infact Moses getting a simple set rules is stupid, if they are laws not to be broken.

I believe the rules were a guide on how to live Pete. Just as we have laws regulating what citizens can and cannot do to each other, there were rules written to protect people.

Life can't be a simple set of rules like that, they were written for idiots, who don't think, in certain situations you could see yourself killing (if there was no other option), you could see yourself stealing (say a knife from a murderer), you can infact fall in love with a nieghbour who's married, they could be unhappy in their marrage, break up & get together with you, that's life, it happens.

While I might agree with you on some points, imo you are just nitpicking on others Pete.

Aren't the first two commandments specifically about/encouraging religious intolerence & infact if you don't believe then you, your children & even grandchildren & great grandchildren suffer for it! Bloody hell, HARSH! (I'm looking at them now. Never read the whole script, just seen Charlton Heston

Actually from what I understand the 10 Commandments are as follows on this website and if you look at the topics on it, you will see that there are many questions and comments about these questions. You also have to take in context what the times it was written in were Pete. The leaders of this religion were trying to squash out beliefs in older religions -- they chose the methods, not God or Jesus. (BTW, Charlton Heston's a jackass.)

Strange how human parents can show unconditional love to their children, but god is a bit a crappy parent, if you don't love me, then you get punished. At least that's how it reads to me. Either the 10 commandments are crap too, along with the rest of the bible (corrupted by humans-probably man is a better term judging by the sexist overtones), or god is someone to rally against, throw out of our lives, we may suffer later, but for a brief time (while alive) we'd be free of the needy demands of a wrong-thinking super-being. Why does a super-being demand worship or you suffer (& your family for generations). I'm no super-being, but suppose I had a kid. I'd hope they loved me & I'd do what I could to get that result, but if they did hate or turn thier back on me I would not pour punishment upon them & their kids & their grandkids etc. I wouldn't say love me or else.

Dude, I agree with you, but must stress this was not God and Jesus speaking -- it is people who wanted to convert people away from the old religions and make them warriors for their religion.

I'm sure that most other religions have similar nonsense as the bible, so if you want to believe in something, just believe there is something. the fact is, if there is anything then it would almost certainly be indefinable to the human mind (we cannot conceive of the infinite), so all books/teachings or whatever will be wrong. Just be happy knowing you think there is more, but for now it's unknowable. Following any religion IS by it's nature following the writings of people, not any super-being. So, use your own mind, not the writings of others to make up your mind what you believe, then try to do your best to live the best you can while you're here.

Exactly, but you glean things from what you read. I happen to have gotten love, compassion and peace. I throw what I don't agree with out the window. So what is our communication problem ?

[Jay]

Jay in response to your......um... question..... where to begin ? First of all, it is not "my bible" as it was not written by me or who I believe God and Jesus to be, but by flawed men (please re-read my previous posts). As for the genocide stuff, I agree it's horrible, but this is not due to God or Jesus. It is due to the struggle between men to prove who's religion was right and whose was wrong (and it unfortunately continues to this day ).

Yes, I've heard this before but I'm curious at what point do you finally conclude the whole thing is just mutilated beyond the point of bothering with? If I wrote such a ridiculous medley of contradictions it would be chucked in the trash by any sane person. Yet as near as I can see most people who believe in god just embrace whatever religion happens to be popular around them no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

Again, God and Jesus did not advocate genocide (remember "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ?). You seem to be falling for the schlaboo that just because people in charge wrote down what they wanted to be the right thing, was actually what God meant. All of the advocacy falls to the human "leaders" of the movement.

This post wasn't directed to you but anyway....

So one person wrote the ten commandments and another wrote down endless genocide being a good thing. You pick out the good parts and ignore the others. Why? Why not just be a deist instead and figure out what makes sense on your own?

 

Again Jay, historians believe the old testament is a conglomeration of other, older religions and is not an original text, but a paraphrasing of what older philosophies and religions said.

You've responded to stuff that was directed to CG. If you believe these historians then it just doesn't apply to you.

