Topic: the moral hand and veganism (Read 5709 times)

Good. So let's not eat meat in front of Stijn, because he/she just might be a weaker brother/sister who might fall if he sees us eating meat.

Exactly! And when the Father answers - by circumstances, or through His Word in the Bible - then pick up that answer and fight. The spiritual powers and authorities of this world express themselves in the physical. Jesus fought them in the physical, on the cross. Why did He give Himself up to the cross? Because He was fighting in a specific way on behalf of all people. What He did is done. You and I can't do it that way. The future begins now.

Check the future in the Revelation. Check chapter 19 for the Rider on the white horse. Stand up for your own and your family's defense. Don't aggress, but defend. Consider King David of the past. See that it is the aggressors who want Christianity to fail, who are attempting to teach the people of God's Church to lie down and roll over so that they can walk all over you. Yet, in your battles, trust God and be just.



EDIT: I guess I am more like Saint Paul where he says to the Corinthian Church in 2 Corinthians 11:19-21...
I commend all of you who don't use a numbing agent on your gums when the dentist is drilling. In the same way, you endure the torture of the ungodly without flinching. I am too weak for that. I fight.

In that same way Jesus did not resist his crucifixion, a Christian (i.e., “Christ followers”) is not to resist transgression against him or her; instead, they are, as Jesus did, to yield the matter “unto the Father” to resolve in that way He sees fit (i.e., the right way).

There is a difference between wrath and determination and vengeance, and self and family protection. Often the Lord uses your actions to "keep" those that He wants kept.

1. If the Empire should become any larger, I should not have known what “large” is.

2,3. God is that one who keepeth.

Small, beneficial govenments often become large harmful monsters.

"Love your enemies." Where is the point that we should love our friends? When the gang of thieves steals from us, are they not harming those that we love more than our enemies... the people who are our friends and families? Take a look at King David. He was call a man after God's own heart, two places in the Old Testament; and the only person to be so called. Yet, to look at his actions, he seemed to be one of the most blood thirsty people ever. Yet, when you look in detail at him, you see that he did everything honorably to the extreme.

"Love your enemies" doesn't mean love them more than your family and friends. Why do you people constantly try to make God and His Word look bad?

Both concern demographics that used to be seen as inferior beings to be used as a commodity.

We keep adding layers to our ethical awareness. We keep adding minorities. Black people, women, different sexual orientations, different abilities, different social classes, mental deviations and well, there we go, other species. 

Apparently it takes time. We only abolished slavery fairly recently. We're still struggling to curb racism and give equal opportunity to these minorities. Women only just won their right to vote and we're finally starting to see that gay people aren't sick.   
 
These groups are entitled to their rights and considerations.

Every generation ever thought that they were the pinnacle of morality. How arrogant would it be to join their ranks by believing that everything is already settled? Especially considering how abundantly obvious it is that we're directly inflicting a life of torment on billions and billions of animals?

Both are happily populated by control freaks.

Both pursue a “correction” of nature for motivations wholly subordinate thereto.

I'm ready to bet these things are connected somehow. Howbeit I could be wrong of course.

Within the context of this small, agricultural town, the farmers of the town would farm a singular, massive, highly-efficient farm (or, perhaps, for redundancy, two large farms). As well, “thieves” do not exist without ownership to condemn them, and would merely be some people that came to utilize the resources of the farm.

Now, one may wonder why it is that the farmers would not ban together to augment their own wealth via ownership and the subsequent implementation of money and state. That humanity has already “been there” and “done that” should affirm to them that such a path is ill-advised and prevent its wholesale (and, thus, successful) pursuit, for, ultimately, ownership may only be enforced to one’s benefit if others are willing to enforce it (something that becomes more difficult as fewer retain ownership [that is, remain owners]). (In the instance one enforces ownership oneself, one forgoes an equal measure of production. [The same is true of the enforcement of money to a greater degree and of the enforcement of state to a yet greater one.])

Additionally, not all government constitutes non-optional hierarchy. For example, Great Empire of Earth is an imperial anarchist despotism, which means that there is one endowed with all powers of government (in this case, by the “G.E. Emperor” [G.E. doesn’t have a constitution]) wherewith one may not comply (i.e., compliance with “the Despot” is optional). The optional-ness of compliance with the government is not codified in law, for it is the wish of the G.E. Emperor that it would always be implied (and, therefore, that one could not transgress it for a lack of positive limitations thereupon).

Not to contradict, nor to argue, but rather to question, what about this.

Say there is a land without government, and with reasonable people. The land is not populous, but it is fertile. The people are farmers, with their own families. They are friendly with each other. Now and again they work together on projects, like helping their grown children or neighbor's children to put up a barn, a small group working together. Perhaps they do the harvesting in groups, friends, offering a helping hand.

Among these farmers are the 5% that are a little prone to laziness and fraud on their neighbors in whatever ways they can get away with. A few of these are downright thieves. The thieves literally break into their neighbor's barns and steal produce. They rustle cattle and sheep, animals that the owners have not set aside for community purposes; after all, don't we get to keep a little of what we work for for ourselves without giving all of it over to community?

Some of the thieves get killed breaking and entering. They become afraid. So they form a loose government, a gang, for mutual protection. The good folk form a government to protect themselves from the gang.

The smarter thieves and "crooks" weasel their way into the government and start directing it so that they can covertly do their thieving from a supposedly moral ground. Soon the government is worse than the gang, which the government workers hire to help with their covert thieving.

This is the way it happens. Sometimes sneaky crooks go into lands simply to start such a government among the people, so that they can eventually rape and plunder from a "good" standpoint.

The governments of the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others have built into them the way for the common people to overcome the government on individual grounds. That is, the individual person can by government, defeat just about every government action in court that is against the people. The only reason this isn't done is because the people have forgotten (been trained out of) how to do it.

We need government. Even if we don't, there will always be people who think that we do. As far as the countries I listed above, learn what you have been missing at http://1215.org/ and http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da.

What does anyone think (yes, this should be in the government thread, but it seemed an appropriate response for this post)?

(Red colorization mine.)

Where there is heterarchy, there is reason. Where there is hierarchy, there is treason.

Your condemnation of “sociopathy” satisfies my definition of “morality” (i.e., it is conducive of unreasoned [perhaps, even, unreasonable] “self-preservation” [i.e., the preservation of some self]).

Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't quite follow that tangent. I'm not really sure anyone does.

Do you have a plan to defend your values against those that think you are nuts, and a perfect slave for their flock? Do you rule out the usage of violence against your enemies in defense and in preemptive way? just asking, I didn't read it, for disclaimer... but in short are you like the sheep ready to be fleeced, or more like a nasty continually mutating resistant virus whose enemy are gonna die in utter suffering meanwhile being used to further the spread?

V

Disregarding the preferences of sentient beings is my definition of sociopathy. It may not be a clinical label but rather a collective failing in empathy towards the weaker groups in our society.

Why must one’s survival mechanisms be construed as anything but? (How is it that one can debate something so arbitrary as ethics?)