|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2004 : 19:59:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You and ivan both cite quotes that support you doing what you want to do anyway: eat meat. Then you proceed to say that OTHERS (others, certainly not YOU) interpret the Bible to suit their own agenda.
Ok...well...did you not read anything I wrote? As hippy wrote, the bible clearly is pro-meat. I have provided several in-context quotes, as well as many examples where animals were commanded to be killed (ie, sacrafices etc) to demonstrate that God has not intended for us to be vegans. On the contrary, the site that was provided, as well as any other biblical quotes that have been brought forth so far to argue that the Bible is pro-vegetarian have all been out of context or completely irrelevant (ie, the supposed "promised land barbeque"). I didn't write the rubuttle for that website for no reason! There is a definite difference between interpreting and misinterpreting something, and so far pro-vegetarian arguments have done nothing but misinterpret the Bible.
If you want to continue to stick up and claim that (paraphrase) "of couse ivan and hippy are right and everyone else is wrong" in such a sarcastic and derogatory manner, then I challenge you to cite hard evidence from the Bible in context that is pro-vegetarian. Once such evidence is brought forth, then I will have no reason to believe my viewpoint is correct--but until now, the only pro-veg Bible quotes that have been brought forth were about as absurd as they were agenda-driven. Whereas, my agenda is to discover what the Bible teaches, their agenda is to warp what is written to match their own ideas.
Are we clear? I hope I don't come across too disgruntled, but sometimes I get frustrated when people deliberately ignore things I've already stated.
quote:
I'm actually beginning to find this funny.
I agree! Biblically-backed pro-veg arguments are funny.
quote:
If Christians only knew how their adherence to a 5,000 year old book of fables actually drove away potential converts like me, rather than drawing them closer...
Oh gosh golly! A "potential convert"! Convert to what exactly? |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 20:23:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I think it's ridiculous, but then again, I've been surrounded by images since I was young, so I can't have an unbiased opinion. My point is, I do not interpret the Bible according to my own desires.
I hope you'll stop treating me like a stereo-type and really listen to me.
Hippy
You are starting to scare me now. Please promise me you will never, ever try to enforce OT-laws on other people. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 05:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Ivan, I'm gonna be blunt with you.
I don't give a royal shit what the Bible says about anything. The Bible is, to me, an archaic, contradictory, tedious book of fables and stories.
I offered you an interpetation of the Bible that disagrees with yours. You mocked it. You didn't just claim that you disagreed with it; you mocked it AND you claimed it was 'incorrect'. As Dr. Phil would say, who handed you the truth scrolls? Did Jesus tap you on the shoulder 5,000 years ago and whisper, "Dude, it's okay to eat meat. When the animals freak and panic before they're slaughtered, just ignore it. And when your cholesterol goes up, just keep eating meat. It's okay...you'll get to heaven faster that way."?
I have no problem with people saying, "This is what I believe the Bible teaches us" or "My faith tells me this is how I should live my life." I think that is a reasonable way to live--not one I agree with, but still within the realm of reason.
It is NOT, however, reasonable to claim that YOU have the correct interpretation of the Bible and others who disagree have an INCORRECT interpretaion. That to me is self-serving, righteous, and annoying.
Hippy, I don't know what to say to someone who thinks that Jesus wants him to cut the heads of chickens, but that watching TV is immoral. That's just so out of the realm of normal, reasonable thinking that I just can't respond to it. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 08:22:41 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
For instance, I recently came under the conviction that we aren't supposed to keep images of people, animals, and heavenly bodies, in accordance with the Second Commandment. That means no pictures of family, no television, no movies. The only video games I play now are ones that use machines instead of people. I think it's ridiculous...
So do I.
The second Commandment seems clearly targeted at golden calves, not at photos of aunt Sophie, the Discovery Channel, Donkey Kong, or Fantasia. Surely there's a vast difference between keeping a photo album for purposes of nostalgia and remembrance, and keeping a photo album for purposes of worship and idolatry?
If, as you've said, sinning is about intent more than actions, then you should be looking at your own intentions for hanging a painting or watching TV, and not just ban them all from your home outright. Right? "Entertainment" does not equal "worship"; the intentions implied by the two actions are completely different. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 12:10:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If, as you've said, sinning is about intent more than actions, then you should be looking at your own intentions for hanging a painting or watching TV, and not just ban them all from your home outright. Right? "Entertainment" does not equal "worship"; the intentions implied by the two actions are completely different.
That's one of the things that freaks me out about Fundies(tm). They are so hyped on the "word of God" that they fail to realize that focusing on the letter of the law defeats the spirit of the law.
It get's even worse, because almost none of them knows enough Hebrew to decide if the English translations are "true" to the intent.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 21:13:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ivan, I'm gonna be blunt with you.