 

If the message of this Jesus fellow really was consistently and clearly vegan you should maybe stick to talking about him. As it stands because you decided to talk about the OT which is overflowing with genocide and rape just because you found a pro-vegan part

What's your point ? I consider myself a Christian and I am not afraid to admit that there are many things committed by people that were recorded in the bible in God's name that I do not agree with (again I was not at the ecumenical conference and since I'm female and a regular person, I would definitely not have gotten to vote).

It was directed to CG, and I can't see how you can't understand my point other than thinking it was directed to you when it wasn't.

[Jay]

CG, I've read hundreds of your posts here and at VF. I'm "J" over there. My full name is Jay Sherman.

 

I only treat you as I hope others will treat me. I want to be the best person I can be and in order for that to happen I need others to tell me when I'm maybe doing something wrong. I'm sure you would want the same in return, right?

 

BTW,

When you write in caps, it's seen as yelling at someone which is very rude. If you want to emphasize something, use italics. Don't use caps or even bold. If you are indeed trying to convey that you are yelling, then your behavior is really inappropiate.

[compassionategirl]

Responses to you are in blue (lower case) below.

 

CG, I've read hundreds of your posts here and at VF. I'm "J" over there. My full name is Jay Sherman.

 

Hi J. J, now that I know you are J from over at vf, that makes me even more upset because you should know me well enough online to know that I dont "pretend" to do anything, including all the nasty and utterly ridiculous things you accused me of. Do I read every single word of every single forum topic? Of course not! Who does? But I dont see why you accused me of not reading your posts, when it was clear (at least to me) that I had. I was responding because I had read your posts, and I wanted to address a few specific points you had raised in them. I am NOTHING if not sincere and honest, with myself and others. The people who know me online know that. Your accusations were simply dead wrong. period.

 

I only treat you as I hope others will treat me. I want to be the best person I can be and in order for that to happen I need others to tell me when I'm maybe doing something wrong. I'm sure you would want the same in return, right?

 

Right. But with all due respect, J, you werent providing constructive criticism. You were attacking me and making ridiculous accusations, like how I pretended nobody read my posts and how I was really the one who didnt read other people's post. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever been accused of. I hope you can see, now, that I HAD in fact read every word of your posts on this thread. If I am ever responding to somebody WITHOUT having read their posts carefully first, I would give them the courteousy and respect of letting them know that, at the very least. I hope you can see now where the misunderstanding was, and I hope we can continue being friends, as I do respect the "J" that I "know" from vf. BUT I dont appreciate personal attacks like that. - and wont put up with it -from anybody.

 

I take it, by the way, from your above post that you are still sticking to the accusation of how I pretend peole dont read my posts and how I am the one who really doesnt read posts. That is the impression I get from your middle paragraph.

 

BTW,

When you write in caps, it's seen as yelling at someone which is very rude. If you want to emphasize something, use italics. Don't use caps or even bold. If you are indeed trying to convey that you are yelling, then your behavior is really inappropiate.

 

no, i wasnt trying to convey that I was yelling at you. In fact, I didnt even know that typing in caps was seen as yelling. The way I convey yelling (good or bad) is with numerous exclamation marks at the end of the sentence I am yelling. But thanks for letting me know. I will be mindful of that when possting in the future. Because I STILL havent figured out how to nicely separate blocks of quotes from somebody, I just tpe my responses directly in their post after quoting the entire text, and I make it in blue, and I use caps so it is easy to read for the other person (i.e. my responses can easily be seen and separate their responses).

 

But thanks for informing me about this caps= yelling at the person business.

Edited September 21, 2005 by compassionategirl

[compassionategirl]

oops- old habbits will be hard to break. I just noticed that a used caps again for some words here and there, but again that uis meant to be for emphasis. not yelling.

 

when i am yelling, this is what it will look like:

 

 

bla, bla, bla, bla....etc.etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[Jay]

How very unChritsian of me but WHAT THE f$%ck ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHEN DID I SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO THROW THE new testament STUFF OUT THE WINDOW?

