Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 chaos bunny wrote: > Reading this > makes me want to cry, I almost feel ill. > > I really don't think > > cows are aware of much, but I think they were specifically > > designed to provide milk and meat and cheese and ice cream. > > > By God? No matter what your beliefs, religious or otherwise, the idea > that any > animal was put on Earth for our pleasure and well-being seems > ridiculous. Not > to mention extemely disrespectful. I certainly would not have phrased it that way. However there is an order to our universe and God created that order. Bigger fish eat smaller fish. Whales eat bigger fish. Cats eat mice. Larger animals eat cats. Many animals eat other animals. This is what creates order and balance in the universe. We may be higher life forms than most animals but animals are higher life forms that plants. How is it any more ethical to kill and eat plants than animals? Yes God made mosquitoes and he gave them the taste for human blood. It is all part of the balance of nature. That we get value and nourishment from eating animals and their milk is all part of God's plan and design. Is see no reference to enjoyment but there certainly is no disrespect in stating that God put animals here to feed and nourish us. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 acsnag@... wrote: > I certainly would not have phrased it that way. However there is an > order to our universe and God created that order. Do you have proof of the existence of a God? Hint: The Bible is not proof. Griff -- .... Your daily life is your temple and your religion. - Gibran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Athiests and agnostics are forEVER talking about god. Makes one wonder if their purpose on earth is to keep the discussion alive! <vbg> Gawd bless 'em, anyway. Rant on, y'all. I'm going to find a list that is talking about Asperger's. I feel there is a lot to learn and somewhere there are folks who are discussing AS, a topic that I need to know more about. Tomorrow I meet with a psych assessor who will report on me to an agency that may (or may not) decide to fund me as a disabled person, based partly on a recent assessment as " likely Asperger's " after three-score years of living in a confusion of oddly-angry people. At last I know why! This dx is such a RELIEF! I wish y'all well. I really do. -Zer (as sentient as any other being on earth, I guess; gotta run; bye... and do enjoy your discussion; I'm sure god is enjoying it.) > > I certainly would not have phrased it that way. However there is an order to our universe and God created that order. > > Do you have proof of the existence of a God? Hint: The Bible is not proof. > Griff > -- > ... Your daily life is your temple and your religion. - Gibran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Since you are obviously referring to the " God " of the Bible (the capitalization gives it away), you should also note that eating animals was not part of the original design. Re: Sentient beings > chaos bunny wrote: > > > > Reading this > > makes me want to cry, I almost feel ill. > > > > I really don't think > > > cows are aware of much, but I think they were specifically > > > designed to provide milk and meat and cheese and ice cream. > > > > > By God? No matter what your beliefs, religious or otherwise, the idea > > that any > > animal was put on Earth for our pleasure and well-being seems > > ridiculous. Not > > to mention extemely disrespectful. > > > I certainly would not have phrased it that way. However there is an > order to our universe and God created that order. Bigger fish eat > smaller fish. Whales eat bigger fish. Cats eat mice. Larger animals eat > cats. Many animals eat other animals. This is what creates order and > balance in the universe. We may be higher life forms than most animals > but animals are higher life forms that plants. How is it any more > ethical to kill and eat plants than animals? Yes God made mosquitoes and > he gave them the taste for human blood. It is all part of the balance of > nature. That we get value and nourishment from eating animals and their > milk is all part of God's plan and design. Is see no reference to > enjoyment but there certainly is no disrespect in stating that God put > animals here to feed and nourish us. > > A. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Griff Sanford wrote: > That's not proof. > > Show me empirical, scientific proof. I have no need to do that. Some things are just so powerfully, undeniably real that no proof is needed. If you don't accept that, well, that's your loss. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 acsnag wrote: > Griff Sanford wrote: > > Do you have proof of the existence of a God? > > Hint: The Bible is not proof. > Yes as a matter of fact I do. It is in every plant that > springs up from the earth. It exists in the order of the > universe around us. That proof also resides deep within > my soul. The sun coming up in the East and setting in the > West every day. The fact that sure as night follows day > so follows another day. The beauty of nature, the wonders > of spring. The fact that there is a universe is proof that > there is a God. Well said. I was going to say much the same thing. The Bible isn't proof, but the Universe is. I believe it's allright to state my belief in the existence of God, but I don't feel any need to convince anyone. I won't try to provide " scientific proof " if people just want to argue about it. They can find it, or not, on their own, when they're ready. Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Which is the same Being. Re: Sentient beings > Colin Wessels wrote: > > > Since you are obviously referring to the " God " of the Bible (the > > capitalization gives it away), you should also note that eating animals was > > not part of the original design. > > > As a matter of fact You are dead wrong. I was referring to the God of > creation. An ultimate supreme being who shows up in every culture, in > every society and in every race throughout history and throughout mankind. > > A. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Proof of the existence of 'a God' can never be dependant on 'scientific proof'. God (the Creator of Prophet Adam until the last man and everything known and unknown) has stated that He has created both Heaven and Hell and Choice to believe or disbelieve. It is therefore illogical to imagine that a clear-cut universal (as in the realm of minds) proof exists. If it did, then everyone would be Muslim and Allah would have to dispose of Hell. Rather proof can not be purely scientific, it must and is according to understanding, an understanding which in turn is dependant on Guidance. If this was not the case, then only academics would believe and the less intelligent would be hell fodder but Allah is not unjust. Even outside the issue of theism, intellectuals can not agree on politics, sexuality issues, evolution etc. Many adherents claim to have 'scientific proof' but they can not all be right, so why should we expect to have such clear proofs concerning Heaven and Hell. My Islam came about due to logic (it exists, therefore it was created. If there is a God, then He must have given a set of life laws etc.) It is strenghened by my knowledge of science ect. but ultimately it is grounded on His Guidance. I don't apologise for 'preaching' since atheists never do and the Bible, although containing many proofs, now also has too many errors both scientific and otherwise to convince any sincere person of the true existence of God. (As if the Bible has a monopoly on monotheism anyway). In such a post I can not use such sentiments as 'IMHO' since I (to my knowledge) have not expressed my personal opinion. Also I am a 'believer' not a 'theorist'. This is not arrogance, it is honesty, if I had doubt then I would be hypocrite. Anas Please do not be offended by this post, as for some reason 'religious conviction' tends to scare people, political conviction tends to ruffle people, while indifference tends to appease people. > > > > Do you have proof of the existence of a God? > > > Hint: The Bible is not proof. > > > Yes as a matter of fact I do. It is in every plant that > > springs up from the earth. It exists in the order of the > > universe around us. That proof also resides deep within > > my soul. The sun coming up in the East and setting in the > > West every day. The fact that sure as night follows day > > so follows another day. The beauty of nature, the wonders > > of spring. The fact that there is a universe is proof that > > there is a God. > > Well said. I was going to say much the same thing. The > Bible isn't proof, but the Universe is. I believe it's > allright to state my belief in the existence of God, but > I don't feel any need to convince anyone. I won't try to > provide " scientific proof " if people just want to argue > about it. They can find it, or not, on their own, when > they're ready. > > Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 acsnag@... wrote: > Griff Sanford wrote: > > > > Do you have proof of the existence of a God? Hint: The Bible is not > > proof. > > Yes as a matter of fact I do. It is in every plant that springs up > from the earth. It exists in the order of the universe around us. > That proof also resides deep within my soul. The sun coming up in the > East and setting in the West every day. The fact that sure as night > follows day so follows another day. The beauty of nature, the wonders > of spring. The fact that there is a universe is proof that there is a > God. No, that is not proof that there is a god. That is proof of the existence of a universe. In order for that to prove that there is a god, you first must establish that universes can only exist if a god creates them. You can't prove that. If you ask where the universe came from, if not from a god of some sort, I would ask where a god would have come from. Wherever you believe a god came from... well, maybe that's where the universe came from, sans a god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 acsnag@... wrote: > Colin Wessels wrote: > > > Since you are obviously referring to the " God " of the Bible (the > > capitalization gives it away), you should also note that eating > > animals was not part of the original design. > > > As a matter of fact You are dead wrong. I was referring to the God of > creation. An ultimate supreme being who shows up in every culture, > in every society and in every race throughout history and throughout > mankind. Not true. Many peoples have had, or have currently, polytheistic views of the world, without a singular god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 acsnag@... wrote: > Griff Sanford wrote: > > > >>That's not proof. >> >>Show me empirical, scientific proof. > > > I have no need to do that. Some things are just so powerfully, > undeniably real that no proof is needed. If you don't accept that, well, > that's your loss. I'm glad I don't live in the world you live in. What a horrible place to live - no proof available. *shudder* Griff -- .... Your daily life is your temple and your religion. - Gibran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 How can anyone be offended? You have merely presented your side of an argument that is many faceted. Many have participated in this discussion. Freedom of conscience means that everyone has the right to believe what they want. Colin. (who does not share your POV, merely your right to add it to an already-long discussion) Re: Sentient beings > Proof of the existence of 'a God' can never be dependant on > 'scientific proof'. God (the Creator of Prophet Adam until the last > man and everything known and unknown) has stated that He has created > both Heaven and Hell and Choice to believe or disbelieve. > > It is therefore illogical to imagine that a clear-cut universal (as in > the realm of minds) proof exists. If it did, then everyone would be > Muslim and Allah would have to dispose of Hell. > Rather proof can not be purely scientific, it must and is according to > understanding, an understanding which in turn is dependant on > Guidance. If this was not the case, then only academics would believe > and the less intelligent would be hell fodder but Allah is not unjust. > > Even outside the issue of