 | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Why not do away witht the old testament then - as part of scripture, only - obviously it would retain historical value. (...) Uh...no. I misread and now feel foolish. :-) (Actually, yeah...yeah...that's the ticket, you can catch him at the (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) It still has enormous theological value; the difference is that it is now read and understood in light of our fuller understanding of God as compiled in the New Testament. (...) Ok...I concede the point that it was inconsistent to include (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) you (...) Nope. I would chose the human option, but not because I believe that it is capable of experiencing a "Better existence." I'm familiar with it, I know it's OK, I'd go with the known over the unknown in this case (unless I had reason (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The nature of being (was Aids, Vegetarianism etc.) —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Even if rights were a fiction, I'd agree with you that to avoid causing suffering is better. But, fundamentally, from a bedrock philosophical basis, we have no ultimate way to condemn evil if creatures do not objectively have a right to (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