Err, right back here:

Jay,

 

Yes, the new testament represented the "new world order" which was to supercede the old world order. But how do you figure that the pro-vegan stuff goes out the window? Jesus Christ's message of mercy and compassion and empathy in the New testament is 1000% consistent with the vegan lifestyle

See above? Could that be anymore clear? Feel free to go back to the middle of page 8 and review it if you can barely believe that indeed you did write that.

 

 

What I am saying is that the pro-vegan stuff is NOT out the window with the new testament because veganism is consistent with Christ's message.

Yeah I know what you are saying.

 

NO, ACTUALLY YOU CLEARLY DO NOT. YOU SAID THAT ACCODING TO CHRISTIANS, THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPERCEDES THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH THEN MUST MEAN THAT THE PRO-VEGAN STUFF OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (GENESIS TO BE MORE EXACT) GOES OUT THE WINDOW. I SAID NOT NECESSARILY, BECAUSE THE MESSAGE BROUGHT BY CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH A VEGAN LIFESTYLE OF MERCY AND COMPASSION. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT!!!!!?????

The above from you was based on misunderstanding what I said and then apparently forgetting that you misunderstood.

 

Now how about you listen to what I'm saying. You pretend like people don't bother to read your stuff when the reality is that YOU are the one who doens't bother to really read what people post.

 

WOW - SUCH SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS AND HARSH CONDEMNATION FROM SOMEBODY WHO HAS INTERACTED WITH ME, WHAT, MAYBE THREE TIMES ON THIS BOARD??!!! KINDLY REFRAIN FROM ATTACKING PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE BARELY HAD ANY INTERACTION WITH THEM!!!!! HOW UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE AND PRESUMPTUOUS OF YOU. WHAT MAKES THIS FORUM EXCEPTIONAL IS THAT MEMBERS ALWAYS MAINTAIN SOME DEGREE OF RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER AND PERSONAL ASSAULTS ARE RARE.

I've read tons of your posts and tell you this exactly because I care for and respect you. And it's constructive criticism not a "personal assault".

 

ACTUALLY, MR. JAY, I AM QUITE CONFIDENT THAT MANY OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE DO READ MY SOMETIMES VERY LONG POSTS, AND QUITE ENJOY THEM, AS THEY HAVE MADE CLEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HOWEVER, I WAS UNSURE ABOUT YOU AND A COUPLE OF OTHERS WHO JOINED THIS THREAD AFTER ALREADY 7 PAGES IN, BECAUSE IT IS A LONG THREAD, AND i WOULD NOT BLAME ANYBODY IF THEY HAD NOT READ ALL THE POSTS IT SINCE IT WAS VERY LENGTHY. .

Again, I read the entire thread. Apparently you started responding before first reading my entire post.

 

I have posted all kinds of posts on this thread explaining my position and I really dont want to reiterate stuff, and, if I recall correctly, the point about picking and choosing was already raised and dealt with, as was most of your other points. If you are interested, I invite you to read this thread in its entirety. BUT I have no intention of abandoning my faith, so there is really no point in arguing with me about the existence of God if that is your intention. The existence of God is not about logic, or proof, etc., but simply about faith. And I choose to have it.

 

peace

I already read the thread in it's entirety. And I have never argued against the existence of god. Perhaps if you had the decency to actually read what I posted you would know that?

 

PERHAPS IF YOU HAD THE DECENCY TO READ MORE CAREFULLY YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE QUALIFYING WORD "IF". What I said is I have no intention of abandoning my faith and so there is no point in arguing with me about the existence of God IF that is your intention."

I never said anything even remotely concerning the existence of god so whether or not you put an "if" in there, why did you bring it up?

 

Your words were something like "Crash, CG, how can you be Christian when your bible advocates..." So to answer your question, no I am not so narrowminded or arrogant to assume that the only god ANYBODY believes in is the Christian God, but the only God that Christianity teaches is the "only God" is the God of the bible. So while I cannot speak for others, when I refer to God, I am referring to the God in which I believe -i.e. the God of Christianity.