theism, intellectuals can not agree on > politics, sexuality issues, evolution etc. Many adherents claim to > have 'scientific proof' but they can not all be right, so why should > we expect to have such clear proofs concerning Heaven and Hell. > My Islam came about due to logic (it exists, therefore it was created. > If there is a God, then He must have given a set of life laws etc.) It > is strenghened by my knowledge of science ect. but ultimately it is > grounded on His Guidance. > I don't apologise for 'preaching' since atheists never do and the > Bible, although containing many proofs, now also has too many errors > both scientific and otherwise to convince any sincere person of the > true existence of God. (As if the Bible has a monopoly on monotheism > anyway). > In such a post I can not use such sentiments as 'IMHO' since I (to my > knowledge) have not expressed my personal opinion. Also I am a > 'believer' not a 'theorist'. This is not arrogance, it is honesty, if > I had doubt then I would be hypocrite. > > Anas > Please do not be offended by this post, as for some reason 'religious > conviction' tends to scare people, political conviction tends to > ruffle people, while indifference tends to appease people. > > > > > > > > Do you have proof of the existence of a God? > > > > Hint: The Bible is not proof. > > > > > Yes as a matter of fact I do. It is in every plant that > > > springs up from the earth. It exists in the order of the > > > universe around us. That proof also resides deep within > > > my soul. The sun coming up in the East and setting in the > > > West every day. The fact that sure as night follows day > > > so follows another day. The beauty of nature, the wonders > > > of spring. The fact that there is a universe is proof that > > > there is a God. > > > > Well said. I was going to say much the same thing. The > > Bible isn't proof, but the Universe is. I believe it's > > allright to state my belief in the existence of God, but > > I don't feel any need to convince anyone. I won't try to > > provide " scientific proof " if people just want to argue > > about it. They can find it, or not, on their own, when > > they're ready. > > > > Clay > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 , What we were discussion was The God, not many gods. It is customary to capitalize when referring to The One. Polytheistic views do exist, probably as many as we have people on the planet, since most do not agree on this one. One of the main reasons for those views is that to combine all of those characteristics in one Being is too complex for some to imagine. Colin. Re: Sentient beings > acsnag@... wrote: > > > Colin Wessels wrote: > > > > > Since you are obviously referring to the " God " of the Bible (the > > > capitalization gives it away), you should also note that eating > > > animals was not part of the original design. > > > > > > As a matter of fact You are dead wrong. I was referring to the God of > > creation. An ultimate supreme being who shows up in every culture, > > in every society and in every race throughout history and throughout > > mankind. > > Not true. Many peoples have had, or have currently, polytheistic views > of the world, without a singular god. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Griff Sanford wrote: > I'm glad I don't live in the world you live in. What a horrible place to > live - no proof available. > > I believe the fact that you are writing here in response to what I write is proof that YOU DO live in the very same world as I do. My reality is just that some things just are and are so powerful that the truth simply resides in me and no further proof is required. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 I do not think it is fair to say that pagans are not able to understand a concept as complex as one god. You make them sound stupid or uneducated. I know someone who is Pagan, but she is well educated and certainly capable of understanding complex concepts. > > > Date: 2004/07/06 Tue AM 10:07:33 EDT > To: <AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse > > Subject: Re: Sentient beings > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 I did not comment on anyone's ability. That would be unscientific, unfounded and arrogant. That is not what I said. Read it again carefully. Quoting lilith2004@...: > I do not think it is fair to say that pagans are not able to understand a > concept as complex as one god. You make them sound stupid or uneducated. I > know someone who is Pagan, but she is well educated and certainly capable of > understanding complex concepts. > > > > > > Date: 2004/07/06 Tue AM 10:07:33 EDT > > To: <AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse > > > Subject: Re: Sentient beings > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Colin Wessels wrote: > , > > What we were discussion was The God, not many gods. It is customary > to capitalize when referring to The One. Only if you mean the Judeo-Christian God. The term 'god' without the uppercase 'G' is a descriptive term, not a proper noun. If you had a dog named Dog, you would use the uppercase " D " if you used the term as a proper noun, or with a lowercase " d " is you were referring to " a " dog. The Christian god, named God, is not the only monotheistic god in existence. Allah is also a god, but not God, per se, as God is the god of the Christians and Jews. > Polytheistic views do exist, probably as many as we have people on > the planet, since most do not agree on this one. One of the main > reasons for those views is that to combine all of those > characteristics in one Being is too complex for some to imagine. The reason I mentioned this was that someone else had said that something to the effect that there was one god in all religions (and I use the lower-case 'g' because all gods are not God). I don't go in for capitalizing any of the pronouns that refer to the Christian God. I won't write " He " when referring to him. That would not be in accordance with English syntax. Typically, that usage is used to show reverence, and I have none. However, I do capitalize God when referring specifically to the Judeo-Christian god, since that is his name (as far as the English version of the Bible is concerned). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > Allah is also a god, but not God, per se, as God is the god > of the Christians and Jews. Actually Allah is the Arabic word for " God. " Arabic-speaking Christians use the word " Allah " too. And " God " (capital G) is a term I hear used for the monotheistic god of many religions, including some decidedly non-Judeo-Christian ones. So while many religions will use the word " God " for that religion's particular monotheistic god, it's not restricted to two religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 alfamanda wrote: > Actually Allah is the Arabic word for " God. " Arabic-speaking > Christians use the word " Allah " too. And " God " (capital G) is a term > I hear used for the monotheistic god of many religions, including > some decidedly non-Judeo-Christian ones. So while many religions > will use the word " God " for that religion's particular monotheistic > god, it's not restricted to two religions. Interesting. I did not realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 acsnag@... wrote: > Griff Sanford wrote: > > > >>I'm glad I don't live in the world you live in. What a horrible place to >>live - no proof available. >> > I believe the fact that you are writing here in response to what I write > is proof that YOU DO live in the very same world as I do. > > My reality is just that some things just are and are so powerful that > the truth simply resides in me and no further proof is required. And that reality is the one that leads to believing in a flat earth and an earth-centered universe, among other huge fallacies. Thanks but no thanks. I wouldn't live in that kind of world if you paid me. Griff -- .... The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > And that reality is the one that leads to believing in a flat earth > and an earth-centered universe, among other huge fallacies. > Thanks but no thanks. I wouldn't live in that kind of world if you > paid me. The problem I have with this kind of discussion is that people are coming at it from completely different worldviews using completely different systems of thinking. While I *have* definite beliefs on some of these matters, I don't generally try to elucidate or prove them, because I know that, among other reasons, the worldview I am coming from is not shared by others. There is no way of definitively proving or disproving solipsism, God, atheism, polytheism, etc, to others. Especially from within the system people are trying to prove these things about, and especially from several people who are effectively speaking different mental languages. Eventually people have to take *some* things (even most atheists I know tend to believe or act as if they believe that other people and objects exist, for instance) on faith, and past that point the success of any argument depends largely on what things the different people *are* taking on faith. (Which gets especially hairy when someone eventually decides that they *don't* take anything on faith, but who tends to take their *way of reasoning about things* on faith at some level or another, since there are always alternate explanations for why that way works than the reason they think it works.) So I'm not entirely sure this kind of discussion has a point, unless people are all willing to come at it from at least *vaguely* the same mental " language " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 chaos bunny wrote: > > I really don't think cows are aware of much, but I > > think they were specifically designed to provide milk > > and meat and cheese and ice cream. > By God? No matter what your beliefs, religious or otherwise, > the idea that any animal was put on Earth for our pleasure > and well-being seems ridiculous. Not to mention extremely > disrespectful. > Except for the part about God, I agree. My problem with > the statement I was originally replying to, was that it > implied that the *only* reason cows are here, is to feed > us. That they do not have any other purpose. Quite right. They also provide leather for shoes and belts and wallets and purses and furniture, etc. And at least one other important thing, fertilizer. Long ago, when the earth was young, Cattle enriched it with their dung. And covered the wasted land with waste, That wonderful, life-giving, brown-colored paste. So let's give thanks before we sit, And thank the cow for her gift of shit. It's a fact of life that everything that lives, is food for something else. All part of the Grand Design. Can't have carcasses lying about. Clay For further information on what animals are fit for mankind to eat, check Leviticus, Chapter 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Only as a concession. Re: Sentient beings > chaos bunny wrote: > > > > I really don't think cows are aware of much, but I > > > think they were specifically designed to provide milk > > > and meat and cheese and ice cream. > > > By God? No matter what your beliefs, religious or otherwise, > > the idea that any animal was put on Earth for our pleasure > > and well-being seems ridiculous. Not to mention extremely > > disrespectful. > > > Except for the part about God, I agree. My problem with > > the statement I was originally replying to, was that it > > implied that the *only* reason cows are here, is to feed > > us. That they do not have any other purpose. > > Quite right. They also provide leather for shoes and belts > and wallets and purses and furniture, etc. And at least one > other important thing, fertilizer. > > Long ago, when the earth was young, > Cattle enriched it with their dung. > And covered the wasted land with waste, > That wonderful, life-giving, brown-colored paste. > So let's give thanks before we sit, > And thank the cow for her gift of shit. > > It's a fact of life that everything that lives, > is food for something else. All part of the > Grand Design. Can't have carcasses lying about. > > Clay > > For further information on what animals are fit for > mankind to eat, check Leviticus, Chapter 11. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.