On alt.food.vegan, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) > wrote:

> In article >,
> "harmony" > posted:
>
>
>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>> > On alt.food.vegan, Romanise > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On May 6, 11:39=A0am, Sidney Lambe
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> >> Tofu cheese is better than dairy-based cheese. As a
>> >>> >> diabetic, you probably already knew that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Who needs cheese? Why do supposed plant product eaters try
>> >>> to emulate animal product eaters?
>> >>
>> >> Would you want this be answered by Dr Jai Maharaj?
>> >>
>> >>> Tofu cheese is gross. It is disgusting. It isn't even
>> >>> cheese.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are _much_ better things to do with tofu.
>> >>
>> >>> > Tell us how Rural economy of India can be sustained
>> >>> > without any animal husbandary?
>> >>>
>> >>> Why should he answer stupid questions like that?
>> >>
>> >> I did ask him several times what doctorate he received
>> >> from what university in what year with what name? He has
>> >> remained quiet.
>> >>
>> >> To the question "how Rural economy of India can be
>> >> sustained without any animal husbandry?" he needs to
>> >> reply because he claims to be an Engineer trained at
>> >> India's premier Institue of Technology at Delhi which was
>> >> established primarily to improve the lot of Indian people
>> >> most of whom live in rural regions of which 60% have no
>> >> land and so are not farmers but do keep a cow, a buffalo, a
>> >> goat, to provide them with some protein.
>> >
>> > You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land. Do
>> > you have any idea how much plant material they consume? How
>> > about how much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can
>> > keep a goat or cow or buffalo they can use the land that
>> > supports those animals for farming/gardening instead How
>> > about how much water a cow consumes, which would be much
>> > more advantageous.
>> >
>> >>> No one needs to engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They
>> >>> are farmers. They can grow anything. There are hundreds of
>> >>> commercial crops to choose from.
>> >>
>> >> There are lands in India which cannot be cultivated and
>> >> cultivation activity needs reducing to keep, reintroduce
>> >> vegitation cover on the land for getting back to climate
>> >> that is contrubuting less to global warming.
>> >
>> > You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it .
>> > Google "no-till farming" .
>> >
>> > And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There
>> > are plenty that can. Duh.
>> >
>> > Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.
>
>> that's nothing compared to what he does when he goes around
>> knocking on doors with bible in his hand. he associates hindu
>> habit of vegetarianism a big impediment to the growth of his
>> religion and hence it is important his psyche that animals get
>> killed.
>
> Maybe he needs to read this:
>
> The Christian Argument for Vegetarianism
>
> Excerpted from the book:
>
> Christianity and the Rights of Animals, (Crossroad Publ. Co.,
> NY)
>
> By Rev. Dr. Andrew Linzey Director of Studies Center for the
> Study of Theology University of Essex
>
> It is well known that during the last thirty years or more,
> farmers have been under increasing pressure to tailor
> traditional farming methods to the needs of cost-effective
> production. Farming animals intensively has become the norm.
>
> It seems to me the only satisfactory basis on which we can
> oppose systems of close confinement is by recourse to the
> argument drawn from theos-rights. To put it at its most basic:
> animals have the right to be animals. The natural life of a
> Spirit-filled creature is a gift from God. When we take over
> the life of an animal to the extent of distorting its natural
> life for no other purpose than our own gain, we fall into sin.
> There is no clearer blasphemy before God than the perversion of
> his creatures.
>
> To the question: 'Why is it wrong to deny chickens the
> rudimentary requirements of their natural life, such as freedom
> of movement or association?' there is, therefore, only one
> satisfactory answer: Since an animal's natural life is a gift
> from God, it follows that God's right is violated when the
> natural life of his creatures is perverted. Those who, in
> contrast, opt for the welfarist approach to intensive farming
> are inevitably involved in speculating how far such and such
> may or may not suffer in what are plainly unnatural conditions.
> But unless animals are judged to have some right to their
> natural life, from what standpoint can we judge abnormalities,
> mutilations or adjustments? Confining a de-beaked hen in a
> battery cage is more than a moral crime; it is a living sign of
> our failure to recognize the blessing of God in creation.
>
> What makes this situation all the more lamentable is the
> realization that the use to which animals are put in intensive
> farming goes far beyond even the most generous interpretation
> of need. It will be obvious that humans can live healthy,
> stimulating and rewarding lives without white veal, pate' de
> foie gras, or the ever-increasing quantities of cheap eggs. The
> truth is that we can afford to be much more generous to farm
> animals than is frequently the case today.
>
> Churches need to reflect in their own collective actions the
> sensitivity they frequently hope for in others. [In England],
> under present legislation, animals can be subject to intensive
> farming and are so on Church land. It is anomalous that the
> Church of England should allow on its land farming practices
> which many senior ecclesiastics oppose and which one bishop
> recently likened to an Auschwitz for animals.
>
> The Christian argument for vegetarianism then is simple: since
> animals belong to God, have value to God and live for God, then
> their needless destruction is sinful. In short: animals have
> some right to their life, all circumstances being equal. That
> it has taken Christians so long to grasp this need not worry
> us. There were doubtless good reasons, partly theological,
> partly cultural and partly economic, why Christians in the
> past have found vegetarianism unfeasible. We do well not to
> judge too hastily, if at all. We cannot relive others' lives,
> or think their thoughts, or enter their consciences. But what
> we can be sure about is that living without what Clark calls
> "avoidable ill" has a strong moral claim upon us now.
>
> Some will surely question the limits of the vegetarian world
> here envisaged. Will large-scale vegetarianism work in
> practice? I confess I am agnostic, surely legitimately, about
> the possibility of a world- transforming vegetarianism. But
> clairvoyance is not an essential prerequisite of the vegetarian
> option, and what the future may hold, and its consequences,
> cannot easily be determined from any perspective. What I
> think is important to hold on to is the notion that the God
> who provides moral opportunities is the same God who enables
> the world, slowly but surely, to respond to them. >From a
> theological perspective, no moral endeavor is wasted so long as
> it coheres with God's purpose for his cosmos.
>
> An appendix :
>
> Genesis also says only eat plants
>
> Also the following extracts are relevant
>
> 'Not by shedding innocent blood, but by living a righteous life
> shall ye find the peace of God ... Blessed are they who keep
> this law; for God is manifested in all creatures. All creatures
> live in God, and God is hid in them...
>
> 'The fruit of the trees and the seeds and of the herbs alone
> do I partake, and these are changed by the spirit into my
> flesh and blood. Of these alone and their like shall ye eat
> who believe in me and are my disciples; for of these, in the
> spirit, come life and health and healing unto man...'
>
> (From The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, trans. by G. J. Ouseley.)
>
> 'And the flesh of slain beasts in his own body will become his
> own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself,
> and whoso eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats the body of
> death.
>
> (From The Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ by the Disciple
> John, Trans. by E. B. Szekely, C. W. Daniel, London 1937.)
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotish Om Shant i
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for
> the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
> The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and
> do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The
> contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail
> to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if
> it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and
> postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for
> information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not
> necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read
> the article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material
> the use of which may or may not have been specifically
> authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being
> made available in efforts to advance the understanding of
> environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic,
> scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is
> believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
> copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
> 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research, comment,
> discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET
> newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information go to:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to
> use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your
> own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
> the copyright owner.
>
> Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or
> more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several times.

No, I don't think that's happenning and I challenge you to provide
proof of those allegations, though I don't care if you take the
challenge or not.

I admire your style, Doc. Keep it up. I save quite a few of your
posts in their own directory here.

Sid