I know that when you refer to god you mean the christian one, but I never even talked about god so I think it's safe to say that I didn't make any mistake concering which god you were talking about.

I dont know if you believe in God or what God you believe in, but your words are, in my opinion, a clear condemnation of Christianity, and thus, by extension, God - the God of the Bible. I dont think based on what you have said (which, by the way, i DID read, contrary to your little rant) that my interpretation of your words is unreasonable or "way off".

And here you are again showing clear narrowmindedness. When I condemn christianity, you can't presume I don't believe in "god". You can presume I probably don't believe in the christian god. But you certainly can't jump to thinking I'm condemning "god" and that you did is clearly narrowmindedness.

 

Again, I bother to give this thorough response in an attempt to practice the golden rule. This is what I would want from others in response to me. If it were me, I would be thankful that possible mistakes had been pointed out to me, and I would take a critical look at what I had wrote.

[Jay]

OK cross post. Anyway CG. I don't dislike anyone on VF or VB. I understand on a board it's very easy to have misunderstandings. So much so that usually it's not worth it to go into very deep topics actually..... That I have criticized you, does not mean I think you suck or anything like that. If I seem to come across as an ass, it's just a misunderstanding. Ask Michael Hobson, or Jonathan, (whom I've met in real life) I'm really not too horrible a person, at least I don't think I am......

 

I guess I shouldn't have said the comment about "waste of time talking to someone who doesn't listen." I was annoyed and I wanted to convey that I was annoyed but.... not really the best way to put things.

[compassionategirl]

okay jay, responses are in red below. I must say that I am finding this whole communication very tiring and annoying.

 

How very unChritsian of me but WHAT THE f$%ck ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHEN DID I SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO THROW THE new testament STUFF OUT THE WINDOW?

Err, right back here:

Jay,

 

Yes, the new testament represented the "new world order" which was to supercede the old world order. But how do you figure that the pro-vegan stuff goes out the window? Jesus Christ's message of mercy and compassion and empathy in the New testament is 1000% consistent with the vegan lifestyle

See above? Could that be anymore clear? Feel free to go back to the middle of page 8 and review it if you can barely believe that indeed you did write that.

 

We are coming to totally different intepretations of words that are ,in my opinion, not that ambiguous, if at all. yes I can believe that I wrote that - because that is exactly what i meant. The pro-vegan stuff is NOT out the window necessarily because Christ's message in the new testament was consistent with veganism. Why are you pretending that you think I meant something different ? The words in question are not accusing you of wanting to throw out the new testament. So, again, I ask you, what is your problem with the words, for crying out loud ? What precisely is causing the confusion. I still dont get it. Jeez, I feel like polling this for everybody else's input to see who is off their rocker here, me or you

 

What I am saying is that the pro-vegan stuff is NOT out the window with the new testament because veganism is consistent with Christ's message.

Yeah I know what you are saying.

 

NO, ACTUALLY YOU CLEARLY DO NOT. YOU SAID THAT ACCODING TO CHRISTIANS, THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPERCEDES THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH THEN MUST MEAN THAT THE PRO-VEGAN STUFF OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (GENESIS TO BE MORE EXACT) GOES OUT THE WINDOW. I SAID NOT NECESSARILY, BECAUSE THE MESSAGE BROUGHT BY CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH A VEGAN LIFESTYLE OF MERCY AND COMPASSION. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT!!!!!?????

The above from you was based on misunderstanding what I said and then apparently forgetting that you misunderstood.

 

No, again, there WAS NO MISUNDERSTANDING on my part. I knew what you said, and I never thought that you said that the new testament stuff should go out the window. And while you may choose to interpret my words as having accused you of that, i simply dont see how you could insist on that interpretation when such an interpretation simply isnt warranted on the reasonable and plain meaning of my words!!!

 

Now how about you listen to what I'm saying. You pretend like people don't bother to read your stuff when the reality is that YOU are the one who doens't bother to really read what people post.

