In tolerant San Francisco, Proposition 8 backer to head Catholic Church

[snyper]

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Snyper,
In Genesis 1:29-31, scripture gives references to the creation of food. If these verses are taken literally, humankind was to be vegetarian.
But, if we look back into the archeological record 30,000 to 50,000 years and more, we find evidence of both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon hunting and fishing. Obviously, before the Flood, whether following any pattern of belief or not, humankind was omnivorous.
I understand that we can survive on a fully vegetarian diet. But, I do not believe that eating any particular fauna is a cause for sin - except, of course, cannibalism. And even then, if one were to be faced with survival or death with only the remains of dead companions for sustenance, I believe consumption of human flesh would be a gift.
Respect for life and cognizance for the things given to us through the creation of life; understanding that we are necessarily a part of the entire ecological system appears to be the key. No disrespect at all for the vegetarian. But, I think that such a diet is purely a matter of personal choice.
Changes due to the "kindness of the Father" are certainly a valid way of considering how apparent disharmonies seem to develop.
Rev. Ken

I am not a biblicist, nor a subscriber to Inerrency or Sola Scriptura. You know this.

I was leading through baby steps, rather than my usual bludgeon.

Not much of an improvement, eh?

[RevKen]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not a biblicist, nor a subscriber to Inerrency or Sola Scriptura. You know this.
I was leading through baby steps, rather than my usual bludgeon.
Not much of an improvement, eh?

OOPS!

Sorry for stepping into the conversation with a bludgeon. Yes, I know that you are not a biblicist, etc....

But, you made me look up the verses in Genesis and ....

You are exactly right. The pre-Flood Human was defined as living in the "Garden" as a vegetarian.

I wonder when roast lamb with mint jelly was discovered?!

[RevKen]

Roast lamb with mint jelly must have been discovered along about the same time as baked and blackened trout with a pinch of salt and a few drops of lemon or lime juice.

[snyper]

RevKen wrote:

Roast lamb with mint jelly must have been discovered along about the same time as baked and blackened trout with a pinch of salt and a few drops of lemon or lime juice.

I don't eat lamb anymore but once a year.

Try balsamic lamb in one of the Florentine recipes. None of that 2yr (waaay too young) balsamico. Find something at least 20 years old. 100 is better. Mint jelly will be a comfort-food happy memory, but you won't often return to it.

Balsamico is the only vinegar that is aged and condensed like brandy. The older the better.

They start in huge 1000 gallon fruitwood casks. As it ages and evaporates, it is mixed with special combinations of other grape types, recanted into progressively smaller and smaller casks of differing woods, and move up one floor in the towers of Modena, Italy.

About 15 years ago, one of the old Modena distillery families auction off a small 10th floor cask (about 2 gal) that had started on the bottom floor in 1610. It was the consistency of a heavy pancake syrup. It sold for just over a half mil.

Balsamico was believed to have strong medicinal properties, and is still given as dowry in fine crystal decanters. A single drop of the older stuff can flavor almost anything in the most wonderful way.

[TomInElPaso]

Mint jelly is a travesty that lamb doesn't deserve to have to deal with. It was used to hide the taste of mutton which isn't an issue with the fantastic flavor of today's lamb.

A leg of lam infused with garlic slivers and roasted to medium rare is a thing of great beauty. And there aren't enough great words to describe a double rack of lamb roasted on a hot grill till pink inside.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't eat lamb anymore but once a year.
Try balsamic lamb in one of the Florentine recipes. None of that 2yr (waaay too young) balsamico. Find something at least 20 years old. 100 is better. Mint jelly will be a comfort-food happy memory, but you won't often return to it.
Balsamico is the only vinegar that is aged and condensed like brandy. The older the better.
They start in huge 1000 gallon fruitwood casks. As it ages and evaporates, it is mixed with special combinations of other grape types, recanted into progressively smaller and smaller casks of differing woods, and move up one floor in the towers of Modena, Italy.
About 15 years ago, one of the old Modena distillery families auction off a small 10th floor cask (about 2 gal) that had started on the bottom floor in 1610. It was the consistency of a heavy pancake syrup. It sold for just over a half mil.
Balsamico was believed to have strong medicinal properties, and is still given as dowry in fine crystal decanters. A single drop of the older stuff can flavor almost anything in the most wonderful way.

[snyper]

TomInElPaso wrote:

Mint jelly is a travesty that lamb doesn't deserve to have to deal with. It was used to hide the taste of mutton which isn't an issue with the fantastic flavor of today's lamb.
A leg of lam infused with garlic slivers and roasted to medium rare is a thing of great beauty. And there aren't enough great words to describe a double rack of lamb roasted on a hot grill till pink inside.
<quoted text>

A grill-roasted Double crown with garlic. Mmm.

Mint is still acceptable, especially if it's jalapeno mint Jelly.

[RevKen]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
A grill-roasted Double crown with garlic. Mmm.
Mint is still acceptable, especially if it's jalapeno mint Jelly.

Now I think we are beginning to discuss favorite recipes that were used in the Garden of Eden.