Good!
quote:
I don't give a royal shit what the Bible says about anything. The Bible is, to me, an archaic, contradictory, tedious book of fables and stories.
That's nice.
quote:
I offered you an interpetation of the Bible that disagrees with yours.
You still haven't read what I said eh? Your "interpretation" didn't disagree with my "interpretation", it simply disagreed with what the Bible itself says.
quote:
You mocked it.
Well, frankly, after you ignored everything I wrote prior to my previous post it was hard for me to take you seriously.
quote:
As Dr. Phil would say, who handed you the truth scrolls?
Well, he's the man!
quote:
Did Jesus tap you on the shoulder 5,000 years ago and whisper, "Dude, it's okay to eat meat.
When did I say that? (provide the quote please)
quote:
It's okay...you'll get to heaven faster that way."?
Uh...ok...another one of your biblical "interpretations" eh? I think we'll need a new thread for this one though.
quote:
I have no problem with people saying, "This is what I believe the Bible teaches us" or "My faith tells me this is how I should live my life."
Well, that would be nice, but sadly we're not looking for what we believe it says, but instead for what it does say. And that's where vegans have no biblical support.
quote:
I think that is a reasonable way to live--not one I agree with, but still within the realm of reason.
And that again is where you've misunderstood me. Right from the beginning I've said that I have no problem with vegans! It's just that their lifestyle choices are not biblically supported...but there is nothing in the Bible that says you can't be vegan, so there is nothing wrong with going down that path.
quote:
It is NOT, however, reasonable to claim that YOU have the correct interpretation of the Bible and others who disagree have an INCORRECT interpretaion.
Please read my posts! Obviously you haven't!
quote:
That to me is self-serving, righteous, and annoying.
Well, so far, you have written almost nothing productive in this thread, you have been very condescending towards anyone who disagrees with you, you have continued to post unsupported claims, and have replyed to my posts making assertions that I have fully refuted over and over again....
...so what were you saying?
All in all Ranae, I really have nothing against you--I just find it very frustrating that you continue to plaster me with "holier-than-thou" insults, when I have simply been able to support my beliefs with in-context quotes from the Bible while the opposition has not. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2004 : 23:46:03 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich, in all fairness, unless you are aware of the intent of the original authors of the Bible (all of them, even those whose books are typically excluded as apocryphal), then what you believe it says is, indeed, an interpretation of what it says. Renae appears to be pointing out the difficulty with claiming that you are not interpreting the Bible in any way. In other words, that your beliefs about what the Bible says are any more or less correct than those expressed in the web site she cited seems to require more knowledge than just reading the words in an English translation of the Bible by someone other than yourself.
In my opinion, that's the disconnect here that's causing both you and her to become more and more "uppity" at one another. She doesn't appear to be making this point well enough for you to see it.
Hopefully, I've just helped matters. If my point gets missed, you'll both be pissed at me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2004 : 07:04:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PruplePanther
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PruplePanther
The biggest misconception about the bible is that it is worth anything beyond its value as crude history.
Ditch it. Dump it. File it. Throw it away. Bury it. Do anything except read it, study it, value it, teach it, argue about it, or worship it...ascribing to it mystical properties.
Except for its historical value, the bible is junk. Dangerous junk. Deadly junk. The stuff from which wars are born. Better that the bible should be erradicated than that it should continue to be studied.
Your opinion is duely noted.
I still see value in the study I put into it as it allows me to see where the zealots misinterpret, quote out of context, and ignore refuting sections to fit their agendas. It has value in teaching a moral code through parables to the faithful of the document. In that regard, it is just as valuable as any religious text. One of a moral code worth emulating, even if the dogma of the religion goes counter to the text.
The dogma causes the wars, the text doesn't. Likewise, destroying the mistakes of the past tends to condemn the future to repeat those mistakes.
[/quote]Bible is very very dangerous. Newest part is 2000years old. As far as i know, newest part of newest religion...except for Mormon...is 1500years old. Time to scrapt them all. Maybe furshur is right in his new thread...it's time to rewrite the Bible. CONDENSE it into a page or two. Send the rest to the ancient archaic history section of some very dusty library.
Argue is too dangerous. The "fundies" as they are called here are ready but not able to kill the rest of us. Just the same as the old time Muslims did 1200years ago. Do you REALLY want that kind of mentaltiy, Valiant? If so then you must be very very valorous. Arguing about Bible just stirs up more and more vindective. More and more hatred. Bad. Better to scrapit. i stand by my comment, Valiant Moderator. 
[/quote]
The newest parts of the Bible are about 700 years old. It has been edited throughout it's history.
I have noticed that literacy rates and religious extremism rates have a negative correlation. That is, the more people are able to read (and therefore able to refute the rantings of extremists), the fewer extremists one sees.
