Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side?

DJ Yoshi · Post by **DJ Yoshi** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:23 pm

There wasn't a slaying of christians/non-catholics for a thousand years though, it was sporadic at best, and mainly at the beginning of the thousand year period you cited. As of the 900-1200 era, the crusades took place where there was only slaughter of Muslims primarily. The Spanish Inquisition was geared at Jews, and affected no Christians that I know of, and the Holocaust barely touched the Christian populace.

The only thing I can get from that link is a long-winded backing up of the fact that god says it's bad to eat 'unclean meat' in the bible. Guess what--that still has nothing to do with the fact they're still healthier than cows.

Karkash · Post by **Karkash** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:46 pm

"Since starting this treatise, it has been the authorâ€™s privilege to spend a few days on a large poultry and stock farm. Many thousand of hens and hundreds of hogs were kept on this farm. When hens would die, they would be put into burlap sacks. After some had lain in the sacks for days and the odor from them had become unbearable, they were then loaded onto a truck and hauled to the hog pen where they became feed for the hogs. This procedure . . . was the regular way of disposing of the dead hens . . . .

When the foul, impure foods upon which the hog will feed are referred to in connection with the teaching that pork is unfit for food, many will say that the hog is no more filthy in its habits of feeding than a chicken. If this were true, there is still a vast difference between the digestive system of a hog and that of a chicken. The chicken has two stomachs â€” the glandular stomach and the gizzard . . . Knowing these facts about the chicken, we might believe that the Creator permitted it to be used for food because it has a digestive system something like that of the clean beasts â€” a digestive system more capable of eliminating impurities from the food eaten than is the digestive system of the unclean animals.

The animals that chewed the cud and divided the hoof, such as the ox, sheep, goat, deer, buffalo, etc., . . . have practically three stomachs, as refining agencies and cleansing laboratories, for the purifying of their food; thus weeding out from their systems most of the poisonous and deleterious matter.

It thus takes clean, vegetable food over twenty-four hours to be turned into flesh . . . . The dietary habits of all such vegetarian animals were also clean, in comparison with that of the omnivorous swine. . . . in about three hours after he has eaten his polluted swill, putrid carrion, or other offensive matter, man may eat the same in second-hand style off the ribs of the pig.

This flesh the law condemns as unclean; not merely ceremonially unclean, but hygienically and physiologically as well . . . . The diet of the pig is so deadly that it generally kills the animal itself in about eight or ten years.

If you examine carefully you will find a small abrasion behind the front foot of the pig. Rub it off clean and press the leg just above the abrasion, and you may squeeze a teaspoonful of dirty matter from it. This is original pork gravy. It is an outlet to a sewer-pipe that may be traced all through the animalâ€™s body. It helps to drain off the teeming filth with which the system is filled . . . .

On a close analysis of this filthy scrofulous serum, or the â€˜cultureâ€™ of its bacilli under varied conditions, it is seen to contain the elements of many dangerous diseases and combinations..."

skywalker541 · Post by **skywalker541** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:54 pm

wow, thanks karkash i knew pigs were dirty but i didn't know they were that bad..I will definetely think twice before ever eaitng pork again.

DJ Yoshi · Post by **DJ Yoshi** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:29 pm

Okay, and you still fail to provide a rebuttal to the fact that THEY ARE MORE HEALTHY FOOD THAN COWS.

Christ, you keep stating the same thing over and over again.

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:49 pm

I'm sorry, but no. I'm with DJ Yoshi:
http://www.porkandhealth.org/

Sounds arbitrary to me. Again too humanly for a god and too petty/radical for me to take seriously.

skywalker541 · Post by **skywalker541** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:03 pm

He doesn't really hold this against you, he just simply telling you do not eat this it is unhealthy it will kill you eventually.

But the choice does hurt him quite a bit i'm sure, imagine it like this your parents know that you want an xbox 360 for christmas and that's the most expensive hing they could afford that was the most they could give you(i'm saying the most because god gave us the greatest gift he could whem he gave us life) was that xbox 360, then imagine on christmas eve after you opening it you just taking it and throwing it up against the wall and breaking it. Imagine how that would make your parents feel, do you feel that guilt? You do this every time you sin against your own body.