However, the jalapeno thing, which I very definitely endorse, came from a Central American pagan Garden. Over there, the specialty was baked chocolate chicken, wrapped in banana leaves with a smattering of jala. Alongside, add a good marguerita. The result of such combination and epicurian consumption and imbibation could lead to the necessity of going to Confession.

[James Aist]

TucksunJack wrote:

<quoted text>
But we have the RIGHT to Freedom Of Relion inthe U.S., regardless of what God approves or does not approve of (according to some people).
God has nothing to do with civil marriage.

Maybe your God (if you have one) doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage, but the God of the Bible has everything to do with the affairs of men, including their government. The institutions of government do not trump the God of the Bible. In the end: "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Romsn 14:11). "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

[cpeter1313]

Not in this country. No one has to care about your religion or what your god wants any more than you have to care about anyone else's. This is not a theocracy; it is guided by the constitution. Civil marriage is based on law, not religion; atheists can marry.

It i not foolish to say there is no go when those who believe in one can't prove his existence. You might a well say there is no zeus or ahura-mazda; ALL deities have a distinct lack of proof concerning their existence.

James Aist wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe your God (if you have one) doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage, but the God of the Bible has everything to do with the affairs of men, including their government. The institutions of government do not trump the God of the Bible. In the end: "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Romsn 14:11). "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

[Joe DeCaro]

cpeter1313 wrote:

It i not foolish to say there is no go when those who believe in one can't prove his existence ...

It is foolish when Pascal's wager proves that an infinite prize warrants a finite wager for gamers with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[cpeter1313]

Pascal's wager doesn't prove anything; it's a philosophical argument.
http://arc-t.org/arc-tiquities/debates-pascal...

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
It is foolish when Pascal's wager proves that an infinite prize warrants a finite wager for gamers with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[WasteWater]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
It is foolish when Pascal's wager proves that an infinite prize warrants a finite wager for gamers with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Pascal's Wager is based upon a fallacy.

It assumes that God exists and that God will behave in such a manner. It is entirely possible that God would not be pleased by blind belief and that the outcome could be just the opposite.

[Qwerty26]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
It is foolish when Pascal's wager proves that an infinite prize warrants a finite wager for gamers with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Ah yes, good ol' Pascal's wager. Because why not boil down your life to a crap shoot?

But Joe, what if you believe in the wrong god? Then your crap shoot is a double-loser. Either way, you lose since you picked the wrong deity.

And Joe, if you are making this choice merely to gain reward and avoid punishment, do you really think your deity will approve of your motivation?

Not to mention that your "safe bet" will most likely require you to manage your life and your actions in accordance with certain parameters that may or may not be good for either you or society at large.

I'm not taking your bet.

[Joe DeCaro]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Pascal's Wager is based upon a fallacy.
It assumes that God exists ...

No it doesn't; it simply states a succinct gaming theory that the player has nothing to lose if He doesn't exist.

Qwerty26 wrote:

... I'm not taking your bet.

My name isn't Pascal.

cpeter1313 wrote:

Pascal's wager doesn't prove anything ...

It proves that only a fool would pass on a bet he can't lose.

[Quest]

James Aist wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe your God (if you have one) doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage, but the God of the Bible has everything to do with the affairs of men, including their government......

And radical islamists feel the same way about their religion in government, don't they?

Unless you would be content to live under sharia law, don't be so quick to force your own religious beliefs on others who do not share them.

Folks only seem to feel good about blending church and state when it's THEIR church in the blend.

Why is that, I wonder?

[Joe DeCaro]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
And radical islamists feel the same way about their religion in government, don't they?...

If they did, why are so many islamists arguing against the First Amendment -- which includes the establishment clause -- to ban "hate" speech against their prophet?

[cpeter1313]

Taking the bet to follow a god DOES mean you can lose; you can alienate people you love, you can deny yourself things your faith disapproves of, and all for naught if there is no god and reward in the end.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesn't; it simply states a succinct gaming theory that the player has nothing to lose if He doesn't exist.
<quoted text>
My name isn't Pascal.
<quoted text>
It proves that only a fool would pass on a bet he can't lose.

[Quest]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
If they did, why are so many islamists arguing against the First Amendment -- which includes the establishment clause -- to ban "hate" speech against their prophet?

For the same reason that so many "Christians" are arguing to force other Americans to live by their interpretation of biblical laws.

I mean, they are actually arguing that a gay couple marrying against their wishes abridges their religious freedom to discriminate against gay folks.

Fortunately, the Islamist and the Christians are in the same boat when it comes to the separation of church and state.

[Joe DeCaro]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Taking the bet to follow a god DOES mean you can lose; you can alienate people you love ...

Pascal is describing the gaming theory of eternal salvation, not who "defriends" you on Facebook.

[Joe DeCaro]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
For the same reason that so many "Christians" are arguing to force other Americans to live by their interpretation of biblical laws ... Fortunately, the Islamist and the Christians are in the same boat when it comes to the separation of church and state.

For the islamist, under shar'ia there is no separation of mosque and state, and I didn't see any Christians holding signs in Dearborn, MI, banning criticism of Muhammad.