Vegetarian Discussion: A Quiz For All Humans, Especially People In Alaska

A Quiz For All Humans, Especially People In Alaska
Posts: 12

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2007-07-10 11:02:05 EST
I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
significantly different than it has been from people in
the others. Here's the post:

For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more
extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never
give the lives of any creatures any consideration at all.

Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves
to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans,
provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How
about wildlife?
_______________________________________________
Quiz:

Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
none, or some of the following examples when we think
about human influence on animals?

1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters

2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps

3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
3d 2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters

4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter

(bonus questions:)
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain

Dutch
2007-07-10 13:22:35 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
> see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
> significantly different than it has been from people in
> the others.

People in Alaska are no different than anyone else, they'll read your post
for about 15 seconds, tops, then correctly dismiss you as a complete nitwit.


Immortalist
2007-07-10 13:39:09 EST
On Jul 10, 8:02 am, dh@. wrote:
> I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
> see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
> significantly different than it has been from people in
> the others. Here's the post:
>
> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
> To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
> killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more
> extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never
> give the lives of any creatures any consideration at all.
>
> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
> we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
> restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
> to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
> considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
> by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves
> to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans,
> provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How
> about wildlife?


1. If evolution is true various environmental factors alter the course
of a species form and behavior.

2. Many animals are carnivorus, meaning they either kill or find other
animals and then eat them.

3. Humans are animals and evidence suggests that they are somewhat
carnivorus, for many 10's of thousands of years eating fruits,
vegetables, seeds, nuts, insects and small animals.

4. Humans can alter the evolutionary course of other animals, for
instance canines, and turn a basic wolf into hundreds of breeds of
dogs.

If the ethical nature of 1. and 2. are not determinable and 3. and 4.
are extensions of 1. and 2. then whether something benifits these
animals seems to be undertimnable since the effected species probably
would have lived and reproduced in some direction or went extinct.

Since most animals that humans domesticated were animals that followed
humans around and evolved further human interaction neurons, if we
were to abandone them would at least be equivalent to humans
abandoning their own children...

rambling here, help me develop these thesis

> _______________________________________________
> Quiz:
>
> Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
> none, or some of the following examples when we think
> about human influence on animals?
>
> 1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
> 1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
> 1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
> 1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
>
> 2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
> 2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
> 2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
> 2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
>
> 3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
> 3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
> 3c 6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
> 3d 2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters
>
> 4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
> 4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
> 4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
> 4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
>
> (bonus questions:)
> 4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
> 4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
> 4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
> 4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
> 4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
> 4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
> 4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
> 4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
> 4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
> 4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain

This is like the utilitarian rap about basing inalienable humans
rights on the conception of the frailty of human nature which will
abuse those rights. Once the conception changes we lose the
justification of human rights, hence the need for a better
justification for the sanctity of these creature's lives.


You
2007-07-10 14:52:53 EST
In article <vfPki.103721$xq1.57765@pd7urf1no>, "Dutch" <not@home.com>
wrote:

> <dh@.> wrote
> > I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
> > see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
> > significantly different than it has been from people in
> > the others.
>
> People in Alaska are no different than anyone else, they'll read your post
> for about 15 seconds, tops, then correctly dismiss you as a complete nitwit.
>

Didn't take 15 Seconds, only about 3...... Must be a fast reader....

D*@.
2007-07-10 16:51:13 EST
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:39:09 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jul 10, 8:02 am, dh@. wrote:
>> I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
>> see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
>> significantly different than it has been from people in
>> the others. Here's the post:
>>
>> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
>> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
>> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
>> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
>> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
>> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
>> To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
>> killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more
>> extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never
>> give the lives of any creatures any consideration at all.
>>
>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>> we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
>> restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
>> to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
>> considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
>> by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves
>> to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans,
>> provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How
>> about wildlife?
>
>
>1. If evolution is true various environmental factors alter the course
>of a species form and behavior.

Human farming is one such factor.

>2. Many animals are carnivorus, meaning they either kill or find other
>animals and then eat them.
>
>3. Humans are animals and evidence suggests that they are somewhat
>carnivorus, for many 10's of thousands of years eating fruits,
>vegetables, seeds, nuts, insects and small animals.

Humans are natural omnivores.

