Canadian vegan faces 10 yrs for giving slaughter house pigs water on hot day

[William Tell]

No, she doesn't. She simply doesn't believe that animals are material things. This is a biblical interpretation on her part.

That's not what I'm getting. The verse she used was the one that says God owns all things on earth. So its kind of like walking up to a gas station owner and saying he doesn't own that because God does.

 

[Dr.3D]

That's not what I'm getting. The verse she used was the one that says God owns all things on earth. So its kind of like walking up to a gas station owner and saying he doesn't own that because God does.

Of course one must realize, God put the owner in charge of His gas station.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's not what I'm getting.

Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here.

The verse she used was the one that says God owns all things on earth. So its kind of like walking up to a gas station owner and saying he doesn't own that because God does.

Well, again, that's the scenario you guys are spinning it into.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here.

But that was my point all along.

Ownership comes with and implies responsibility.

If it belongs to someone else, well, frankly, who cares then?

 

[William Tell]

Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here.



Well, again, that's the scenario you guys are spinning it into.

No. I'm not flipping the debate. In fact I agree that we should treat animals decently. I just disagree that can't include eating them since Jesus Christ did eat them and there's no way around it without denying some verses are accurate.

I also disagree on ownership because there are countless verses where God talks about man owning things including animals.

I know you are friends with lily but you really don't need to defend her here. I'm being perfectly nice and having an honest and friendly debate.

 

[Suzanimal]

Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here.

Responsibility? For what? Eating animals? I take full responsibility.

Well, again, that's the scenario you guys are spinning it into.

WT wasn't spinning what she said. She quoted a verse and he's looking for clarification. Frankly, I don't get where she's going with it, either.

 

[lilymc]

If it belongs to someone else, well, frankly, who cares then?

If the Owner is going to hold the manager accountable for the things that were entrusted to him… then how can you say who cares?

 

[Natural Citizen]

But that was my point all along.

Ownership comes with and implies responsibility.

If it belongs to someone else, well, frankly, who cares then?

Sure. I agree with that. Which is why I posted what I did on post #979

 

[Anti Federalist]

If the Owner is going to hold the manager accountable for the things that were entrusted to him… then how can you say who cares?

That assumes that I agreed to that contract and job description.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Responsibility? For what? Eating animals? I take full responsibility.

Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm talking about liberty-responsibility as an Indivisible whole. Meaning the primary foundation for moral cade as well as liberty's principles together as an Indivisible whole. I'm not even talking about bacon, per se.

It just seems to me that the former is gradually being removed and replaced with man's personal indulgences being the new foundation for moral code. That's actually destroying traditional libertarianism.

WT wasn't spinning what she said. She quoted a verse and he's looking for clarification. Frankly, I don't get where she's going with it, either.

Maybe not purposely spinning it, but it just happens.

You know what it is, Suz. I'll tell ya. Everybody always wants to always posture in order to make it look like they're defending liberty against somebody else. lol. I do it myself.

 

[lilymc]

That assumes that I agreed to that contract and job description.

Well, I don't know what your beliefs are, in matters of faith. But from a biblical perspective, we are not the owners, and we are accountable to the Owner for what we do with the things He entrusted to us. I realize that this is a tough concept to accept.

But in a weird way, it is actually far more liberating to not only understand this, but to fully surrender everything that we think is ours.

Here's an article in case anyone wants to read: Stewards, Not Owners. (The article is about money, but the concept is the same for other things as well.)

 

[William Tell]

Actually, there are numerous verses that clearly state that God owns everything. I'm surprised you're even arguing that.

Oh come now, lily. As the Creator, God owns the entire universe, you know I'm not denying that. But you are selectively applying that to animals to make your argument that we should treat them how you want us to. Despite the fact that Jesus ate lamb.

If you walk up to a girl at a park and say God is our father in heaven I don't have a problem with that, you are right. But if instead you say God is our father in heaven and therefor her parents aren't her parents you are kind of twisting things.

There are countless references to humans owning animals in the bible, surely you know that.

Deuteronomy 22:1
If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its owner.

Job 1:3

and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.

Matthew 18:12
“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?