 

WOW - SUCH SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS AND HARSH CONDEMNATION FROM SOMEBODY WHO HAS INTERACTED WITH ME, WHAT, MAYBE THREE TIMES ON THIS BOARD??!!! KINDLY REFRAIN FROM ATTACKING PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE BARELY HAD ANY INTERACTION WITH THEM!!!!! HOW UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE AND PRESUMPTUOUS OF YOU. WHAT MAKES THIS FORUM EXCEPTIONAL IS THAT MEMBERS ALWAYS MAINTAIN SOME DEGREE OF RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER AND PERSONAL ASSAULTS ARE RARE.

 

I've read tons of your posts and tell you this exactly because I care for and respect you.

 

Thanks.

 

And it's constructive criticism not a "personal assault". You were abrasive, accusatory and inflammatory, at least that is what it felt like from where I am sitting. At any rate, I am really too tired to go on about this. If you say it wasnt meant as a personal attack, then that is good enough for me.

 

ACTUALLY, MR. JAY, I AM QUITE CONFIDENT THAT MANY OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE DO READ MY SOMETIMES VERY LONG POSTS, AND QUITE ENJOY THEM, AS THEY HAVE MADE CLEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HOWEVER, I WAS UNSURE ABOUT YOU AND A COUPLE OF OTHERS WHO JOINED THIS THREAD AFTER ALREADY 7 PAGES IN, BECAUSE IT IS A LONG THREAD, AND i WOULD NOT BLAME ANYBODY IF THEY HAD NOT READ ALL THE POSTS IT SINCE IT WAS VERY LENGTHY. .

Again, I read the entire thread. Apparently you started responding before first reading my entire post.

 

SHow me the words that should convey the fact that you have read all posts on this thread. i still cannot find them. But if they are there and I simply missed them, then I apologize. I doubt however that that is the case.

 

I have posted all kinds of posts on this thread explaining my position and I really dont want to reiterate stuff, and, if I recall correctly, the point about picking and choosing was already raised and dealt with, as was most of your other points. If you are interested, I invite you to read this thread in its entirety. BUT I have no intention of abandoning my faith, so there is really no point in arguing with me about the existence of God if that is your intention. The existence of God is not about logic, or proof, etc., but simply about faith. And I choose to have it.

 

peace

I already read the thread in it's entirety. And I have never argued against the existence of god. Perhaps if you had the decency to actually read what I posted you would know that?

 

PERHAPS IF YOU HAD THE DECENCY TO READ MORE CAREFULLY YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE QUALIFYING WORD "IF". What I said is I have no intention of abandoning my faith and so there is no point in arguing with me about the existence of God IF that is your intention."

I never said anything even remotely concerning the existence of god so whether or not you put an "if" in there, why did you bring it up?

 

J, you said "CG Crash how can you be Christian when your Bible advocates..." You were condemning / questioning Christianity and by extension the God of Christianity- i.e. the God of the Bible.

 

Your words were something like "Crash, CG, how can you be Christian when your bible advocates..." So to answer your question, no I am not so narrowminded or arrogant to assume that the only god ANYBODY believes in is the Christian God, but the only God that Christianity teaches is the "only God" is the God of the bible. So while I cannot speak for others, when I refer to God, I am referring to the God in which I believe -i.e. the God of Christianity.

I know that when you refer to god you mean the christian one, but I never even talked about god so I think it's safe to say that I didn't make any mistake concering which god you were talking about.

I dont know if you believe in God or what God you believe in, but your words are, in my opinion, a clear condemnation of Christianity, and thus, by extension, God - the God of the Bible. I dont think based on what you have said (which, by the way, i DID read, contrary to your little rant) that my interpretation of your words is unreasonable or "way off".

 

And here you are again showing clear narrowmindedness. When I condemn christianity, you can't presume I don't believe in "god". You can presume I probably don't believe in the christian god. But you certainly can't jump to thinking I'm condemning "god" and that you did is clearly narrowmindedness.

