Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;


lol... even in the oldest book it says nothing about cooking food, making bread, or eating meat.

I'm pretty sure after the flood God tells people that it's ok to eat meat. In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen people quote it in debates about meat vs. veg (Christians claim that meat eating is mandated/approved of by God).

I have persoanaly heard 2 people say the option after Noah is actualy a comand and is a sin not to eat animals. I blasted both with powerful letters.

elnatural

Quote

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal….

From The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

If you read the Old Testament, you will find many passages that illustrate every single adjective used in the above description of God.

It is basically a collection of stories from hundreds of different writers over many centuries patched together in order to exert political control over people. I would certainly not try to get any moral or ethical values from the Bible. A rather better place would be science, and the way in which evolution illustrates our close relation to each other. Reason and evidence also shows that our optimal diet is based primarily on raw vegan foods. It is not because an old book says so that it's true, but rather because of an enormous amount of scientific evidence.

Cheers,
J

yay jose! your post is terrific!

Meat eating is definitely not mandated by god. It is allowed but the consequences of meat eating is bad...check out the hallelujah acres people. They are a bunch of christians who would agree. Jesus said divorce was permitted in the old testament because of the stubborness of man's heart then he calls christians to a higher standard. This is evidence of god's permissive will versus his perfect will. His perfect will can be seen as how he originally created us--to be vegan/vegetarian--and how we will all be when the earth is made new. If we ate meat in heaven, then we might conclude that that was god's perfect will. But we won't be. Jesus ate fish once, yet I think for him it would have been worse to refuse it, when it was already dead and offered to him, because he came to change men's hearts before their stomachs. I believe he knew that once men started looking inward and having compassion for other people that they would turn their compassion to the rest of creation as well. Well, it's worked that way for christian vegans like George Malkmus and the hallelujah acres crew and other christians like myself.

I think for the sake of drawing others in to this lifestyle and caring for all creation and not hurting animals, it would be better to not insult and characterize all christians (or anyone other religious groups) as being beyond help in any area. Rather, join in the witness and find ways from their own scripture to reason why they should be a vegan.

As for the old testament, those on the receiving end of god's judgement were evil,evil people who sacrificed their own children and raped, murdered, etc...etc...I don't see how you can condemn god for judging them. God knows everything and he knows when people are beyond repentance. Everyone has a fair chance to repent.

Christian-thinktank.com (I think that's the address, or google it) has some very reasoned explanations of perceived old testament injustices. Check out your hardest critism against what he says. I can't vouch for every word on that site, but it's a good defense.

musicbebe

You are right. When in the wilderness under Moses His people cried for animals when they had plenty of manna. So He sent them animals and slaughtered the glutons with animals in thier mouths. That ties in with Genesis.

I myself had manna about a year ago!

elnatural

musicbebe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meat eating is definitely not mandated by god. It
> is allowed but the consequences of meat eating is
> bad...check out the hallelujah acres people. They
> are a bunch of christians who would agree. Jesus
> said divorce was permitted in the old testament
> because of the stubborness of man's heart then he
> calls christians to a higher standard. This is
> evidence of god's permissive will versus his
> perfect will. His perfect will can be seen as how
> he originally created us--to be
> vegan/vegetarian--and how we will all be when the
> earth is made new. If we ate meat in heaven, then
> we might conclude that that was god's perfect
> will. But we won't be. Jesus ate fish once, yet I
> think for him it would have been worse to refuse
> it, when it was already dead and offered to him,
> because he came to change men's hearts before
> their stomachs. I believe he knew that once men
> started looking inward and having compassion for
> other people that they would turn their compassion
> to the rest of creation as well. Well, it's worked
> that way for christian vegans like George Malkmus
> and the hallelujah acres crew and other christians
> like myself.
>
> I think for the sake of drawing others in to this
> lifestyle and caring for all creation and not
> hurting animals, it would be better to not insult
> and characterize all christians (or anyone other
> religious groups) as being beyond help in any
> area. Rather, join in the witness and find ways
> from their own scripture to reason why they should
> be a vegan.
>
> As for the old testament, those on the receiving
> end of god's judgement were evil,evil people who
> sacrificed their own children and raped, murdered,
> etc...etc...I don't see how you can condemn god
> for judging them. God knows everything and he
> knows when people are beyond repentance. Everyone
> has a fair chance to repent.
>
> Christian-thinktank.com (I think that's the
> address, or google it) has some very reasoned
> explanations of perceived old testament
> injustices. Check out your hardest critism against
> what he says. I can't vouch for every word on that
> site, but it's a good defense.