John 10:12
The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.

So what are these, poor translations? Verses added afterwards? Can you honestly go around telling people that they don't own animals according to God and believe yourself?

I can respect your personal views. But when you are presenting them in a way that is turning people in this thread off to Christianity it bothers me. Because the people in this thread are worth more than many sparrows, or lambs, or chihuahuas as Jesus said.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That assumes that I agreed to that contract and job description.

Aw man, you gonna mess around and catch a lightning bolt talking like that. You know she's talking about the spiritual relationship of God and Man, right? Geez.

 

[Suzanimal]

Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm talking about liberty-responsibility as an Indivisible whole. Meaning the primary foundation for moral cade as well as liberty's principles together as an Indivisible whole. I'm not even talking about bacon, per se.

It just seems to me that the former is gradually being removed and replaced with man's personal indulgences being the new foundation for moral code.

Well, which personal indulgences are we discussing?

Maybe not purposely spinning it, but it just happens.

You know what it is, Suz. I'll tell ya. Everybody always wants to always posture in order to make it look like they're defending liberty against somebody else. lol. I do it myself.

NC, I don't care what the heck she eats or why but I have to admit, the Jesus angle is pretty tough to swallow. I can't find any indication in The Bible that supports her claim and if you're gonna drop a bombshell like that, you should have real proof.

I also happen to think the farmer owned the pigs in the op and quoted scripture that supports my claim. That's not spin.

 

[Suzanimal]

Oh come now, lily. As the Creator, God owns the entire universe, you know I'm not denying that. But you are selectively applying that to animals to make your argument that we should treat them how you want us to. Despite the fact that Jesus ate lamb.

If you walk up to a girl at a park and say God is our father in heaven I don't have a problem with that, you are right. But if instead you say God is our father in heaven and therefor her parents aren't her parents you are kind of twisting things.

There are countless references to humans owning animals in the bible, surely you know that.









So what are these, poor translations? Verses added afterwards? Can you honestly go around telling people that they don't own animals according to God and believe yourself?

I can respect your personal views. But when you are presenting them in a way that is turning people in this thread off to Christianity it bothers me. Because the people in this thread are worth more than many sparrows, or lambs, or chihuahuas as Jesus said.

Exactly! +rep

 

[William Tell]

Maybe not purposely spinning it, but it just happens.

OK, how am I spinning it?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, which personal indulgences are we discussing?

No, I'm talking across the board. Not specific ones. It's like when you hear people doing stuff they know isn't really morally right but they say, oh, I think god will okay with it. I'm just saying that man is quickly replacing God's Word and foundation for moral code with man's Wordis all I'm saying. You know people do that. There's no deneying it.

NC, I don't care what the heck she eats or why but I have to admit, the Jesus angle is pretty tough to swallow. I can't find any indication in The Bible that supports her claim and if you're gonna drop a bombshell like that, you should have real proof.

Well. Heh. I'll say this and then I'll shut up about it. Me and lily have had some knockdown dragout arguments about the text of the Bible. She'll tell ya that herself.

Bible study is freakin hard. At least for me anyway. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I also happen to think the farmer owned the pigs in the op and quoted scripture that supports my claim. That's not spin.

Ha. Yeah but only if you consider animals material things. If they're a meterial thing, then, yes, I'm right there with ya. I understand the nature of property rights. Property rights are the principal sopport for the rights to life and liberty themselves. And if anyone thinks I don't understand it, well, then I welcome that debate.

So are they? Are they a material thing? And if so, says who? What tenor do they say it in? prove that to me biblically and I'll be right there with ya.

 

[Natural Citizen]

OK, how am I spinning it?

Ha. Okay. So lets do it this way.

Do you believe that you are of supreme importance, William? If so, then why?

 

[William Tell]

Ha. Okay. So lets do it this way.

Do you believe that you are of supreme importance, William? If so, then why?

I do not know what you are asking. But what did I spin?

 

[Natural Citizen]

I do not know what you are asking. But what did I spin?

Just answer my question, William. I'm gonna show you.

Do you believe that you are of supreme importance? If so, then why?