Quite frankly, political movements have murdered and oppressed far more people than religion ever did. And wherever politics and religion combined, trouble was soon to follow.
Again, destroying history condemns future generations to repeat the folly of the past. I still see value in such a document.
I acknowledge and respect your position, I just don't agree with it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2004 : 07:05:19 [Permalink]
|
Ivan, I'm uppity because it seems you are deliberatly missing my point.
Unless you were standing next to Jesus while a Biblical scribe was transcribing his words, you don't know what Jesus said. Unless you followed the Bible through its many translations, edits, and revisions, you don't know what was lost, misunderstood, misquoted, or deliberatley changed to suit the prevailing bias, belief, or whatever else.
You have an interpretation of the Bible, which you sited with quotes. I offered you an opposing view, also with quotes, which I neither agree nor disagree with. It's simply another view--one which I suspect those vegetarians believe as strongly as you believe yours.
Rather than saying, 'Renae, that's not what I believe the Bible says or what Jesus meant,' or 'My church teaches this instead, and I believe them and here's why,' you claim that your verision is correct and the other is incorrect. Only facts are correct or incorrect. Opinions can be backed up, explained, etc. but remain opinions.
What I am really arguing against is the certainty that any viewpoint is "correct", because it's that kind of thinking that leads to intolerance. This is my particular axe to grind.
Now I'm going to lay the axe down for a bit and get showered. I have to work for a living, unfortuantely...although maybe I could hook up with one of C88's relatives and let him lead me through life. Then maybe I wouldn't have to work.... |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2004 : 09:37:42 [Permalink]
|
Alrighty...I've read through what both you (Ranae) and Dave W. have written and I think I see where I was making an assumption that you apparantly were not (and that is where the conflict has come from).
quote:
ivanisavich, in all fairness, unless you are aware of the intent of the original authors of the Bible (all of them, even those whose books are typically excluded as apocryphal), then what you believe it says is, indeed, an interpretation of what it says.
Ok ok...now I understand where you both are coming from (which clears up why my point was not coming across). If you want to consider the fact that the Bible may have changed through translation and copying error as well as copying edits, then yes what I think is an interpretation (as is the translation I am citing from). But, if we simply look at the translations we have today and what they say, than no, what I say is not an interpretation--it is simply what our versions of the Bible clearly say.
Sadly though, all we have are the translations that are around today, and since we are simply discussing what they say then my statements remain.
quote:
Renae appears to be pointing out the difficulty with claiming that you are not interpreting the Bible in any way. In other words, that your beliefs about what the Bible says are any more or less correct than those expressed in the web site she cited seems to require more knowledge than just reading the words in an English translation of the Bible by someone other than yourself.
It does, if I would have claimed to know exactly what the original authors wrote word-for-word. But, I did not. I simply stated that according to the NIV (as well as any other 21st century translation) the Bible is clearly pro-meat.
quote:
In my opinion, that's the disconnect here that's causing both you and her to become more and more "uppity" at one another. She doesn't appear to be making this point well enough for you to see it.
Thanks again Dave...hopefully this argument will be cleared up now.
quote:
Hopefully, I've just helped matters. If my point gets missed, you'll both be pissed at me.
Yep...I think I understand what you both mean by defining what I've said as an "interpretation". I hope Ranae will be pleased .
quote:
Ivan, I'm uppity because it seems you are deliberatly missing my point.
Well, it certainly wasn't a deliberate miss, I just overlooked the fact that you might be taking into consideration the fact that the Bible may have changed over time through translation etc, so anything I quote from the Bible nowadays will be an interpretation.
quote:
Unless you followed the Bible through its many translations, edits, and revisions, you don't know what was lost, misunderstood, misquoted, or deliberatley changed to suit the prevailing bias, belief, or whatever else.
No I haven't. But because the site you provided was giving quotes from the same version of the Bible I have, and our arguments hinge on what the Bible of today says, I overlooked the fact that you were taking past translational and copying errors into consideration.
So maybe this statement will help: I have absolutely no idea what the original texts said, but the translations of the Bible we have today clearly point out that the Bible is pro-meat.
quote:
You have an interpretation of the Bible, which you sited with quotes. I offered you an opposing view, also with quotes, which I neither agree nor disagree with. It's simply another view--one which I suspect those vegetarians believe as strongly as you believe yours.
Ok, back to the original argument. I can understand that vegans may "agree" with the quotes, but that does not stop them from being out of context. As I have pointed out several times, you can "interpret" the fact that God was angry with the Israelites for intermarrying with the people of Canaan as God really just being angry with them for eating meat all you want--but that doesn't change the fact that God was simply angry at them for intermarrying! So yes, their ideas are "interpretations", but they are incorrect interpretations! Of course anyone can "interpret" the Bible to say anything, but many "interpretations" will still be incorrect.
quote:
Rather than saying, 'Renae, that's not what I believe the Bible says or what Jesus meant,' or 'My church teaches this instead, and I believe them and here's why,' you claim that your verision is correct and the other is incorrect.
Again, this has nothing to do with my version...it is simply what the Bible teaches! I have provided proof for my argument, and easily refuted arguments from the vegan website. At this point all evidence points to the idea that the Bible is pro-meat. Please don't think that I am close-minded and will not accept the possibility that the Bible is pro-vegan, because if you can provide me with in-context quotes from the Bible that cleary present a pro-vegan case, I would be glad to change my view! But so far you have failed to do so.
quote:
Only facts are correct or incorrect. Opinions can be backed up, explained, etc. but remain opinions.
And when arguing whether or not our translation of the Bible says such and such for the sake of proving whether or not our translation of the Bible says such and such, we must assume that it contains facts in order to come to any conclusions...if we don't...then heck, I might as well argue that the entire purpose of the Bible is to lead people to cannibalism. It's just an opinion right? So it can't be incorrect!
...Yet, of course it can.
quote:
What I am really arguing against is the certainty that any viewpoint is "correct", because it's that kind of thinking that leads to intolerance. This is my particular axe to grind.
And there are many thing |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2004 : 18:35:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Now I'm going to lay the axe down for a bit and get showered. I have to work for a living, unfortuantely...although maybe I could hook up with one of C88's relatives and let him lead me through life. Then maybe I wouldn't have to work....
Aren't you afraid you'd be chained to the kitchen cooking food and giving birth?    |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/19/2004 18:36:51 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 06:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Dr. M, aren't we all chained to something? At work, I'm chained to a desk and a computer and endless meetings. At least I get paid to be chained at work.
Next time I feel the urge to discuss the Bible, I'll walk over to the wall and bang my head instead. Or, perhaps I'll make sculptures with lint from my clothes dryer. Either of those would be more productive and satisfying. *sigh* |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 16:29:09 [Permalink]
|
Renae:
Let me ask you something: by what moral standard do you live? By what right do you say that your standard is any better than mine? Do you simply say that we all have to listen to our own consience? What if my consience tells me something different from your consience? How can you say that everyone should follow their consience, and then tell anyone that they're doing something wrong? Do you believe in Right and Wrong? If so, how do you know what it is? What if one person's consience tells him to steal, and another person's says it's wrong? If your only moral code is your own consience, then you have no right to tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong. But you and I both know that there are things that are Wrong. Murder is wrong, and if someone claims that there is no Right or Wrong and goes on a killing spree, we'd call them insane.
Oh, by the way, if you don't care about the Bible, then you have no business on this thread. Even if you hate the Bible, but want to discuss it, you're welcome. But take your philosophy somewhere else.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 18:33:51 [Permalink]
|
Sorry if my philosophy and reason intruded on your Biblical dogma, Hippy.
My moral standards are, at least, in keeping with the millennium and not chained to a 5,000 year old book of stories. They come from a variety of sources and even include some traditionally Christian ways of thinking.
Unless you're a moderator, I think it's rude to tell people not to post on a certain thread. I would think the Bible would say something about good manners, somewhere. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 22:24:59 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Oh, by the way, if you don't care about the Bible, then you have no business on this thread.
As a moderator, I can tell you, Hippy, that any feelings you had of "ownership" of this thread really should have been dashed at least a few pages ago, back when I gave up on trying to keep this train on its tracks. It's been derailed so many times, it resembles a herd of mopeds all going in different directions more than it does a nice, slick diesel-electric going from point A to B. The only reason it hasn't been put out of its misery is that new and interesting hijacks keep coming up. Such as:quote:
...But you and I both know that there are things that are Wrong. Murder is wrong, and if someone claims that there is no Right or Wrong and goes on a killing spree, we'd call them insane.
There is no "absolute morality," Hippy. I'm sure both you and I can think up cases in which murder could be justified for the greater good, and not just cases with a clear "self defense" aspect to them, which might justify a killing in a Biblical sense. Given that, there's a false dilemma in what you've said, since there is a vast grey area between "not killing" and "killing because I feel like it and believe there is no right and wrong." A person who's made a long-thought decision that they've been forced into committing murder as the only solution to their problems will undoubtedly know that there is a Right and Wrong, and consider murder to be repugnant, but necessary.
Oh, and Renae wrote:quote:
Sorry if my philosophy and reason intruded on your Biblical dogma, Hippy.
Such sarcasm hasn't gotten you very far in this thread to date, has it?
Let's all try to take a step back, please. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