>4. Humans can alter the evolutionary course of other animals, for
>instance canines, and turn a basic wolf into hundreds of breeds of
>dogs.
>
>If the ethical nature of 1. and 2. are not determinable and 3. and 4.
>are extensions of 1. and 2. then whether something benifits these
>animals seems to be undertimnable since the effected species probably
>would have lived and reproduced in some direction or went extinct.
>
>Since most animals that humans domesticated were animals that followed
>humans around and evolved further human interaction neurons, if we
>were to abandone them would at least be equivalent to humans
>abandoning their own children...
>
>rambling here, help me develop these thesis

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Quiz:
>>
>> Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
>> none, or some of the following examples when we think
>> about human influence on animals?
>>
>> 1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
>> 1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
>> 1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
>> 1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
>>
>> 2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
>> 2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
>> 2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
>> 2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
>>
>> 3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
>> 3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
>> 3c 6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
>> 3d 2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters
>>
>> 4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
>> 4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
>> 4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
>> 4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
>>
>> (bonus questions:)
>> 4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
>> 4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
>> 4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
>> 4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
>> 4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
>> 4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
>> 4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
>> 4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
>> 4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
>> 4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
>
>This is like the utilitarian rap about basing inalienable humans
>rights on the conception of the frailty of human nature which will
>abuse those rights.

No, it's just about showing basic consideration for some
of the animals that humans have influence on.


A*@hotmail.com
2007-07-11 01:23:46 EST
On Jul 10, 11:02 am, dh@. wrote:
> I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
> see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
> significantly different than it has been from people in
> the others. Here's the post:
>
> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
> To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
> killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more
> extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never
> give the lives of any creatures any consideration at all.
>
> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
> we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
> restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
> to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
> considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
> by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves
> to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans,
> provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How
> about wildlife?
> _______________________________________________
> Quiz:
>
> Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
> none, or some of the following examples when we think
> about human influence on animals?
>
> 1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
> 1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
> 1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
> 1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
>
> 2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
> 2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
> 2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
> 2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
>
> 3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
> 3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
> 3c 6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
> 3d 2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters
>
> 4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
> 4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
> 4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
> 4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
>
> (bonus questions:)
> 4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
> 4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
> 4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
> 4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
> 4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
> 4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
> 4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
> 4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
> 4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
> 4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain


I could care less about any of these outcomes regardless the species
involved or the manner of death.

I eat very little meat, but that is more about the difficulty in
processing those products by my system, rather than any political or
philosophical perspective on the rights of animals.

If you want steak tonight, kill it, beat it, bruise it, find it as
road kill, as a byproduct of an act of another animal, farming, etc.
It's your choice.


D*@.
2007-07-15 15:19:40 EST
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:23:46 -0700, a_f_r_i_e_n_d@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Jul 10, 11:02 am, dh@. wrote:
>> I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
>> see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is
>> significantly different than it has been from people in
>> the others. Here's the post:
>>
>> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
>> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
>> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
>> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
>> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
>> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
>> To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
>> killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more
>> extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never
>> give the lives of any creatures any consideration at all.
>>
>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>> we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
>> restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
>> to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
>> considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
>> by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves
>> to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans,
>> provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How
>> about wildlife?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Quiz:
>>
>> Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
>> none, or some of the following examples when we think
>> about human influence on animals?
>>
>> 1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
>> 1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
>> 1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
>> 1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
>>
>> 2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
>> 2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
>> 2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
>> 2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
>>
>> 3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
>> 3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
>> 3c 6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
>> 3d 2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters
>>
>> 4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
>> 4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
>> 4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
>> 4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
>>
>> (bonus questions:)
>> 4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
>> 4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
>> 4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
>> 4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
>> 4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
>> 4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
>> 4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
>> 4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
>> 4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
>> 4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
>
>
>I could care less about any of these outcomes regardless the species
>involved or the manner of death.

Meaning that you're not capable of having a realistic
interpretation of human influence on animals.

>I eat very little meat, but that is more about the difficulty in
>processing those products by my system, rather than any political or
>philosophical perspective on the rights of animals.
>
>If you want steak tonight, kill it, beat it, bruise it, find it as
>road kill, as a byproduct of an act of another animal, farming, etc.
>It's your choice.

I choose to consider the lives of animals raised for food
as well as their deaths.