are you sure George Malkmus is vegan?
pure vegetarian is one thing, but i was pretty sure he was not vegan.

i vaguely remember reading something by him/h. acres about how animal rights was a dangerous belief system since it places animals on the same level as man.

probably more than a decade has passed since i read the article so i don't remember the details.

vegan yes, Raw foodsit no!

el

musicbebe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the old testament, those on the receiving
> end of god's judgement were evil,evil people who
> sacrificed their own children and raped, murdered,
> etc...etc...I don't see how you can condemn god
> for judging them. God knows everything and he
> knows when people are beyond repentance. Everyone
> has a fair chance to repent.

That's rich! You're aware that God actually requested this one fellow to sacrifice his own child, as well as condoning murder & genocide. Would seem mighty hypocritical for him to get all bent out of shape about other people doing it.

And please stop crying foul for people expressing their opinions here. It's a free forum, no one is attacking you or saying Christians are evil. We're just voicing our opinions about a better way to see ourselves in this world & make decisions in our lives.

Quote

Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

If one reads the Old Testament one finds many instances of ritual human and animal sacrifices. It is only by cherry picking from the Bible that one can hope to extract anything positive from it. And who decides what to choose and what to discard? Some "enlightened" individual, ie a high priest or any such charlatan? This religious indoctrination is all about surrendering one's own independence of thought, unfortunately.

Even in Genesis ("the oldest book in the Bible" there is a mock human sacrifice (Abraham and Isaac) and an animal sacrifice (the ram).

Interpret that whichever way you wish but I would argue that even a person of religious convictions would find that if anyone else apart from an imaginary god had forced someone to carry out that mock sacrifice, it would have been morally reprehensible. Since I don't believe in this imaginary god, and therefore my reason is not clouded by his alleged presence in any way, then I can quite simply conclude that this imaginary character is morally reprehensible, as mock human sacrifice and animal sacrifices are clearly not good universal ethical values to partake in.

What happens if someone changes their mind about god in the Old Testament and Torah? Quite simply they are burned alive along with all their possessions. From Moses:

Quote

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

So much for freedom of speech or freedom of association. This illustrates more the attributes of someone who is vindictive, petty, jealous and insecure perhaps.

Of course, the correct way to interpret this is as a transparent political attempt by the powers that authored this book back in 7th century BC to keep control over their flock, punishing any dissent by death, and establishing death penalties for anyone who "defected" to an opposing tribe. Pure tribal politics.

Like I said in my above post, there are many more examples that illustrate every single adjective used to describe god that I quoted.

Cheers,
J

Howdy.

Why can't the veracity of the Bible and the existence of a spiritual power be mutually exclusive?

If I name my dog "Jose," can any inferences be made about you based upon my dog, because you share his name?

-Omega (formerly LTF)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2008 03:03PM by Omega.

Hey ltf, nice to have you back. I think your point is well made, so in the same sense that there is not much that studying your dog can say about me, there is not much that studying the bible (Torah, Koran, etc..) can say about the existence of A spiritual power. What studying the bible (Torah, Koran, etc..) can tell you is a lot about the non-existence of a PARTICULAR spiritual power, the one the bible (Torah, Koran, etc..) keeps alluding to. It can also tell you a lot about the advisability (or lack thereof) of taking the bible (Torah, Koran, etc..) as a moral guide. A thorough reading of the bible (Torah, Koran, etc..) as a whole makes it quite clear that it contains very little in terms of ethical and moral values, unless one starts cherry picking of course. [Even those which most people find a good idea to follow, such as the ten commandments, are not even original, and can be found in earlier religions such as the Book of the Dead in ancient Egyptian mythology. And even the Egyptians weren't the "creators" of these ethical values, since there is plenty of evidence to argue that these ethical/moral values most likely arose from our evolutionary past. There are numerous examples of ethical/moral/altruistic behaviour by animals, especially social animals such as ourselves, in the wild. As a fellow animal lover I am sure you would agree that animals also have a sense of feeling and emotion and wonder, something grossly denied to them in most religions but which evolution essentially confirms.] Numerous passages on human and animal sacrifices, murder, rape, slavery and so on which are condoned and encouraged make it pretty clear that those passages were created with purely political motives in mind, as a method of accruing power by the powers that wrote those books. It is quite transparent to me, and I would hope that after reading a little bit of the history behind when and where and how the bible (Torah, Koran, etc..) was written it would also be clear to even the most ardent religious follower.

