Intelligence, Atheism, and Vegetarianism

Letha.. · **Joined:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:07 pm **Posts:** 1062

Mrs. Doodlepunk wrote:

Gramma Jackie wrote:

Remember, you wanted a special place all your own to post. So did some of the rest of us. I have no intention whatsoever of coming over on the Christian thread and I am really wondering why you are commenting on the atheism thread. It's not that you are not welcome, as I am sure Letha who started this thread would agree, but I still wonder why you are here? This is a thread primarily for non-Christians.

I don't recall asking for a special place to post. Or is there someone else you are referring to as "you"? Do you mean the rest of us pesky, annoying Christians?

I'm here because I saw a question directed at Christians. I didn't know that the Christians and athiests were supposed to stay apart! I won't make the mistake again. Thank you for correcting me! :lol:

I’m not an atheist either. I’m an agnostic and I plan to keep posting in this thread.
Letha

Gramma Jackie · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:28 am

f1jim wrote:

Hey
Let's all have a good fight over religion! Watcha think? It would be a great time for everyone to focus on diet and let the petty arguing go.
Everyone!
f1jim

Jim,

I sure hope you wrote the same thing on the Christian thread.

They wanted to have their own place and you gave it to them. I respect that and have never gone over to the Christian thread to post.

However, they have come over to the atheist /secular thread to post. Should we not respond on this thread that was meant for secularists?

If the purpose of the threads is to receive inspiration and encouragment from like-minded individuals, then why can't people just go to those threads where they can recieve that inspiration rather than to other threads where they disagree.

I know, as do other non-religious people, that we are in the minority on most diet message boards and we know that the majority usually gets their way. That makes us rather defensive. But if this is not a specifically Christian board, then it stands to reason that non-Christians (religious or not) should have a space also. The only other reasonable solution would be to ban all religious discussion which of course is yours and Dr. McDougall's decision.

dlb · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:39 am

I agree with Jim. Dr. McDougall kindly gives us this forum for free and I would not want to abuse his hospitality. To discuss spritiual beliefs that help us McDougall is one thing. To get completely away from McDougalling is another.

If anyone would like to pm me to continue this discussion privately, please do so.

Donna

Letha.. · **Joined:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:07 pm **Posts:** 1062

dlb wrote:

If anyone would like to pm me to continue this discussion privately, please do so.

Donna

OK

Lilliane · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:23 pm

OK, I am going to jump in here, not to argue, but just to answer some questions posed above. Nope, it really does not have anything much to do with McDougalling, but I am going to answer anyway

Letha,
The Great Flood happened very early in Bible History, many hundreds of years before the Exodus, which was when the ceremonial, civil and religous laws were given to the Israelites.

It would take more time than I have to address all the texts you gave. I would just observe that there are many different times in history, personal situations, culture and contexts mentioned in this list. Without context and history one does not really understand the full meaning of what is written there. The women in Revelation are mentioned in a prophetic sense and are not literal at all, they are symbolic. A pure woman represents a pure church and the harlot represents an apostate church.

Mrs Doodlepunk:
I too believe the laws are separated into moral, civil, and ceremonial,. God gave the moral law, the 10 Commandments on Sinai, amid thunder and lightning. He wrote it with His own finger on tablets of stone, not
just once but twice and placed inside the ark of the covenant, which was very sacred. These are the laws Jesus said were summed up in these two, To love the Lord with all ones heart, mind and soul, and then one's neighbor as oneself. These are the laws which God has promised He will write on our hearts.
The ceremonial laws were given by God to Moses, and written by Moses, in some sort of book and placed beside the ark. Those laws were to remind people of the remedy for sin, the coming sacrifice of Jesus so that all could have salvation. Each item in the sanctuary had great significance, as did everything else, from the animal sacrifices to the clothing of the high priest and more, And it was all a copy of the Sanctuary in Heaven according to Hebrews. Then the civil laws were given to govern their behavior toward each other. There is no text that spells it out just like this, but it is the only thing that makes sense. The ceremonial laws, pointing to the sacrifice and death of Jesus are the laws that were done away with or canceled, because they had been fulfilled. At the same time as Jesus died, the curtain dividing the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the Sanctuary was torn in half from top to bottom by an unseen hand, signifying to those with understanding that this system of sacrifices was at an end.
Civil laws change as civilizations change, but God's great moral law stands forever.

I did not give texts for all of this, as I am somewhat in a hurry and have much I need to get done today. If anyone wants a text for a specific idea, I will try to oblige.

I firmly believe God is love, and He gave His laws out of love for His people-all of whom are predestined for salvation if they will only accept it. : )

petero · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:48 am

Letha.. wrote:

I’m curious about the reasoning of vegetarian Christians because even though I’m not a Christian, for the sake of our planet I very much want to encourage and support Christians who choose to avoid eating animal products.
Letha[/size]

Maybe it is because in the first creation myth, the one with Yahweh not Elohim (yes, there are two creation myths and two apparent deities in the bible; this is evident in the Revised Standard Version, which is a closer translation of the original texts than the King James version), Yahweh gives his people all of the seeds and plants of the earth to eat, but does give them animals?

In that case, the fact that animal foods cause disease is just a form of Yahweh's revenge, I suppose.

Just a thought,
Peter

petero · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:52 am

Letha.. wrote:

What is the Trinity?
Letha[/size]

McDougall, Esselstyn, and Fuhrman.

