Veganism and health.

[buttercup]

Maybe I am not "veganism". I just eat healthy by choice either way we can share recipes and ideas

Just in case there was any confusion, I was talking about the woman in that article that he linked to.... the woman who died.

But yeah, from what I've seen I think many vegans differentiate eating a plantbased diet for health reasons, and eating a plantbased diet out of a firm conviction about animals. It's like a major paradigm shift. I see the world in a radically different way now than I did 10 years ago before I went vegan.

 

[The Irish Ram]

if not then it's not a debate or true discussion

Debaters that turn a discussion into a personal attack is not a debate. Instead of debate, things like that person is demonic is shade, not debate. God is using that person so we can tell the world the truth, is simply arrogance. Referring to their posts as wickedness is another example of just trying to shut that person down. Carl actually told one poster, that he knows that person's spirit, and it has been removed from him! That is not a Christian sower. That is judgmental antagonism. I thought the "sower" wasn't supposed to do that, if he follows scripture...
You have beaten this thread to death by refusing to listen and understand. Your "truth" said that the Bible doesn't say Abel killed the animal he sacrificed to God, but ignored me asking how you render fat from a live animal. That isn't debating, that is just trying to hang on to a misguided opinion, using craziness to support your theory.
Nevertheless, the truth was presented in this thread and everyone agreed. What you took as a pile on was the truth standing up by everyone else.
You and Cherry killing off this thread is a good thing. Just try to keep your "truth" scripturally sound as far as what Christians can and do eat with God's approval...

 

[buttercup]

but ignored me asking how you render fat from a live animal. That isn't debating, that is just trying to hang on to a misguided opinion, using craziness to support your theory.

^ Here's a perfect example of what I've been saying about you ignoring posts. I DID address that specific point! Did you miss my post? You're bringing it up again now as if I had never addressed it, when I did!!!

Do you want me to do a search and find that post (several pages back) about the Abel offering and the "fat" from a live animal?

I mean, this is not what I should be doing right now, but it is getting absurd that you are bringing these things up again as if they haven't been addressed, when as I said, nearly all of those were addressed!

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The animal world is hardly merciful. It's eat and be be eaten. Until we abandon "humane kill" the python problem in the Everglades will just get worse.

"I eat cows and pigs and chickens because. . pythons in Florida"

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I never use the majority as a gage of what is true or not true. The older I get and the more I learn, I've realized that the majority is wrong about a lot of things

This, being SATAN'S WORLD, Id say if the MAJORITY believe a thing, especially in matters of morality, then you should be thinking/doing the opposite

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Veganism is good for winning Darwin Awards.

Vegan raw food diet influencer Zhanna D’Art dies of suspected starvation: report

Vegan influencer Zhanna Samsonova has died of starvation after reportedly subsisting exclusively off a diet of exotic fruit in Southeast Asia, according to her friends and family. She was 39 years …

nypost.com

That is NOT veganism

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Carl actually told one poster, that he knows that person's spirit, and it has been removed from

Good grief. What does that even mean?

Woodznutz and I share a similar/same religious background. You have no idea what I was saying, but he does.

And yes, GOD DOES use people to spread a message. Willingly and unwillingly.

It is HE who keeps these discussions going. He is an unwilling tool in advancing this truth. That is not a bad thing.

And you are showing a side of yourself in these personal attacks that that have caused me to begin to ignore your posts. What you accuse others of, you're doing yourself but you don't see it.

This will probably be my last post to you. You've moved from discussing IDEAS to personal attacks. You're offering nothing good for discussion

 

[buttercup]

Your "truth" said that the Bible doesn't say Abel killed the animal he sacrificed to God, but ignored me asking how you render fat from a live animal.

Ok I did a search and now I'm going to re-post what I posted to you a few pages back on that specific point....which you acted as if I had never replied to.

I'm only going to re-post part of the post (since it was a long post) and I'll link to the complete post.

In regard to your statement about "rendering fat from a live animal"...

When discussing that passage, first century Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “But Abel brought milk.” In the phrase ‘the firstborn of the fat of his flock’ the word translated "fat" in Hebrew is ֵcheleb, which is identical to the Hebrew word for "milk" ָ(chalab), but with different vowels. Since vowels were not added to the Hebrew alphabet until hundreds of years after Josephus, it is very likely that the original word describing Abel’s gift was milk rather than fat.

