Vegetarian/Vegan roll call

[greasetea]

You forgot one more

Elvis was reportedly particularly very good at oral sex.

Jesus was known to be the first one to "sleep at the knees" of women in a very keen way.

History lesson over, sut up and time to fist.

 

[cobweb]

Re: You forgot one more

Thank you Joey. That was nice.

 

[Man With Sullen Ways]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

> You're right. It IS real. And applicable. I just used it to try
> to kill a nasty wasp with it.

> On a personal note, I do think the Bible lacks one crucial
> argument to prove its reliability: pictures.

Yeah, pictures and a money-back guarantee....you would figure a word as good as that would have a money-back guarantee, right?

 

[Man With Sullen Ways]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

Eat the meat, don't eat the meat....do what is true to you. But the lot of you spend too much time throwing your personal feelings at each other with loosely tied facts and theories....I got a better one for us to discuss. Maybe not better, but at least not so battered and bruised:

I think anyone who likes the color red is a lunatic. The only color to like is blue. It is gentle and peacefull. Red is the color of blood and fire and many destructive, life threatening things and therefore should be put out!

 

[wendy]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

> Yeah, pictures and a money-back guarantee....you would figure a
> word as good as that would have a money-back guarantee, right?

Or at least a warning "can cause serious health risks"; or "if not already convinced, please refrain from reading".

 

[Kirstie]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

> You're right. It IS real. And applicable. I just used it to try
> to kill a nasty wasp with it.

> On a personal note, I do think the Bible lacks one crucial
> argument to prove its reliability: pictures.

maybe you should look into a special children's edition. They usually have some lovely pictorials.

You aren't menat to take the Bible literally though. You are meant to use it as an overall guide to life.

 

[Kirstie]

the color red

> Eat the meat, don't eat the meat....do what is true to you. But
> the lot of you spend too much time throwing your personal
> feelings at each other with loosely tied facts and theories....I
> got a better one for us to discuss. Maybe not better, but at
> least not so battered and bruised:

> I think anyone who likes the color red is a lunatic. The only
> color to like is blue. It is gentle and peacefull. Red is the
> color of blood and fire and many destructive, life threatening
> things and therefore should be put out!

My dad loves the color red but I don't really consider him a lunatic. I don't really have a favorite color. Who really does anyway?

Kirstie

 

[joe blow]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

> maybe you should look into a special children's edition. They
> usually have some lovely pictorials.

> You aren't menat to take the Bible literally though. You are
> meant to use it as an overall guide to life.

HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF HUMOR????????????????

 

[the evening standard]

Re: the color red

> My dad loves the color red but I don't really consider him a
> lunatic. I don't really have a favorite color. Who really does
> anyway?

> Kirstie

Kirstie, you are seriously mental. It seems you'll reply to anything in an adorably halfwitted way. You are great!

 

[posh boy]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

> If we are starving to death, do we kill an animal in order to
> stay alive? If you think we should, then you do not believe that
> an animal is as important as a human. Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but the "ethical" vegetarian says that it is wrong to
> kill animals for food, because their life is as important as a
> human's. I think we can all see that this argument may sound
> "moral" in America, but it is hopelessly empty in
> Africa, where animals are routinely hunted for food for the
> survival and general health of remote tribes. In America, we are
> physically removed from basic physiological needs. The problem
> with distinguishing between the two countries is that
> philosophical questions involving humanity hold no national
> boundaries. What is right in Africa for mankind is equally right
> in America for mankind. Affluence PLAYS NO ROLE. Now, I'm not
> going to post about this anymore, because most people are simply
> incapable of taking emotion out of this argument and analyzing
> it in the face of pure philosophy. Therefore, I feel like I'm
> wasting my time here.

Here here! It's like when my girlfriend starts getting all stroppy. I tell her, "I'm the boss, you dozy cow". She says, "How come, feminism blah blah blah....."

Anyway, I'm gonna try this line on her next time. Thanks Copeland. "They beat up their women in Africa. Lick my shoes!" If she doesn't, if she says "That's bad", I'll say "Are you calling the Africans bad? You racist piece of crap!" Then I'll set her on fire.

 

[Copeland]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....or so I had hoped

Women are abused everywhere, probably less so in Africa than America. It's right nowhere. This is not open to philosophical debate, but eating meat is.

 

[Mr. So & So]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....or so I had hoped

> Women are abused everywhere, probably less so in Africa than
> America. It's right nowhere. This is not open to philosophical
> debate, but eating meat is.

You mess up terribly once again.

YOU made the comparison to Africa, and I hate to break it to you, but very few women in America are having their clitoris sewn up like a baseball mitt, and being legally subordinated.

And if eating meat is open to philosophical debate then for God sakes debate it, and stop responding with these mealy-mouthed replies that rationalize nothing.

 

[Mr. So & So]

Re: Here it is, for the last time ever.....

 

[Copeland]

Does anyone know how to fend off a lunatic?

very few women in America are having their clitoris
> sewn up like a baseball mitt, and being legally subordinated.

You're disturbed.

> And if eating meat is open to philosophical debate then for God
> sakes debate it, and stop responding with these mealy-mouthed
> replies that rationalize nothing.

Are you incapable of following a thread? Read post number two in this (dreadfully) long thread. I'm not saying anything more about this. If you don't agree with my earlier posts, so be it. I respect your right to be incorrect, and you should respect my right to be correct. We can both reach a mutual agreement here.

Now, out of respect for the other people here, please stop using up space with you endless pining for my attention. Address all further comments to my e-mail address only. I might even read them (that's a promise).