You have already sinned like this, we all have. And if there is truly a christian god as i believe there is, this is one of the sins that will haunt you when you are in his presence, if you are not saved. This will cause you to feel inadequate in his presence as though you are not worthy of his love, you will then feel shame, guilt, and other negative emotions, and yes i know i am repeating myself, but i feel almost everything god has commanded us to do eventually comes back to this. and now think about this what is really causing you to feel that way? If you felt guilty when you read my anology is it because you know your parents love you? It is the same when you are faced with god in heaven and realize that he loves you, if you don't feel this now it is because you are not allowing yourself to, you are not believing in him.

And not eating pork may not even apply now, god was saying this to people who lived a very long time ago, and i'm sure pork was not cooked the same as it is now nor was it farmed in the same manner. Still what karkash said will definetely ruin my appetite the next time i see a piece of pork.

and gyro there is nothing petty about loving you unconditionally, do you realize the only other alternative for you to not feel the shame guilt, etc, in god's presence besides believing that jesus died for your sins is for him to just stop loving you? And yes if he did that then he would be a very humanistic and petty god, but he doesn't he will give you the second death which is to simply stop your pain and because of his love it will hurt him more than it will you to do this.

DJ Yoshi · Post by **DJ Yoshi** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:41 pm

Luke, you make no sense...because Pork will treat your body much better than steak will. Pork is better for your body, contains less fat, and less cholesterol. Really, you just aren't making any sense.

skywalker541 · Post by **skywalker541** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:52 pm

yes now it may not hurt you...i said that. But more importantly did you understand the other message i was trying to get through to you, that anology is an anology for all sin since Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death. All of it is like throwing that xbox 360 against the wall on christmas eve, since you are taking the life god has given you and throwing it away when you sin, do you see that?

DJ Yoshi · Post by **DJ Yoshi** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:55 pm

Uh...what? So you have no other thing to support your claims than some arbitrary piece of trash you call the bible?

Sorry, I meant a LOGICAL argument, not some belief-based POS.

skywalker541 · Post by **skywalker541** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:08 pm

I used the bible because you have said that you are christian, and if you truly are christian as you say then you have to believe in the bible, because without it christianity would not exist. and if you had read the post before my last one you will see that i even acknowledged that saying "if there truly is a christian god, as i believe there is".I know that if you just simply don't believe in a god at all what i have said holds no weight, but it appears to me that many people have alot misconceptions about what the christian god, the god i worship, is like ,and i have simply been trying to clear those misconceptions, those misunderstandings up. If you believe that the christian god is evil then you have to acknowledge the bible, because that is the place that we get our information about him.If you didn't believe in the bible then you would just say there is no god and leave it at that.

DJ Yoshi · Post by **DJ Yoshi** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:11 am

You have no idea what you're talking about. I AM a Christian, as in I believe in the Christian God, but I don't believe in the bible. And if you think that if the bible didn't exist, Christianity wouldn't exist, tell me this: How did Judaism last so long without it?

skywalker541 · Post by **skywalker541** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:01 am

No, Chris, I'm afraid it is you who doesn't now what they're talking about. Judaism always had the torah, aka the old testament. So even if your jewish then you believe in the majority of the bible because the old testament makes up most of the bible. So therefore no you can not believe in the christian god without believing, correction here, some part of the bible.

DJ Yoshi · Post by **DJ Yoshi** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:40 am

No, it hasn't always had the Torah. It was created a while after Judaism was established--before the tribes and whatnot. That's what historians found.

And I don't believe a single word of it. Guess what, I don't believe in the Christian god as you interpret him. I believe in the only rationally believable god--you know, the one who doesn't hate mankind to start out with.

I'm done with this, you just don't know how to read and comprehend what I'm saying. This argument is pointless until you at least pass your remedial english class and maybe figure out how to extrapolate the meaning out of a passage.

Erikin · Post by **Erikin** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:12 am

fags

skywalker541 · Post by **skywalker541** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:19 am

But you do believe in the christian god as you interpret him i assume, but to interpret him at all you have to have knowledge of the bible, otherwise it is not the christian god you are interpreting.
As far as reading comprehension goes it appears you need a class in it more than i do, because all i have said on here is that god loves you no matter what, whether your christian, buddhist, hindu, jewish, aethiest, agnostic, etc. That is all i have been saying, and i have said it quite plainly, but you keep making it seem as though i said the opposite of that.

He has never not loved you.And if you do not get your information about the christian god from the bible then where do you get it?If the "only rationally, believable god" you reffered to is not christian then where do you get your information from?