If so, then Abel presented to God a firstborn baby lamb nursing milk from the baby’s mother. Which makes much more sense for numerous reasons. Especially since that was long before animal sacrifice was even introduced in the bible, and - as I've said many times before - animal sacrifice was not God's idea, it has pagan origins.​

And here's the link to the complete post.

As for the other points you brought up, most of which have already been addressed, maybe later when I have more time I will reiterate those too. I know that this thread has been fast-moving so maybe you (and not just you, me too) have simply missed some posts. But if you're not sure if something was addressed, then just ask. But please don't continue to re-state points that have already been addressed as if they are settled objective truths while at the same time completely ignoring the posts that address those claims... some of which have been lengthy, detailed posts.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Good grief. What does that even mean

Man can't see the heart, let alone determine someone else's walk. You sense the spirit? You sense that Woodz has drifted? That God is using him to be demonic so you can sow your seeds as truth? Holy cow. Buddy that is just plain old arrogance.

You may not know this, but I KNOW your religious background. I sense the spirit.
I also sense that you've drifted away

 

[The Irish Ram]

Ok I did a search and now I'm going to re-post what I posted to you a few pages back on that specific point....which you acted as if I had never replied to

Honey, don't bother. I'm not interested in you saying the same things over and over. And me disproving it over and over. If you believe that Abel can render fat from a live animal, and me telling you that that isn't possible, then you have to link to a video of someone rendering fat from a live animal to prove it.. You can't. It's just that you wish Abel didn't kill an animal just to sacrifice it to God. I get that. It doesn't change scripture though.

 

[Concerned American]

That has been the ongoing pattern. Ignore everything and just leap-frog to other issues, never addressing or resolving anything.

Have you answered his or anyone else's rebuttals? All I've seen are attacks and accusations. Maybe you should quit judging others for their dietary choices and beliefs because they don't agree with yours.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Ok I did a search and now I'm going to re-post what I posted to you a few pages back on that specific point....which you acted as if I had never replied to.

I'm only going to re-post part of the post (since it was a long post) and I'll link to the complete post.

In regard to your statement about "rendering fat from a live animal"...

When discussing that passage, first century Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “But Abel brought milk.” In the phrase ‘the firstborn of the fat of his flock’ the word translated "fat" in Hebrew is ֵcheleb, which is identical to the Hebrew word for "milk" ָ(chalab), but with different vowels. Since vowels were not added to the Hebrew alphabet until hundreds of years after Josephus, it is very likely that the original word describing Abel’s gift was milk rather than fat.​

​

If so, then Abel presented to God a firstborn baby lamb nursing milk from the baby’s mother. Which makes much more sense for numerous reasons. Especially since that was long before animal sacrifice was even introduced in the bible, and - as I've said many times before - animal sacrifice was not God's idea, it has pagan origins.​

And here's the link to the complete post.

As for the other points you brought up, most of which have already been addressed, maybe later when I have more time I will reiterate those too. I know that this thread has been fast-moving so maybe you (and not just you, me too) have simply missed some posts. But if you're not sure if something was addressed, then just ask. But please don't continue to re-state points that have already been addressed as if they are settled objective truths while at the same time completely ignoring the posts that address those claims... some of which have been lengthy, detailed posts.

lol. The firstborn milk from his flock? Including its fat portions? There is no such thing as the firstborn milk. This just gets more and more bizarre.
Abel was a rancher. Milk doesn't birth. Animals birth. Pour a glass of milk and tell me if it is the firstborn milk, or if it was the 5th milk born.
Reading others opinions is ok, but can lead you astray. Ask Carl. He senses people's spirits.
If you read something, you need to weigh it against what the Bible says.
Flock ~ number of domestic animals, especially sheep, goats, or geese, that are kept together.
If what Abel sacrificed was a firstborn from a flock, and milk isn't referred to as a flock, then what he sacrificed was an animal...from his flock of animals. The word flock destroys your milk theory

As an aside. The meat eater was murdered by the vegetable guy...

 

[buttercup]

Honey, don't bother. I'm not interested in you saying the same things over and over. And me disproving it over and over. If you believe that Abel can render fat from a live animal, and me telling you that that isn't possible, then you have to link to a video of someone rendering fat from a live animal to prove it.. You can't. It's just that you wish Abel didn't kill and animal just to sacrifice it to God. I get that. It doesn't change scripture though.