So like I said here and other threads, it is the Abrahamic theistic religions which run into many difficulties right from the start, as theistic religions claim the most of any religion, in the sense that their God(s) directly intervenes in the world, thus coming in direct contradiction with the available evidence.

More generally, I am arguing that the best way to acquire knowledge, and this includes "spiritual" knowledge, or what I would refer to as ethical/moral knowledge, is through reason and evidence. Most religions demand you suspend disbelief and surrender critical thought, which I think is not advisable, and history shows how easily people are manipulated in this way.

Cheers,
J

Jose... why do you have such a need to convince others that there is no such thing as God?

Aswell... you are only picking and choosing the things you want to see when it comes to religion. Yes there is murder, rape, and all things degenerative happening in the name of GOD. It has also been done/justified for other things aswell. But incase you did not notice... it is man doing these things, not GOD. There are also those who extend love in every direction they can... and give all things up to God. Mother Theresa and Ghandi are great examples of this. Ghandi took back india from the british without one bullet... see if Dawkins can explain that.

All religion is based around the great mystics, and is not of the mystics. Eventually the corrupt of mankind seeks power, and enters religion. The corrupt always seek places of power, Greed is the God of the Ego. I need only look to big oil, big pharma, and politics to see this. High places in the church also attract these people, I only need to look at the pediophilia happening in the catholic church to see this. But this is not Gods work... this is just mankind. And it is obvious.

To find God I only need to look at the sky at night, or a bird flying in the air. I need only see how the foods that God creates for us provide us the best nourishment... vs the ones we make, which make us sick. The beauty in the sunset... or the love of a mother for her babies. There is no force on earth stronger than a mothers love... many woman have done amazing feats in trying to save thier babies. To not see god in these things... is foolish to say the least. And you know this.... otherwise you wouldnt be trying so hard to preach that there is no God. When I see your posts... I see your doubt in atheism, it is plain as day.

Richard Dawkins trying to explain that there is no God is as foolish as much of the Dogma in the church. But if a person has enough faith, and gives everything over to the higher power... then miracles happen. Regardless of the religion.

Here is the proof of GOD you are seeking. The answer is love. Love is the only force in the whole universe, that will grow when extended. All other forces, have an equal and opposite force. Yell at someone, or punch them and see what force you get back. But extend love.... and you get back more love. Everything that is not love, is fear. Anything involving fear is degenerative and nothing is gained by everythings. Love is generative, where everything wins when it is extended. Apply this to anything you want... it does not fail. And because it does not fail... it is a law, or a force of NATURE/GOD.

If you look at Dawkins work... he will say that love is just a chemical something or other. Not some type of force... typical of the ego, which thinks it has the answer for everything. Like when the world was obviously flat... or that the universe revolved around the earth... or that the tectonic plates didnt shift.

The way it seems to me is that Man was intended to eat "every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed."

During the time of the flood, The earth was covered in water so of course most plants and trees were not obtainable. God/Nature knew that Man needs food to survive so meat consumption was allowed only because it was necessary to live. But as Noah and co. knew, the animals are friends, that is why they were to save a pair of each animal and bring them onboard the ark. After the flood, it was probably hard to get vegetables immediately because they were all drowned. For this reason only, animal consumption was allowed. Once vegetation was plentiful again, this should return to the main source of food once again.
Some of the people got too accustomed to meat consumption (or addicted, rather) that they had difficulty going back to the original way of eating.

So, because of sin, the flood happened. It was just another test of Man from God/Nature. The first test of Man which is called the "Original Sin" involved eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. Eating the fresh fruit awakened Man for him to see that fruits of nature are necessary for life. The flood was just testing to see if Man obtained enough knowledge of the systems of his body to know that vegetation should be the source of nourishment when it's available. Man has his free will to choose what he wants to eat when has the choice between seeds or his friends (the animals).

"That's rich! You're aware that God actually requested this one fellow to sacrifice his own child, as well as condoning murder & genocide. Would seem mighty hypocritical for him to get all bent out of shape about other people doing it."

No, that is an incorrect interpretation of that passage regarding the sacrifice of the child. Judges 11:30-39

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

"My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, BECAUSE I WILL NEVER MARRY." [emphasis mine]

"You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed."

Child Sacrifice was already completely comdemed in the Old Testament. Whatever vow Jephthah made had to be modified when he discovered his daughter. Read into that passage as you like, but it does not exclusively imply that he offered her as a burnt sacrifice.

From www.christian-thinktank.com:

"Most commentators believe that Jephthah literally killed and burned his daughter on an altar somewhere, and that this human sacrifice was condoned by God (since it was a vow thing). It seems to me that this is probably NOT the case--there are just two many incongruities in the text/context for that. Consider:

Literal "burnt offerings" HAD TO BE male (Lev 22.18-19). Jephthah's daughter obviously wasn't.

What did Jeff THINK would come out of a house? Not animals! He must have known that only a human would have come out.

Human sacrifice was STRICTLY forbidden (Dt 12.31) and we have NO record of it being practiced (even in horrible Judges-period Israel) by mainstream Israel during this period.

The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' NOT about 'not living'--it makes me wonder if some kind of religious celibacy is not in view. (Maybe the women at the Entrance to the Tent were celibate--Ex 38.8--living as widows in Israel later did on Temple payrolls.)

Verse 39 calls his action a 'vow'. Lev 27.28 (coupled with 27.21) allowed people to be given over the Lord, who became servants of the Priests. As devoted to the Lord's service, some of them probably did NOT marry (cf. the Nazarite vow, in its restriction on becoming 'unclean' for family members (Num 6.7) omits the words 'husband' or 'wife'...perhaps it was sometimes involving celibacy. The only Nazies we know, though, were married--Samuel and Samson)

As the only child, and if given to the priest in this fashion, Jephthah's entire estate would go to someone else.

We have the VERY parallel case of Hannah and Samuel. She takes a vow, and offers her son to the Lord for all his life. (I Sam 1-2), and such vows did NOT allow the person to be redeemed with money (Lev 27.28-29).

Burnt offerings were ALWAYS associated with condemnation/evil--not thanksgiving and vows. Even the one non-literal use of it in Dt 13.16 (in which a town is offered as a burnt offering) involves abject judgment/condemnation--NOT at all in view in the Jephthah passage.

He would have had to offer her at some cultic site, which would have had a priest. I cannot imagine a priest (even those as lax as elsewhere in the book of Judges) that would have agreed to perform a human sacrifice!

What I have to conclude from this passage is that Jephthah is using 'burnt offering' in a general 'offering' sense, and that he is meaning an 'irredeemable vow' as a thank-offering, along the line of Hannah/Samuel. This is the only way to make sense of all the particulars. (Interestingly, Jephthat is surprisingly literate—his knowledge of biblical history,evidenced in the letter to his adversary, shows that he knows the mosaic history—he WOULD have known how bad a literal human sacrifice would have been.)"


Communitybuilder, you said:

"And please stop crying foul for people expressing their opinions here. It's a free forum, no one is attacking you or saying Christians are evil. We're just voicing our opinions about a better way to see ourselves in this world & make decisions in our lives."

And the same applies to me, my friend. I am just voicing my opinions and defending my faith. Posters are calling the God of the Bible evil--their right... and I defend Him--my right. Some of you have indeed come across harsh or condescending in your posts and I have pointed that out when I notice it--also my right...and yours when you notice others doing the same. Accusing me of "crying foul" is pointless, in my opinion. We are debating and discussing and we all "cry foul" at times. But go ahead and say that I cry foul, if you want, because that is just your opinion...lol... Aye-eye-eye!! My head is spinning...

lol... the apple is a metaphor for knowledge itself you silly silly silly man. When he ate of the tree of knowledge... man finally had knowledge. But where the kingdom of god is, in relation to the man, had to be simplified in a story so people could understand it. Jesus did this many times in his parables.

IE if I eat the fruit of the knowledge tree, I now have knowledge. Where as before I was like an animal and didnt know I was naked, or what the temperature was, or that this food tastes like this where as this other food tastes like that.

The problem with knowledge is that a person can use it to indulge thier emotions and go against thier instincts. IE... now that I KNOW I am naked, how do I respond to this??? I could just roll along and not care. Or I can freak out about it, and indulge in emotions. Ooooo... its so cold out, but no one told the animals about how cold it is... so they just keep on doing what thier instincts tell them.

What about the fat kid who is just boiling hot... but is afraid to take off thier shirt for fear of being ridiculed. A fat dog/pig/cow/donkey/sea otter/ostrich/lobster/mule/billy goat could care less...

This is the tree of knowledge. It is based on preferences that we make, based on our perceptions. Apples are better than oranges... this statement is created from opinion.

So when man kind took part in the tree of knowledge, we left the kingdom. The kingdom of God is a "state of mind". When I use my knowledge, and use perceptions, and use those perceptions to indulge in emotions... I leave the kingdom of heaven.

IE... I am so happy when I eat chocolate cake. I am sad when I have to eat brussle sprouts. I am embarresed and feel guilty when I have to take off my shirt infront of people because I am fat.

I am sorry if you dont understand this... start reading some of the toltec books, a course in miracles, and some of the dr. david hawkins. This stuff is brain tiller.... and will totally redefine you

About Adam and Eve knowing they were naked. They were created with God's glory ccvering them. When they sinned by eating the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil thay lost that covering.

elnatural

lol... they did sin in a sence, but not how you mean

The word sin in recent times means god is punishing you for going against his will. Violating some sort of law, and getting punished. And that a person should be guilty, and feel shame... again indulging in emotions.


The word sin comes from the old greek days, and means "to miss the mark". See... we are always trying to find GOD. Our spirit is always in search of that bliss and love. That contentment... but when we try to fullfill it with stuff outside of ourselves... "we miss the mark". So when a person kills another, rapes another, tortures... destroys, so on and so forth. They are trying to find GOD, but miss the mark. Its when we try to substitute everything outside of us, for what is inherit within.... we sin. Its the same with food... when we fantacise about it... we sin. I am not saying you cannot enjoy your food... but sitting there saying my life would be better if... is missing the mark.

God is not this creator, who just one day created men, then said if you dont do what I want your going to get punished. That sounds more like the act of a man, than a God.

So God didnt get mad when mankind partook in the tree of knowledge, that is just part of the genesis story. What happened is that when adam and eve grasped knowledge, they left the kingdom of GOD. A man cannot live in two houses...

Perhaps genesis isnt accurate enough, but it is still very very good.

Context Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol... even in the oldest book it says nothing
> about cooking food, making bread, or eating meat.

Heh, curious. Have you read the Bible?

There is tons of stuff about bread. Not to mention Jesus killed fish for a living.

I wasnt referring to the bible itself, but rather than the book of genesis within it.

And yes I have read much of the bible... some parts i could never stomach.

lol...and I never heard anywhere that jesus was a fisherman, I know peter was one.

"even in the oldest book"

This refers to the "book" of Genesis?....this is what an introduction* to the book of Genesis says of it:

"...the book is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single original author. Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist, Elohist and Priestly sources, which in turn reflect older oral traditions... To make the truths contained in these chapters intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among the people at that time. For this reason, the truths themselves must be distinguished from the literary garb... While we do not view the account of the patriarchs as history in the strict sense, nevertheless certain of the matters recounted from the time of Abraham onward can be placed in the actual historical and social framework of the Near East in the early part of the second millennium B.C. (2000-1500)..."

*The New American Bible, Saint Joseph edition, 1992

Some think Genesis 1:1 thru 2:4-a (including 1:29) was written in the time of
Isaiah (eigth century B.C.E.)....I think it sounds more like John's gospel, "In the beginning was the word..." In any case it speaks of primeval history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2008 02:08PM by loeve.

":I wasnt referring to the bible itself, but rather than the book of genesis within it."

Got it..thanks!