Job Discussion Forums

[shadowfax]

Yes, one needs to consider the passages, and those on both sides of the question, not only those that suit one's existing opinion. As I said, if you look at the beginning of Genesis, possibly the oldest place on the subject, man was to feed only on "every green herb", which is reasonably taken to be a metaphor for a meat free diet. After the fall, Nimrod the tyrant became a "mighty hunter".
One of the least helpful things one can do is to be stuck in universal rigid literalism when interpreting written sources. That is a badge of folly, and ultimately dishonesty, in people who claim to belong to any of the faiths you mentioned.
Incidentally, I myself have not "taught" anything, so I hope your aggressive and inappropriate application of "warning" was not directed towards me . I merely brought people's attention to what is written. But do you think it is right to stuff animals in overpopulated pens and cages so that they never experience any freedom to move, or to enjoy the light of the sun that God blessed them with?
I wonder why you asked if animals have spirits, when you seem to assume in your next premiss that without doubt they don't. Whether or not it was supposed to be a clever rhetorical question I don't know, but your wonderment didn't seem to last very long. Whether animals have spirits or souls I do not pretend to know.
Humans and animals are very different. Thanks for the news. So are snakes and horses.
Finally, are we really meant to receive the interpretation of what God intended or intends to teach, from 007?! And who are 007's real heroes, perhaps the ghostly looking entities in the nether regions of his avatar? I think I share Mr Scot's reservations on that score.

[Queen of Sheba]

I agree with you on this one 007. Apocalyptic poseurs should also beware of the use of Middle English as it makes them look even more ridiculous, than they already do when speaking to people in an online forum about ESL in Saudi Arabia. Or maybe this too is a Shakespearian drama, of the Arabian kind.

[shadowfax]

I think the identity of the true "poseur" mentality is revealed by the woman's avatar.

I am unsuprised that the OP has no idea what Middle English is. Personally, if I professed to be able to speak a language, I should desire some rough idea of the history of that language, and of at least the better parts of its culture.

Agree with 007 "on this one". You know what they say about birds of a feather.


And the woman followed the way of the serpent, for her spirit was entombed in darkness.

[Queen of Sheba]

I was not the "OP" or original poster. Even with the pompous English under your belt, your knowledge of modern standard English is severely lacking.

[shadowfax]

By OP I meant other person. So, if anything, my mistake was to do with internet shorthand and not, as you preposterously suggested, with "modern standard English". Do you really describe OP as "modern standard English", or is this a last desperate attempt to conceal your speciousness. Oops, sorry, I forgot: that one had more than two syllables.

And Middle English is from the time of Chaucer, who died in 1400, while the early modern English of the KJB belongs to the time of Shakespeare and is entirely different. So if you wish to know anything whatsoever about the basis of modernity, I suggest you get away from the dark tomb of your computer screen for 5 minutes and do some real reading.

You may wish to begin to amend your phobia for the apocalyptic by consulting Blake's 4-fold vision of the ever-present apocalypse. For Blake, his own London was the New Jerusalem, but London was a much greener place then, and brimming with noble and elated ideas. However, I think he was making another point you may wish to consider. In more than one sense, and under the eyes of a visionary like Blake, no geographical place is by virtue of its location and history intrinsically holier or more blessed with prophets than another.

[cmp45]

[Queen of Sheba]

[shadowfax]

I prefer convolution to Cagneyesqueness, but the dimness is all your own. By the way, how many dim people with a first and an MA distinction from one of the three top colleges in Britain do you know? I am sure you will say one, which is me. Thankfully, though, you do not know me; so there!
Still revelling in the offensive avatar, I see. Incidentally, you will see that at least I gave the reader the benefit of knowing and finishing the proverb. I didn't spell it out in full and add a score more for its neighbours, like the platitudinous knucklewit in the adage.

Actually, I delete my next paragraph as being an overworked brand of
debased humour. Especially when I consider the incoherence of the NP (next poster), who, clearly by her avatar, seeks a male of large thew, pocket or influence to conceal herself behind. I hope in her assumption of my littleness, if I conceive her rightly, she may suffer us to continue in our assumption of her own fatness and ugliness.

[Queen of Sheba]

OP little man, OP.

[shadowfax]

Wrangling "queen", you may wish to read my previous post, which I have edited, before a moderator comes to salvage your dignity.

[Queen of Sheba]

Oh but I do know you, your personality reeks of the rotten flesh situated at the back of the bus.

[shadowfax]

I am flattered by your vitriol. But could you please explain this strange allusion? I didn't wish to bring you to this pass, but perhaps you should be a little less hasty and indiscriminate in slighting people yourself.

[Queen of Sheba]

Perhaps you should be a little less pompous, rude, arrogant and ridiculous.

[shadowfax]

I perhaps become the first three when insulted and not in a mood to just take it like a martyr. As for the fourth, to save further logomachia, I suggest we agree to say that it is in the eye of the beholder.

[007]