Day Brown
2007-07-15 17:20:21 EST
On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> I choose to consider the lives of animals raised for food
> as well as their deaths.
"In the Footsteps of Alexander" with Michael Woods on PBS, he found
the Lakash, up in the Pakistan mtns next to Tibet, who claimed they
were descendants of wounded solders left there by Alexander. This is
believeable because they said it in ancient Greek.

And they were still *Dionysian*. I've often wondered why modern
"neopagans" have not gone there to meet the real McCoy. Anyway, while
there, the sacrificed a goat. Now, we all know the way the Bible says
to do it, build an altar, pile on the firewood, and burn the whole
animal up to the greater honor of Jehovah, or whatever his name is.

But here, the altar to Dionysus is right by the pasture gate. Grab
goat, slit throat, throw a handful of blood on the altar, then go have
a barbi cause Dionysus loves a good party. Now, that's my kind of
God.

Note- they didnt pack the animal on a noisy truck for a long ride to a
slaughterhouse with the smell of blood in the air. With the pagans,
one minute, the goat expected to be fed, the next, its meat.



D*@.
2007-07-16 13:07:09 EST
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:20:21 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I choose to consider the lives of animals raised for food
>> as well as their deaths.
>"In the Footsteps of Alexander" with Michael Woods on PBS, he found
>the Lakash, up in the Pakistan mtns next to Tibet, who claimed they
>were descendants of wounded solders left there by Alexander. This is
>believeable because they said it in ancient Greek.
>
>And they were still *Dionysian*. I've often wondered why modern
>"neopagans" have not gone there to meet the real McCoy. Anyway, while
>there, the sacrificed a goat. Now, we all know the way the Bible says
>to do it, build an altar, pile on the firewood, and burn the whole
>animal up to the greater honor of Jehovah, or whatever his name is.

Lev 1
3 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the
Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it
will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then
Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it
against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of
Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and
arrange wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces,
including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is
on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and
the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering,
an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Lev 19
5 " 'When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the LORD,
sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf.
6 It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day;
anything left over until the third day must be burned up.
7 If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not
be accepted.
8 Whoever eats it will be held responsible because he has
desecrated what is holy to the LORD; that person must be
cut off from his people.

1 Kings 8:63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings
to the LORD : twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and
twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the
Israelites dedicated the temple of the LORD.

>But here, the altar to Dionysus is right by the pasture gate. Grab
>goat, slit throat, throw a handful of blood on the altar, then go have
>a barbi cause Dionysus loves a good party. Now, that's my kind of
>God.
>
>Note- they didnt pack the animal on a noisy truck for a long ride to a
>slaughterhouse

It's good when that can be avoided, but killing on the farm
creates sanitation hazards that people today have developed
regulations designed to prevent. They include where and how
animals can be slaughtered for commercial use.

>with the smell of blood in the air.

What would make you think there's any significant smell of
blood in the air in livestock trucks?

>With the pagans,
>one minute, the goat expected to be fed, the next, its meat.

That's the best way for the animals, but not always the
best way for their consumers.

Pearl
2007-07-17 09:41:55 EST
<*h@.> wrote in message news:jd9n931f75u66d9r5p114gd0ad2cvsf9us@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:20:21 -0700, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> I choose to consider the lives of animals raised for food
> >> as well as their deaths.
> >"In the Footsteps of Alexander" with Michael Woods on PBS, he found
> >the Lakash, up in the Pakistan mtns next to Tibet, who claimed they
> >were descendants of wounded solders left there by Alexander. This is
> >believeable because they said it in ancient Greek.
> >
> >And they were still *Dionysian*. I've often wondered why modern
> >"neopagans" have not gone there to meet the real McCoy. Anyway, while
> >there, the sacrificed a goat. Now, we all know the way the Bible says
> >to do it, build an altar, pile on the firewood, and burn the whole
> >animal up to the greater honor of Jehovah, or whatever his name is.

'By the 12th century B.C.E., the Hebrews assumed an identity
unique enough in the archaeological record to become discernible
for the first time. In the mountains and plateaus of the northern
highlands of Canaan, from Jerusalem north to the Jezreel Valley,
the highland settlements, poor for their day, begin to show a single
distinguishing feature from other, similar highland settlements in
regions around them. There is little to go on - pottery shows an
impoverished lifestyle, with little decoration and use other than as
storage and cooking vessels. Yet one thing is clear - the bones of
pigs become absent from the archaeological record. The prohibition
on eating pork is therefore the oldest archaeologically supported
feature of Jewish culture. It is representative of the beginnings of
the transformation of the god "El" into "El-ohim," the god of
gods, the god of Israel.