 

J, I dont understand why you are failing to see my words in their ENTIRETY, words which you quote above. If you will notice, I said you are condeming Christianity and by extension God, and then I clarified which God by adding the words - "The GOD OF THE BIBLE." immediately after my accusation. So we are not disagreeing here J. yes, I presumed based on what you said that you didnt believe in, and condemned, God - the Christian God of the Bible. You say above that this presumption would be okay so what are we disagreeing about? I'm confused.

 

Again, I bother to give this thorough response in an attempt to practice the golden rule. This is what I would want from others in response to me. If it were me, I would be thankful that possible mistakes had been pointed out to me, and I would take a critical look at what I had wrote.

 

J, i have taken numerous critical looks at what I wrote, what you wrote, and then again what I wrote, and then again what you wrote and I have come to the following conclusion:

 

you are deliberately pretending to misinterpret my words. I say deliberately because your interpretations of what I said are unwarranted and perplexing

Edited September 21, 2005 by compassionategirl

[Richard]

I refuse to get involved with a debate about religion, however, I don't see where the confusion is regarding this paragraph:

 

"the new testament represented the "new world order" which was to supercede the old world order. But how do you figure that the pro-vegan stuff goes out the window? Jesus Christ's message of mercy and compassion and empathy in the New testament is 1000% consistent with the vegan lifestyle"

 

To me, that just says:

 

"Jesus Christ's message (the new testament) is consistent with veganism"

 

I hate to see a debate needlessly go in circles over something like this, which is just a misunderstanding of words, rather than an actual debate on a subject.

[compassionategirl]

exactly. Jeez, I thought maybe I was going senile or something.

 

 

[compassionategirl]

I guess I shouldn't have said the comment about "waste of time talking to someone who doesn't listen." I was annoyed and I wanted to convey that I was annoyed but.... not really the best way to put things.

 

and I guess I should not have said that you are generously endowed....unless of course you like that description...

 

sorry....me bad girl...pretty soon Rob is going to have to rate this board X rated !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

so glad we have declared a ceasefire.

 

like daywalker says,

love and peace!

Edited September 24, 2005 by compassionategirl

[CollegeB]

http://chetday.com/hallelujah-diet-dangers.htm this might spark some new discussion, like we need any on this thread...haha

[Jay]

okay jay, responses are in red below. I must say that I am finding this whole communication very tiring and annoying.

 

How very unChritsian of me but WHAT THE f$%ck ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHEN DID I SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO THROW THE new testament STUFF OUT THE WINDOW?

Err, right back here:

Jay,

 

Yes, the new testament represented the "new world order" which was to supercede the old world order. But how do you figure that the pro-vegan stuff goes out the window? Jesus Christ's message of mercy and compassion and empathy in the New testament is 1000% consistent with the vegan lifestyle

See above? Could that be anymore clear? Feel free to go back to the middle of page 8 and review it if you can barely believe that indeed you did write that.

 

We are coming to totally different intepretations of words that are ,in my opinion, not that ambiguous, if at all. yes I can believe that I wrote that - because that is exactly what i meant. The pro-vegan stuff is NOT out the window necessarily because Christ's message in the new testament was consistent with veganism. Why are you pretending that you think I meant something different ? The words in question are not accusing you of wanting to throw out the new testament. So, again, I ask you, what is your problem with the words, for crying out loud ? What precisely is causing the confusion. I still dont get it. Jeez, I feel like polling this for everybody else's input to see who is off their rocker here, me or you

The words in question rather clearly appear to be accusing me of wanting to throw out the NT pro-vegan stuff or at least just all the pro-vegan stuff. You have a sentence going on about the NT. Then a sentence about me wanting to throw out the pro-vegan stuff and then a final sentence about the NT. If that is not what you meant then simply try to be more clear in the future instead of reacting like I've just killed your firstborn child.

 

SHow me the words that should convey the fact that you have read all posts on this thread. i still cannot find them. But if they are there and I simply missed them, then I apologize. I doubt however that that is the case.

What magic words would those be? Maybe, "Oh CG's right. Christianity is pro-veganism." It seems any disagreement is proof people obviously just haven't read what you wrote and if they say otherwise they must be lying.

