eat pork or go hungry...

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

didge moves to saudi Arabia

didge is imprisoned for acts of terrorism and executed before he can have a beer or pork scratchings

didges crime?? atheism

didge dies with the love of multiculturalism a long way off

the end

Failed again

So now you have moved the goalposts from drinking and pork scratchings, to atheism bless


 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Thus your original analogy was wrong, which you now cannot admit


Epic fail

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Failed again

So now you have moved the goalposts from drinking and pork scratchings, to atheism bless


 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Thus your original analogy was wrong, which you now cannot admit


Epic fail

you didn't understand the analogy - which demonstrated that if religious dietary obligations are introduced then they have to replace the dietary provisions that in place in the first place

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you didn't understand the analogy - which demonstrated that if religious dietary obligations are introduced then they have to replace the dietary provisions that in place in the first place

I do understand you made an epic fuck up because as seen in many Muslim countries your fear is false and that people who are non-Muslim can have a variety of things not allowed though by Muslims.

All this article shows is that sometimes people make stupid choices which affect others and did not take that into account, again there should always be a choice

I suggest you get over your once again daft view point which ended up once again making you have egg on your face

smelly_bandit wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Are you against vegetarian options at schools? Vegetarians are a dietary minority?

what you are missing is the OPTION part

offering a veggie OPTION is ok

offering veggie meals ONLY is not and that is what is happening

eddie wrote:No didge, I'd be a hypocrite to say I cared particularly, how the animal was killed. If I started thinking about it I'd be a vegetarian.

The point is, we have been told and dictated to, by another religion how our meat should be killed and served, when we were doing fine before thanks very much.

And what many people fear, and rightly so tbh, is that it may not just stop at our meat being changed to accommodate others, after all, the Jews haven't come along and changed my meat preferences? Have they?

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:we eat meat as humans, it's kinda what we do, to kill the animals in the most humane way possible is the best we can do...
kosher and halal cause unnecessary suffering for the animal and as such should be made illegal...

gerber wrote:We might not need to eat meat, but we need to restrict the number of animals for their own benefit.  Too many and they would all die of starvation.

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:we eat meat as humans, it's kinda what we do, to kill the animals in the most humane way possible is the best we can do...
kosher and halal cause unnecessary suffering for the animal and as such should be made illegal...

Really?
Do we need to eat meat?
No we don not so to claim it is humane to do something you prefer is not humane, it is thus your view it is okay to kill animals, which goes back to the view did you give that animal a choice?

No, thus it is not humane

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?
Do we need to eat meat?
No we don not so to claim it is humane to do something you prefer is not humane, it is thus your view it is okay to kill animals, which goes back to the view did you give that animal a choice?

No, thus it is not humane

yes we do need to eat meat, if you don't want to stick to man made derivatives then but that is not the question here, the question is about whether dietary needs of certain religions should be
pandered to at the cost and efforts of schools and the govt.s running them...

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

yes we do need to eat meat, if you don't want to stick to man made derivatives then but that is not the question here, the question is about whether dietary needs of certain religions should be
pandered to at the cost and efforts of schools and the govt.s running them...

Gobbledygook, we do not need to eat meat, we can survive very well without as many do, you may want to ask why so many Chinese live such long healthy lives off such a diet.
No the questions is on ethics of animal killing, otherwise such view points based against halal as inhumane are absurd based upon the view to kill animals anyway, is negating their choice to live, rendering such an argument moot. If you back killing animals you thus back the view to Muslims killing animals
The question is why would you refuse others deitry needs when it is based upon prejudice and not on any sound reasoning?

Again I believe in all should have choice with food and thus to attempt to deny this ethically is an immoral argument again based upon prejudice


catch you later and have a good evening

VOD(original) wrote:

Joy Division wrote:So if anyone says that Pork is filthy just because a God says so, does really mean that it's true?..

Seeing as Pigs are more like humans humans than most other animals, that doesn't look good for us!

Yes, pigs live in muck, but so do cows and other cattle.


What a load of Bahh's...

It's personal choice.

Everything God has created is good and if accepted with thanksgiving and prayer it is made holy and clean .
Lovedust doesn't seem to accept this scripture he/she seems set on abiding by OT laws and rituals .

Hmm. No:

I neither abide by nor advocate OT laws... I'm pointing out:-

- You say you believe the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- Jewish people also believe part of the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- They eat a Kosher diet out of observance of this belief (which you share)
- Yet when they attempt to follow the doctrine of a Holy Book you agree to be the word of God you accuse them of "demanding special treatment".  