We now know this Mesopotamian god as "El-ohim," and our
author "E," one of the earliest scriptorialists writing about this time,
first has El introducing himself to Abraham as "El Shaddai"
(El of the Mountain). He also appears as El Elyon, or El of Bethel
in other, non-canonized scripture, and his name is also preserved
in such Hebrew names as Isra-El and Ishma-El. The word Elohim
was originally a plural of El.2

To the south, from Bethel to the Valley of Beersheba, a similar
transformation is taking place. In this climatically and geologically
harsher place, a place with a much smaller and less settled population
with greater geographical isolation, the Canaanite god Yahweh is
being transformed by a culturally similar people of the land of Judah.
The unknown author known to scholars simply as "J" has his god
being familiar with and comfortable with Abraham, and he casually
appears to Abraham in Genesis 18, introducing himself as Yahweh.
But "J's" contemporary, author "E" in the north can't have God
being so casual, and first appears as a voice, commanding
Abraham to leave his people in Mesopotamia and settle in Canaan.3

Yahweh, in his transformation from a pagan Canaanite god to the
god of the Jews, becomes a cruel and vindictive god in the hands
of author "J." He commands Abraham to sacrifice his first born
son, an act which is not at all surprising given the nature of the pagan
religions of the time. Many of these pagan religions (and remember
that Yahweh got his start as a Canannite pagan god) considered
the first-born to be the seed of a god. Because of this, they were
often sacrificed to the god who presumably sired them.

Yet Elohim in the north continues to be a much more subtle god,
who directs the affairs of men by revelation of the voice, hidden
from the view of mere mortals. There is a tension among these
peoples, both of whom identify themselves as culturally decendants
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One people, perhaps, but two gods.
.....'
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

'YHWH is not 'ELOHIM.
..
Let there be no mistake as to His true identity. There are over thirty
thousand counts of threatened life, terrorization, and outright destruction
that YHWH claims for Himself in Hebrew Scripture alone. The record
accrued and counted thereafter is even greater and more horrifying.
He deceives. He confuses. He pits one person or one nation against
another for His caprice and lust for power and recognition. He wants
and demands worship because He is not 'ELOHIM. He wants kingship
and enthronement because He is not 'ELOHIM. He accuses of sin, the
sins he invented. He lies. He deceives. He betrays. He kills.
..
YHWH is not the TRUE GOD of Yis_ra'EL. This is a fact of history,
of archaeology, and Scripture, fully proven by the data, and of all time.
Read the record. Open your mind. The truth is there for all to see.
The account speaks for itself.
..
'ELOHIM is PURE, UNDEFINED ENERGY, from WHOM all
energies flow, and take form and manifestation.

'ELOHIM is not a name. The attributive noun or word, 'ELOHIM , is
a plural unity in Hebrew / 'Ivriy, the language of Canaan / Kh_na'an,
and nothing more. 'ELOHIM has no name, and needs none. Perhaps
the only signifier that truly points to 'ELOHIM is 'AH_VAH , PURE
SPIRITUAL LOVE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.

'ELOHIM is to be loved and respected, not worshipped, but
appreciated.

Therefore, all love and respect for 'ELOHIM is to be given in
quiet reflection of the inner and outer universes. 'Amen.
..'
http://web.archive.org/web/20050905122123/http://www.messiah.org/elohim.htm

> Lev 1
> 3 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd,

Two deities, and two sets of doctrine.

'ELOHIM was, at one time, prior to the formation of Yis_ra'EL,
the MOST HIGH GOD of Canaan / Kh_na'an . The supremacy
of 'ELOHIM was cherished and maintained by the people of the
Levant and later with Abraham , the ancient "patriarch" of the
'Ivriy / Hebrews, cherished and maintained by the standard
employed within the term or embodiment surrounding the now
mythical Melchizedek , which, seemingly appearing to take on
a seperate life of its own ascending to these mythical purportions,
was even legendary in the time of Abraham.