 

[JORY]

Re: Does anyone know how to fend off a lunatic?

> I respect your right to be incorrect, and you should respect my
> right to be correct. We can both reach a mutual agreement here.

I'm sorry, but makes you think you're correct, when all we don't agree with you? Seems that you take yourself as the owner of the truth, and actually you're just proved your side and that's all you did. You started this thread, and since the beginning that was a thread of a lunatic(YOU). I think the better thing you have to do is stop eating cows and animals in general, and start to eat your bible, in very little pieces, with salt and sangria wine. Jesus says amen

 

[JORY]

Re: Does anyone know how to fend off a lunatic?

> I'm sorry, but 'what makes you think you're correct, when all we don't
> agree with you? Seems that you take yourself as the owner of the
> truth, and actually you're just proved your side and that's all
> you did. You started this thread, and since the beginning that
> was a thread of a lunatic(YOU). I think the better thing you
> have to do is stop eating cows and animals in general, and start
> to eat your bible, in very little pieces, with salt and sangria
> wine. Jesus says amen

 

[Mr. So & So]

Re: Does anyone know how to fend off a lunatic?

Have a laugh Copeland.

Doing so needs no rationalization and proper defense.

 

[Kirstie]

The Bible isn't tasty

>I think the better thing you
> have to do is stop eating cows and animals in general, and start
> to eat your bible, in very little pieces, with salt and sangria
> wine. Jesus says amen

Why are you dragging the Bible into this? I don't remember Copeland mentioning the Bible/justifying eating meat with the Bible or I would have surely objected to that. I am of the opinion that you shouldn't take the Bible literally like that. Although there are alot of passages involving Jesus and meat, how many people have had a hand in translating the Bible? And how much of their viewpoint is in that and how accurately can certain words be translated between languages? How reliable is it when taken that literally? It's not. This subject is a very personal one to me as I had a minister tell me once that I was sinning by being a vegetarian because of what the Bible said. Now that really pissed me off.

I think we should really look carefully at the Bible. Some things are meant to be taken more literally (i.e. The Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus) than others (Old Testement law)

I don't know how true it is but I've found an interesting web page just on this subject. It atleast brings in a different viewpoint.
The webpage is: http://ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html

Here's a passage from it:

No Unequivocal Biblical Reference to Christ Eating or Buying Meat Consider the verse where it is said that Jesus' disciples "were gone away unto the city to buy meat" (John 4:8). This translation from the King James version has been misunderstood as meaning literally "meat". In fact, the Greek word for "meat" from which the James translation based its choice for this word, simply meant nutrition in the generic sense. Hence, the Revised Standard Version now simply translates this same passage as "his disciples had gone away into the city to
buy food". Regenstein notes that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus depicted as eating meat and "if the Last Supper was a Passover meal -- as many believe -- there is, interestingly, no mention of the traditional lamb dish".

Kirstie




Was Christ a Vegetarian?

 

[Kirstie]

Re: the color red

> Kirstie, you are seriously mental. It seems you'll reply to
> anything in an adorably halfwitted way. You are great!

well you know sometimes I am more in the mood to procrastinate doing something purposeful than others but if I am guilty of replying to anything than surely you have just proved yourself guilty of the same thing. Actually, I think your post was much funnier. And I already know how mental I am so there's no need to remind me!

Kirstie

 

[Pookles]

Re: If the bible tells you so

> Why are you dragging the Bible into this? I don't remember
> Copeland mentioning the Bible/justifying eating meat with the
> Bible or I would have surely objected to that.

Oh he used the bible as his guidebook. But there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

I am of the
> opinion that you shouldn't take the Bible literally like that.
> Although there are alot of passages involving Jesus and meat,
> how many people have had a hand in translating the Bible?

Wait, I know a little of it: Jesus never said the word "meat", but "food". They translated from greek the word "trophe" or "brome' wich means food. Or "phago"wich means "eating". Jesus never said "krea"wich means 'meat". Jesus never mentioned the word meat. And quoting the bible: 'Her son will be named Emanuel. Honey and butter he will eat..."

And
> how much of their viewpoint is in that and how accurately can
> certain words be translated between languages? How reliable is
> it when taken that literally? It's not. This subject is a very
> personal one to me as I had a minister tell me once that I was
> sinning by being a vegetarian because of what the Bible said.
> Now that really pissed me off.
> I think we should really look carefully at the Bible. Some
> things are meant to be taken more literally (i.e. The Ten
> Commandments, the teachings of Jesus) than others (Old Testement
> law)

I love all the old testement. It's a very inspiring and poetic book, but they used to put women as the worst thing on this planet. What do you think about it?

> I don't know how true it is but I've found an interesting web
> page just on this subject. It atleast brings in a different
> viewpoint.
> The webpage is:
> http://ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html Here's a
> passage from it:
> No Unequivocal Biblical Reference to Christ Eating or Buying
> Meat Consider the verse where it is said that Jesus' disciples
> "were gone away unto the city to buy meat" (John 4:8).
> This translation from the King James version has been
> misunderstood as meaning literally "meat". In fact,
> the Greek word for "meat" from which the James
> translation based its choice for this word, simply meant
> nutrition in the generic sense. Hence, the Revised Standard
> Version now simply translates this same passage as "his
> disciples had gone away into the city to
> buy food". Regenstein notes that nowhere in the New
> Testament is Jesus depicted as eating meat and "if the Last
> Supper was a Passover meal -- as many believe -- there is,
> interestingly, no mention of the traditional lamb dish".

> Kirstie