Ironic, no? "Judge not less you be judged"... That's New Testament doctrine, is it not?

lovedust wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:
Everything God has created is good and if accepted with thanksgiving and prayer it is made holy and clean .
Lovedust doesn't seem to accept this scripture he/she seems set on abiding by OT laws and rituals .

Hmm. No:

I neither abide by nor advocate OT laws... I'm pointing out:-

- You say you believe the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- Jewish people also believe part of the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- They eat a Kosher diet out of observance of this belief (which you share)
- Yet when they attempt to follow the doctrine of a Holy Book you agree to be the word of God you accuse them of "demanding special treatment".  

Ironic, no? "Judge not less you be judged"... That's New Testament doctrine, is it not?

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Hmm. No:

I neither abide by nor advocate OT laws... I'm pointing out:-

- You say you believe the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- Jewish people also believe part of the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- They eat a Kosher diet out of observance of this belief (which you share)
- Yet when they attempt to follow the doctrine of a Holy Book you agree to be the word of God you accuse them of "demanding special treatment".  

Ironic, no? "Judge not less you be judged"... That's New Testament doctrine, is it not?

the Jews do not accept the NT, so the fact the dietary laws were changed did not get to the Jews so too speak...

again this is not about the Jews or the Muslims it is about the costs of supplying unnecessary foods...

Nems wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the Jews do not accept the NT, so the fact the dietary laws were changed did not get to the Jews so too speak...

again this is not about the Jews or the Muslims it is about the costs of supplying unnecessary foods...

Cost is only one aspect I think, the main problem is our choices being taken away by   the same ones that scream inclusion and multiculturalism

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Gobbledygook, we do not need to eat meat, we can survive very well without as many do, you may want to ask why so many Chinese live such long healthy lives off such a diet.
No the questions is on ethics of animal killing, otherwise such view points based against halal as inhumane are absurd based upon the view to kill animals anyway, is negating their choice to live, rendering such an argument moot. If you back killing animals you thus back the view to Muslims killing animals
The question is why would you refuse others deitry needs when it is based upon prejudice and not on any sound reasoning?

Again I believe in all should have choice with food and thus to attempt to deny this ethically is an immoral argument again based upon prejudice


catch you later and have a good evening

unless you get supplements you need meat...

it is based on costs, time and effort not prejudice, it costs much more to supply special meals, if the children need them just because of their religion then the parents should supply it...

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

Cost is only one aspect I think, the main problem is our choices being taken away by   the same ones that scream inclusion and multiculturalism

Really Nems, I scream equality to all and that all have choices, not be selective but allow all a choice, where are live without prejudice towards each other, that is multiculturalism, no idea what you think it is Nems but it is way off the mark, and those you claim to speak for them do not, because being selective is not multiculturalism.
Don't club me together and countless others with prejudice views

Nems wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the Jews do not accept the NT, so the fact the dietary laws were changed did not get to the Jews so too speak...

again this is not about the Jews or the Muslims it is about the costs of supplying unnecessary foods...

Cost is only one aspect I think, the main problem is our choices being taken away by   the same ones that scream inclusion and multiculturalism

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really Nems, I scream equality to all and that all have choices, not be selective but allow all a choice, where are live without prejudice towards each other, that is multiculturalism, no idea what you think it is Nems but it is way off the mark, and those you claim to speak for them do not, because being selective is not multiculturalism.
Don't club me together and countless others with prejudice views

If we are given Halal without our knowledge or consent where is our choice?

If you dont like menu bring your own dinner or move to where the menu suits

Catman wrote:

Nems wrote:

Cost is only one aspect I think, the main problem is our choices being taken away by   the same ones that scream inclusion and multiculturalism

So you are against multiculturalism and inclusion then Liverpool Gurl?
Now why doesn't that surprise me, you are a trashy little mare after all. ::zomb:: ::zomb:: ::zomb:: 

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:


If we are given Halal without our knowledge or consent where is our choice?

If you dont like menu bring your own dinner or move to where the menu suits

I could care less, is it wrong I do not have a choice or is it wrong I do not know how the animal is slaughtered?

If it is the later again I have the moral high ground, because an animal slaughtered is morally wrong denying that animal the right of choice. Thus the moral dilemma is moot, because you want access to eat meat, why should it matter how the animal is killed, when the means to the end is to feed your craving?
Hence the absurdity of the argument against Halal, because people do not fuss over animal slaughter to claim off the back of a method is again illogical because it forfeits any sense of care for the animal in the first place.

Again to the point of choice all should have choice but again it is really only one choice here, the one you miss, killing animals or not killing them to eat, not an argument over two quick methods off how they are killed, the point you miss. You choose to eat meat, thus you chose not to decide how it was killed, so why do you need a choice on the method , when the moral view makes your claim to choose absurd?


Again I am all for choice but please spare me any bull arguments about choice, because to choose to eat meet negates a choice to the animal, thus negating a humane choice to how it is killed. Th fact is the view against halal was never about the method, it was always a poor excuse to try to make people fear Muslims/Islam.

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


I could care less, is it wrong I do not have a choice or is it wrong I do not know how the animal is slaughtered?

If it is the later again I have the moral high ground, because an animal slaughtered is morally wrong denying that animal the right of choice. Thus the moral dilemma is moot, because you want access to eat meat, why should it matter how the animal is killed, when the means to the end is to feed your craving?
Hence the absurdity of the argument against Halal, because people do not fuss over animal slaughter to claim off the back of a method is again illogical because it forfeits any sense of care for the animal in the first place.

Again to the point of choice all should have choice but again it is really only one choice here, the one you miss, killing animals or not killing them to eat, not an argument over two quick methods off how they are killed, the point you miss. You choose to eat meat, thus you chose not to decide how it was killed, so why do you need a choice on the method , when the moral view makes your claim to choose absurd?


Again I am all for choice but please spare me any bull arguments about choice, because to choose to eat meet negates a choice to the animal, thus negating a humane choice to how it is killed. Th fact is the view against halal was never about the method, it was always a poor excuse to try to make people fear Muslims/Islam.

I dont care how its slaughtered, as Edds said if I went down that road I probably wouldnt eat meat. I am more than happy with how ever we have been doing it all these, any religious minority that isnt can exercise their choice, to leave.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Hmm. No:

I neither abide by nor advocate OT laws... I'm pointing out:-

- You say you believe the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- Jewish people also believe part of the Bible to be "the written word of God"
- They eat a Kosher diet out of observance of this belief (which you share)
- Yet when they attempt to follow the doctrine of a Holy Book you agree to be the word of God you accuse them of "demanding special treatment".  

Ironic, no? "Judge not less you be judged"... That's New Testament doctrine, is it not?

the Jews do not accept the NT, so the fact the dietary laws were changed did not get to the Jews so too speak...

again this is not about the Jews or the Muslims it is about the costs of supplying unnecessary foods...

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


I could care less, is it wrong I do not have a choice or is it wrong I do not know how the animal is slaughtered?

If it is the later again I have the moral high ground, because an animal slaughtered is morally wrong denying that animal the right of choice. Thus the moral dilemma is moot, because you want access to eat meat, why should it matter how the animal is killed, when the means to the end is to feed your craving?
Hence the absurdity of the argument against Halal, because people do not fuss over animal slaughter to claim off the back of a method is again illogical because it forfeits any sense of care for the animal in the first place.

Again to the point of choice all should have choice but again it is really only one choice here, the one you miss, killing animals or not killing them to eat, not an argument over two quick methods off how they are killed, the point you miss. You choose to eat meat, thus you chose not to decide how it was killed, so why do you need a choice on the method , when the moral view makes your claim to choose absurd?


Again I am all for choice but please spare me any bull arguments about choice, because to choose to eat meet negates a choice to the animal, thus negating a humane choice to how it is killed. Th fact is the view against halal was never about the method, it was always a poor excuse to try to make people fear Muslims/Islam.

I dont care how its slaughtered, as Edds said if I went down that road I probably wouldnt eat meat. I am more than happy with how ever we have been doing it all these, any religious minority that isnt can exercise their choice, to leave.

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the Jews do not accept the NT, so the fact the dietary laws were changed did not get to the Jews so too speak...

again this is not about the Jews or the Muslims it is about the costs of supplying unnecessary foods...

If you believe in an omnipotent and eternal God, his laws must by definition be all-pervasive and eternal. So how could they change?

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

If you believe in an omnipotent and eternal God, his laws must by definition be all-pervasive and eternal. So how could they change?

not at all if a decision was for a certain place and a time it might not be for everyone and forever....  

lovedust wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

what you are missing is the OPTION part

offering a veggie OPTION is ok

offering veggie meals ONLY is not and that is what is happening

In which schools have meat-eating options been removed altogether?

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

not at all if a decision was for a certain place and a time it might not be for everyone and forever....  

Sorry that makes no sense to the view point of an omnipotent deity

victorisnotamused wrote:I take didge the dodge is waffling on about "killing" being inhumane...Now I can understand, and argue the toss over whether a Particular  method of killing is humane or not... but killing is neither humane or inhumane...
No doubt he's invoking such nonsense as "the animals right to life"
or its right to a choice in the matter...
Illogical view point, an animal has a right to live to decide as a human is illogical because it only is seeing the human point thus a person who argues stupidity is victor

I have never heard such childish nonsense except from the uneducated and tiny minds of "animal liberation" proponents...YOU know the sort...bombs under scientists cars, that fall off and maim children...threats to researchers
digging up grannies graves and other such desecration....
Waffle, any a poor deflection from my argument, he has no answer so instead tries to belittle me with childish woeful responses

YOU know the sort...the mindless idiots who released MINK of all things, into the environment a good few years back and almost destroyed the ecosystem in the fens. (which is only JUST recovering now...soley thanks to people like me who...get this......HUNT em.)
More waffle, no point to the argument

when will the bunnyhuggers get it into their tiny (and thankfully rapidly declining) brains, that...APART from a clean death, (and decent conditions if farmed/kept) ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS....
Yes animals have rights, as who are you to claim they do not?
PMSL that is the reasoning on a child, same arguments of the NAZI;s on Jews, they argued Jews hav no rights and low and behold Victor the Nazi advocates animals have no rights, bless

what we gonna get next ...a universal declaration of animal rights

vote for guinea pigs.
the right to cross borders...
perhaps we can give them rights to representatives in parliament
maybe the right to found families and have "children"
the right to a "fair wage" no animal shall be placed in bonded service????
Utter bloody nonsense...and emotive unthinking and mindless nonsense at that...
There you see he has no respect for life only human needs, we have no need to kill animals, but he advocates any argument based off his need, sorry please excuse my laughter at someone so twisted, who has no moral argument

And NO didge I havnt taken you off ignore....sadly I still see you waffle when folks "quote" your posts"  YETCH....

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry that makes no sense to the view point of an omnipotent deity

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

let me make it simple, if God says to me, while you are in Britain don't eat the chicken, then says to you while you are in italy don't eat the pork, is he still all powerful and all knowing...

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:


let me make it simple, if God says to me, while you are in Britain don't eat the chicken, then says to you while you are in italy don't eat the pork, is he still all powerful and all knowing...

Illogical semantics and daft a argument, god would argue eating chicken is wrong, not what nation you eat the chicken in, he either commands not to eat or eat it, simple  

victorisnotamused wrote:what was that you said???? cant quite hear you under all that wadding ???

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:

Illogical semantics and daft a argument, god would argue eating chicken is wrong, not what nation you eat the chicken in, he either commands not to eat or eat it, simple  

not at all he might know in a certain area foods are diseased and so do not eat them..

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

not at all he might know in a certain area foods are diseased and so do not eat them..

By you saying might you do not know thus how on earth can you decide?

Can you not see how your view is flawed?  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


By you saying might you do not know thus how on earth can you decide?

Can you not see how your view is flawed?  

not at all, just because we cannot see sense in what god does it does not mean it has no sense, when you have eternity and the knowledge of all things always you make the best decisions.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lovedust wrote:

let me make it simple, if God says to me, while you are in Britain don't eat the chicken, then says to you while you are in italy don't eat the pork, is he still all powerful and all knowing...

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

not at all, just because we cannot see sense in what god does it does not mean it has no sense, when you have eternity and the knowledge of all things always you make the best decisions.

Gobbledygook, there is no middle ground, to God everything should be clear thus no confusion, if you think there is confusion, then God is not all knowing, that is very simple to see

Didge wrote:PMSL so how would it be confusing them to you if the message is very clear?

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:

Illogical semantics and daft a argument, god would argue eating chicken is wrong, not what nation you eat the chicken in, he either commands not to eat or eat it, simple  

not at all he might know in a certain area foods are diseased and so do not eat them..

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

not at all he might know in a certain area foods are diseased and so do not eat them..

So you say God's dietary laws may change according to circumstance... Yet the Mark 7:18 passage VOD has repeatedly referenced states Jesus has declared all food to be clean.

How can food be both diseased and yet necessarily clean?