Before Abraham's time, it was impressed upon the young from
this voice of Mal_khiy-tzehthehq , whose fleeting importance is
apparent in Genesis, in the ancient account of Torah [The account
is actually a last minute insertion into the Torah by a small but
persistent survivorship of later northern tradition 'Eloists who
survived the Assyrian crushing of the Northern Kingdom in 722
BCE], that 'ELOHIM was the GOD of blessing, and the earth a
blessing of 'ELOHIM , the TRUE GOD of all. The tithes and
offerings brought to 'EL were nothing more than thanksgiving
offerings given out of gratitude.

Still, these accounts from Torah are only faded remnants attempting
to capture the relational values established between the peoples of
Kh_na'an and 'ELOHIM . Most accounts concerning 'ELOHIM,
accounts compiled 1,000 years after, are badly distorted by
Yahwistic redaction, notably the Abraham / Isaac account of
blood sacrifice wrongly attributed to as if directed by 'ELOHIM.

'ELOHIM does not and will not accept blood sacrifice. Such
appeasement, petition, and sacrifice is blasphemy.

Far into the past, deep into antiquity, all that was ever brought
before this ancient GOD of Kh_na'an / Canaan, when agriculture
was still young, and a miracle before the people, long before blood
sacrifice began, long before the pain of seasons set in, grain and fruit
offerings were brought to this GREAT ONE in gratitude for the fruits
of the harvest and the earth, never in blood, never in the shedding
of blood to appease imagined "sins" or wrongs. That was a desert
fear, easily overcome by the truth.

'ELOHIM , in the beginning, was, to the most ancient of Canaanites,
a GOD of Thanksgiving, a GOD to WHOM gratitude was given in
celebration of LIFE as a sacred and wonderful gift. Pesach, the
original spring festival was given in honor of the fruitfulness and
rebirth of the earth, its fertility and promise. ..

Only later did that change when a fusion with his "sons" or
"children" began.

Despite the tendency of three thousand years to believe otherwise,
YHWH and 'ELOHIM are not and were not the same.

'ELOHIM was and continues to be the supreme MOST HIGH
GOD of Yis_ra'EL and Canaan / Kh_na'an , and of humankind.

YHWH is nothing more than an inferior or lesser ba'al of the southern
Kenite-Midianite Shahssu_YHWH bedhouins of the 'Ariv / Arabia:
YHW , 'ahiyi_hwah, very distinct from the region and thinking of the
people residing in Kh_na'an / Canaan.

Here, too, know the distinction between Kenite / Cain and
Kh_na'an / Canaan. Cain, not the agriculturalist the Genesis account
depicts him as, carries the blood mark of YHWH , and is of the tribal
alignment and grouping of the bedhouins of southern Arabia and
Moab. Canaan is the guardian of integrity, and the keeper of the gate
of 'ELOHIM, 'AHLEHP , the archetypal civilized, living in cities.

Biblical redaction and tampering have twisted, mixed up, and
confused the actual representations in the early accounts of Genesis.
..'
http://web.archive.org/web/20050905122123/http://www.messiah.org/elohim.htm

'Philo -
'[Essenes: the name]

(11.1) But our lawgiver [Moses] trained an innumerable body
of his pupils to partake in those things, who are called Essenes,
being, as I imagine, honoured with this appellation because of
their exceeding holiness [Greek hosioteta = osiothta].

(EGM 75) There is a portion of those people called Essenes,
in number something more than four thousand in my opinion,
who derive their name from their piety [Greek hosiotetos =
osiothtoV], though not according to any accurate form of the
Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the
service [therapeutai] of God, not sacrificing living animals,
but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of
holiness and purity.
..
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/999/hypothet.htm

The northern branch of Essenes were called "Nazarenes".

"The Nasaraeans - they were jews by nationality - originally from
Gileaditis (where the early followers of Yeshu-Maria fled after
the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother), Bashanitis and the
Transjordon . . . They acknowledged Moses and believed that
he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other.
And so, they were jews who kept all the Jewish observances,
but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered
it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that
these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were
instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the
Nasaraeans and the others. . . (Epiphanius, Panarion 1:18)
..
Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating,
and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names
of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses
and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them-(2) I
mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and
Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the
scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and
maintain that they have others. (Epiphanius, Panarion 1:19)
..
http://essenes.net/sz17.htm




Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron