Originally posted by twhiteheadI think he is sincere. But I don't quite get why, in return for me assuming that he is posting in good faith, he doesn't assume that I am doing so too. In a sense, I have not sensed this degree of inchoate anger nor quite this type of incoherence-generating insecurity on this forum before. Plenty of anger and insecurity here, yes. But vishvahetu seems to me to be creating a new paradigm.
He thinks you are lying and thus he has not misused the word.
Originally posted by souvereinWe should draw the line at necessity, not habit
....I wonder what your point is....
Kill animals as much as you like? Or should we develop some ethical standards. Should we try to minimize the killing of living beings who have an awareness of suffering? Where should we draw the line?
-Removed-The Bible is not authorized, it never was and never will be.
The compilers of the Bible were meat eaters, and so they dishonestly removed any verses informing the people to refrain from the sinful act of killing.
Any verses that support killing, have been fabricated by fools and rascals, and now anyone who subscribes to this false knowledge will be living with error.
1 edit
Originally posted by souvereinThere are those who clearly defend their animal slaughter.
(Animal) cruelty is abject. I don't think anyone denies that.
But what is cruel? We cannot be cruel to a stone; neither to a microbe. To a mosquito?
Cruelty has to do with provoking unnecessary suffering. That implies that the victim must have an awareness of pain and fear. The greater this awareness the more suffering is involved and the more careful we should act.
Animal slaughter clearly causes suffering to the animals.
I say they are clearly causing suffering to animals.
They say animal slaughter is acceptable according to their beliefs.
Then that clearly means animal suffering is acceptable to them.
I say then causing suffering to animals is clearly wrong.
They say it is not wrong.
I say if you say it is not wrong, then you are being dishonest.
They say I should not call them dishonest.
Then I say to them I will not call them dishonest...... if they admit that animal slaughter is causing suffering to animals.
They will not admit this.
And now I am being called insulting, for exposing their dishonesty.
Originally posted by vishvahetuBefore the flood Genesis 1:29. After the flood Genesis 9:3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;........ Isaiah 7:14,15. I am sure that Immanuel did honor God in all of the law and the prophets. Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not (do murder) kill. I hope you remember Srimad Bhagavatam 7.14.9 if then when you get a parasitical infestation or perhaps find a that you have a infestation of mice, flies, ect. The Deuteronomy 30:19 verse is used out of context? "Red Indian Chief"? Perhaps you mean Red Cloud? Isaiah 1:11-15, Hosea 6:6, Numbers 11:18-20. Used out of context?
"Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind."
Albert Einstein
"There is just no reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet when there are so many substitutes. Man can live without meat."
The Dalai Lama
"If man wants freedom why k ...[text shortened]...
"It is s...
Originally posted by gambit3You quote the Bible, but the Bible will misdirect you for it has been fabricated.
Before the flood Genesis 1:29. After the flood Genesis 9:3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;........ Isaiah 7:14,15. I am sure that Immanuel did honor God in all of the law and the prophets. Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not (do murder) kill. I hope you remember Srimad Bhagavatam 7.14.9 if then when you get a parasitical infestation or perhaps ...[text shortened]... Perhaps you mean Red Cloud? Isaiah 1:11-15, Hosea 6:6, Numbers 11:18-20. Used out of context?
There is no use pulling out quotes to support animal slaughter, because these quotes have been fabricated by dishonest persons.