Clary · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:15 am

petero wrote:

Letha.. wrote:

What is the Trinity?
Letha[/size]

McDougall, Esselstyn, and Fuhrman.

Destined to become a CLASSIC McDougall Board post !

Gramma Jackie · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:52 am

[quote="petero

In that case, the fact that animal foods cause disease is just a form of Yahweh's revenge, I suppose.

Just a thought,
Peter[/quote]

Peter,

I've heard of Montezuma's revenge if you ate bad Mexican food, but never heard of Yahweh's revenge. That made me laugh! :lol:

Letha.. · **Joined:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:07 pm **Posts:** 1062

petero wrote:

Letha.. wrote:

What is the Trinity?
Letha

McDougall, Esselstyn, and Fuhrman.

Letha.. · **Joined:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:07 pm **Posts:** 1062

petero wrote:

Letha.. wrote:

I’m curious about the reasoning of vegetarian Christians because even though I’m not a Christian, for the sake of our planet I very much want to encourage and support Christians who choose to avoid eating animal products.
Letha

Maybe it is because in the first creation myth, the one with Yahweh not Elohim (yes, there are two creation myths and two apparent deities in the bible; this is evident in the Revised Standard Version, which is a closer translation of the original texts than the King James version), Yahweh gives his people all of the seeds and plants of the earth to eat, but does give them animals?

In that case, the fact that animal foods cause disease is just a form of Yahweh's revenge, I suppose.

Just a thought,
Peter

That’s interesting Peter. I thought Elohim was just a substitute for Yahweh. Unfortuently http://www.biblegateway.com doesn’t have the Revised Standard Version & the National Council of Churches of Christ has the copyright for that version and seems to be keeping it off the internet. If you know of an on-line source of the Revised Standard Version somewhere please share.

Anyway, I was under the impression that the name Yahweh was deliberately suppressed. Joseph Rotherham, in The Emphasized Bible, A New Translation, the Standard Publishing Co., 1902, says this in the "Introduction, The Incommunicable Name:"

"It is willingly admitted that the suppression has not been absolute; at least so far as Hebrew and English are concerned. The Name, in its four essential letters (YHWH), was reverently transcribed by the Hebrew copyist, and therefore was necessarily placed before the eye of the Hebrew reader. The latter, however, was instructed not to pronounce it, but to utter instead a less sacred name—Adonay or Elohim. In this way The Name was not suffered to reach the ear of the listener. To that degree it was suppressed. The Septuagint, or ancient Greek version (LXX), made the concealment complete by regularly substituting Kurios; as the Vulgate, in like manner, employed Dominus; both Kurios and Dominus having at the same time their own proper service to render as correctly answering to the Hebrew Adonay, confessedly meaning 'Lord'. The English versions do nearly the same things, in rendering The Name as LORD, and occasionally GOD; these terms also having their own rightful office to fill as fitly representing the Hebrew titles Adonay and Elohim and El, so that the Tetragrammaton is nearly hidden in our public English versions. 'Confusion', then, is a term not a whit too strong to apply to these varying devices. No wonder that even intelligent and educated people are continually forgetting what they have heard or read concerning so involved a matter."
===================

Now The Century Bible, Vol. 1, pages 90-91, tells us this:

"Some time after the return from the Captivity, and before the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews came to believe that the Holy Name YAHWEH was too sacred to be uttered on ordinary occasions. It was said to be pronounced by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. At other times, when any one read or quoted aloud from what is called the Old Testament, the word `Adonay, 'Lord', was usually substituted for YAHWEH, and similarly the LXX (Septuagint Version) has Kurios, the Vulgate dominus, and the E.V. LORD, where the Hebrew has YAHWEH. Hebrew was originally written without vowels, but when the vowel points were added, the vowels of Adonay or Elohim were written with YAHWEH, as a direction that these words were to be read instead of the word whose consonants were YAHWEH; thus we find the combinations YeHoWaH and YeHoWiH. At the Reformation, the former being the more usual, was sometimes used as the Name of the (Mighty One) of Israyl, and owing to ignorance of its history was misread as Jehovah, a form which has established itself in English, but does not give the pronunciation of the Holy Name it represents."

Lilliane · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:33 am

For Jada,

Your post of yesterday was uncalled for, unfair, and absolutely not true. Even Letha's gentle reply shows this. I have read untold numbers of her posts, and she is unfailingly kind, supportive and helpful to everyone. It is certainly not bullying for her to post in this site, on a thread she started, what she thinks. If you do not want to read her opinions, then don't read the thread! Kindness is a great virtue which we would all to well to cultivate. If you feel I am being unkind, I do not mean it so. My intent is to defend Letha who did not deserve in any way the attack of yesterday.
Lilliane

Gramma Jackie · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:03 am

Lilliane wrote:

For Jada,

Your post of yesterday was uncalled for, unfair, and absolutely not true. Even Letha's gentle reply shows this. I have read untold numbers of her posts, and she is unfailingly kind, supportive and helpful to everyone. It is certainly not bullying for her to post in this site, on a thread she started, what she thinks. If you do not want to read her opinions, then don't read the thread! Kindness is a great virtue which we would all to well to cultivate. If you feel I am being unkind, I do not mean it so. My intent is to defend Letha who did not deserve in any way the attack of yesterday.
Lilliane

Discussion Board

Intelligence, Atheism, and Vegetarianism

Who is online