Wow. You didn't even read my post! Now it's obvious you didn't read it, the first time OR the second time, because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I never said Abel can "render fat from a live animal" and if you had taken a few minutes to read my post, you would have known that!

So you are either being flatly dishonest....OR you just don't care enough to read and address posts. And it is flat out FALSE that you have "disproven" me on that or any other points, since you have failed to even address most of what I've said!

That's not cool at all. But sadly it's becoming clear that you don't care enough to have a genuine debate or discussion. And you're flipping so many things completely upside-down. I have been TRYING to engage you in debate, and you are claiming that I'm not listening or addressing things, when it's the exact opposite.

But we can have it your way. I was going to go back and respond to some of your previous comments from today, but now I can see this is pointless, so....I'm out. At least with you on this thread.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yeah, I stopped reading at firstborn milk...

 

[Concerned American]

Wow. You didn't even read my post! Now it's obvious you didn't read it, the first time OR the second time, because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I never said Abel can "render fat from a live animal" and if you had taken a few minutes to read my post, you would have known that!

So you are either being flatly dishonest....OR you just don't care enough to read and address posts. And it is flat out FALSE that you have "disproven" me on that or any other points, since you have failed to even address most of what I've said!

That's not cool at all. But sadly it's becoming clear that you don't care enough to have a genuine debate or discussion. And you're flipping so many things completely upside-down. I have been TRYING to engage you in debate, and you are claiming that I'm not listening or addressing things, when it's the exact opposite.

But we can have it your way. I was going to go back and respond to some of your previous comments from today, but now I can see this is pointless, so....I'm out. At least with you on this thread.

Typical, no answer. A temper tantrum and run away because someone is not allowing you to guilt them on their dietary choices.

 

[buttercup]

Typical, no answer. A temper tantrum and run away because someone is not allowing you to guilt them on their dietary choices.

Today is upside-down day, I see. I answered her point MORE than once, I answered it at least 2 times. She ignored it the first AND the second time, and only a little while ago she finally responded to only ONE sentence in my post, but only to mock it. Completely ignoring the important parts and 99% of the post.

And as for what you said in post #271, that is hilariously upside-down. I have SO many posts on this thread where I have taken the time to write out responses to her or Woodnutz' arguments, and a number of my posts have been detailed and lengthy, in point by point rebuttals... and most of those posts were completely ignored.

So for you to say "typical, no answer" is truly the most hilariously upside-down thing I have read all week, if not all year.

But from you that's not surprising, since you have been an occasional drive-by hater since the start of this topic. And not just on this thread, but on previous threads on this topic too. That's why I almost never post to you, because as I've said to you before, you never actually debate or discuss this topic, you ONLY make things personal, due to how much you hate vegans. Whatever though. I don't have you on ignore, but I'm going to go back to not responding to you, because I'm not interested in that type of interaction.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You just called someone a hater, and then accused them of making this personal. What is wrong with you?

 

[buttercup]

You just called someone a hater, and then accused them of making this personal. What is wrong with you?

You don't know the history. It goes back to previous threads on this same topic. Carl knows, because he was on most of those threads. There are a number of posters with goodwill who take the time to actually debate this topic, in a civil (or mostly civil) way. He is not one of them. He only wants to make it personal. That is just a fact, and if you had been on the previous threads, you would know that.

 

[Concerned American]

But from you that's not surprising, since you have been an occasional drive-by hater since the start of this topic.

Hater? Please link to that. Pointing out that you're judgmental can hardly be called hateful. Truthful? Absolutely! But not hateful.

 

[Concerned American]

You don't know the history. It goes back to previous threads on this same topic. Carl knows, because he was on most of those threads. There are a number of posters with goodwill who take the time to actually debate this topic, in a civil (or mostly civil) way. He is not one of them. He only wants to make it personal. That is just a fact, and if you had been on the previous threads, you would know that.

LOL, personal?---where have I made a personal attack? I have done nothing more personal than to explain to you that I am not making judgments on your dietary choices. Why do you not afford others who don't agree with your choices the same courtesy? Seems you are attempting to convince yourself.