 

J, you said "CG Crash how can you be Christian when your Bible advocates..." You were condemning / questioning Christianity and by extension the God of Christianity- i.e. the God of the Bible.

OK, CG, I have two levels of belief. On the primary level I"m an atheist. But then on another level I believe in many, many gods. I actually believe that by believing in something you can to some extent make it come into existence.... at least somewhere..... I believe in Tolkien's Middle Earth. I believe in leprechauns and I believe in many gods. (Atlhough not the christian god, the OT one is a horror that I would not want to see exist anywhere and the NT one is extremely uncreative.) But anyway as I believe in god and in fact gods, I really don't appreciate you accusing me of wanting to convince you that there was no god just because I don't believe in your christianity.

 

That you jumped to such an assumption is clearly narrowminded. That you refuse to admit such a relatively small mistake is very, very, very small of you.

 

Sorry I took so long to reply. I'm trying to write a novel and this is clearly not a good use of time for anyone.

[Sknydpr]

OMFG....

[compassionategirl]

Are we seriously back to this again????

 

 

Jay, I find it interesting that you are the only one that appears to be interpretting my words as you are.

 

I have come to the conclusion that you are determined to be right and/or have the last word, and you are intentionally misunderstanding me when there is nothing to misunderstand.

 

So...if being right or having the last word means that much to you, so be it. I am done banging my head against a wall with you.

 

Skinnydipper: my sentiments exactly.

[willpeavy]

One of my all time favorite songs is a song about religion by the punk rock band Screeching Weasel. The lyrics to this song summarize exactly what I think about religion:

 

If you've ever questioned the beliefs that you hold you're not alone

 

But you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor

 

In the case or Christianity and Judaism there exists the belief that spiritual matters are enslaved to history

 

The Buddhists believe that the functional aspects override the myth while other religions use the literal core to build foundations with

 

See half the world sees the myth as fact while it's seen as a lie by the other half and the simple truth is that it's none of that and somehow no matter what the world keeps turning

 

Somehow we get by without ever learning

 

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive in fact for better understanding we take the facts of science and apply them and if both factors keep evolving then we continue getting information but closing off possibilities makes it hard to see the bigger picture

 

Consider the case of the woman whose faith helped her make it through when she was raped and cut up left for dead in a trunk her beliefs held true

 

It doesn't matter if it's real or not cause some things are better left without a doubt if it works then it gets the job done

[CollegeB]

Wise words thanks for posting them.

[veganmadre]

I have nothing to add. I just have an incredibly sick sense of humor and thought it would be funny to bring this topic back to the first page. Still, I plead that noone actually post. PLEASE.

[Guest]

lol @ CG...that shit really cracks me up.

[michaelhobson]

I have nothing to add. I just have an incredibly sick sense of humor and thought it would be funny to bring this topic back to the first page. Still, I plead that noone actually post. PLEASE.

 

YOU EVIL FIEND!!!!

[Jay]

Are we seriously back to this again????

 

 

Jay, I find it interesting that you are the only one that appears to be interpretting my words as you are.

I'm the only one who cared enough to point it out to you. As usual I'm the only one who gives a damm and as usual I get shit on for it.

[compassionategirl]

Are we seriously back to this again????

 

 

Jay, I find it interesting that you are the only one that appears to be interpretting my words as you are.

I'm the only one who cared enough to point it out to you. As usual I'm the only one who gives a damm and as usual I get shit on for it.

 

Jay, if that is really your take on this, then all I can say is your perception of this reality is very distorted. You hacked away at a sentence that was not NOT ambiguous, and chose to construe it in a way that was not supported by the plain meaning of the words. Some people voiced that sentiment here publicly, and others, who I guess are more shy, voiced it in pms to me.

 

At any rate, I know you are going through some stressful times right now (which I could relate to because I have had some idiot bosses in the past) so I really dont want to go another round with you. Let's just agree to disagree. We agree on one thing -- people should respect and be kind to animals. That is what is important in my opinion.

Edited December 2, 2005 by compassionategirl