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

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.

Well, God considered livestock a farmer's property. He put it in the Law.

Exodus 22:1-4

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
"If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.
 
Just answer my question, William. I'm gonna show you.

Do you believe that you are of supreme importance? If so, then why?
I don't know what you mean by supreme importance. But If you're asking if I think I'm a big deal the answer is no.

But I'm a big enough deal to want to know how I'm spinning something by having honest debate.
 
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.

Yes, for starters, you are using bad translations. This is why it's so important to go look up the original language.

These are from the King James version (I'm not a KJV only person, however I do believe that many modern translations are bad, and some people think that is not an accident.) On blueletterbible.org, you can look up the original Hebrew or Greek.

No mention of the word owner here:

Deuteronomy 22:1
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.

Nor here:

Job 1:3
His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.​


Yes, some of these use the word "have" but that doesn't mean that they are the true owner, it simply means that they have them in our temporary possession, that we are in charge of. In other words, we have things but it is should be understood in a biblical context that even though we have them, God still is the true owner.


Matthew 18:12
How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?​


The only verse that you posted that actually says the word "own" is an analogy referring to Jesus, the true shepherd… the true owner. :)

John 10:12
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.​


I could post a bunch of verses saying that God is the owner of all. (I made a video on that which I posted earlier.) When there are other verses that seem to contradict these verses… here is where we just apply some common sense. The Bible does not contradict itself. So let's ask this question… If some verses say that God owns the earth and everything in it, including the animals… and other verses seem to say that humans own these animals. Which one do you think we misunderstood… the former or the latter?
 
Well, God considered livestock a farmer's property. He put it in the Law.

Exodus 22:1-4

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
"If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.

Ha, Nope. You don't understand that scripture, Suz. Sorry. You're inserting your own 'consideration.'

That scripture is about punishment. Why do you think someone would pay more restitution for 1 - taking an ox and 2- killing it on top of that? And why the comparison with the sheep? Why is it that the sheep is a lesser restitution?

No place in that scripture is it made God's law (again we get back to what is lawful versus what is legal here) that the animal was a material thing.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean by supreme importance. But If you're asking if I think I'm a big deal the answer is no.

But I'm a big enough deal to want to know how I'm spinning something by having honest debate.

No, William, I'm trying to have honest debate with you here.

As was said before, You are of Divine origin and your spiritual nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. And only with things material.

There's a lot to that discussion. Either you are able to have it or you aren't. I promise you that I can have honest debate. I'm fully capable. I might not always be right. But I'm capable of it. It's not fair to insinuate that I'm trying to avoid it. Because I am not.
 
Last edited:
Well, God considered livestock a farmer's property. He put it in the Law.

Exodus 22:1-4

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
"If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.


"The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it." Psalm 24:1


"If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains." Psalm 50:12


"For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills." Psalm 50:10


"I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine." - Psalm 50:11


"O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions." Psalm 104:24


"The sea is His, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land." Psalm 95:5


'The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me." Leviticus 25:23​


I could go on, but I think that's enough for now.
 
Yes, for starters, you are using bad translations. This is why it's so important to go look up the original language.
Well, I used the KJV the other day and you told me that its wrong and that when it says fish it means fish weed.:o
No mention of the word owner here:
Deuteronomy 22:1
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.
So, if we talk about thy brother's house instead of ox, will you say that thy brother owns it?

Nor here:
Job 1:3
His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.
And yet you are saying its not his substance.
Yes, some of these use the word "have" but that doesn't mean that they are the true owner, it simply means that they have them in our temporary possession, that we are in charge of. In other words, we have things but it is should be understood in a biblical context that even though we have them, God still is the true owner.
I appreciate that you are trying to lead me to understand things through a biblical perspective. But the problem is everything you are saying here is just you reading a more "spiritual" understanding into a verse where it just isn't there. My ox is my ox, yes if I have an ox it was a gift from God and I should appreciate that. And yes, I belong to God myself. But that doesn't change the fact that humans own animals.


Matthew 18:12
How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?


The only verse that you posted that actually says the word "own" is an analogy referring to Jesus, the true shepherd… the true owner. :)


John 10:12
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
Well my argument isn't based on the word own. It's on the concept of ownership. You just posted where the KJV talked about an ox belonging to someone but then danced around it.


I could post a bunch of verses saying that God is the owner of all. (I made a video on that which I posted earlier.)
That is not a point of contention. I already said God ultimately owns all things. You are just cherry picking to make a biblical case for veganism that can't be backed up by actual verses about what Jesus ate.

When there are other verses that seem to contradict these verses… here is where we just apply some common sense. The Bible does not contradict itself. So let's ask this question… If some verses say that God owns the earth and everything in it, including the animals… and other verses seem to say that humans own these animals. Which one do you think we misunderstood… the former or the latter?
I don't think they contradict at all. Its pretty simple. God owns all things, God owns trees, mountains, cats, and Dixie Cups. He can give them to whoever he pleases.
 
No, William, I'm trying to have honest debate with you here. Which you clearly aren't ready for. And I say that as respectfully as I can.

As was said before, You are of Divine origin and your spiritual nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. And only with things material.

There's a lot to that discussion. Either you are able to have it or you aren't. I promiuse yu that I can have honest debate. I'm fully capable. I might not always be right. But I'm capable of it.

OK. go wherever you want with this but I missed where Lily was making it about the material vs spiritual. Seems to me you want to have a different discussion. Which I am open to.

I don't see why you are questioning my honesty though, I've no reason to question yours.
 
OK. go wherever you want with this but I missed where Lily was making it about the material vs spiritual. Seems to me you want to have a different discussion. Which I am open to.

I don't see why you are questioning my honesty though, I've no reason to question yours.

Well, what the heck, I'm not Lily. She's doing her own debating.

Anyway, I edited that post you quoted, because I came off rude to you. I don't want to do that.

You just insinuated that I was avoiding honest debate. I simply told you that, no...I'm not. But, gosh, Williiam, now you're projecing even further saying that I'm doubting your honesty. I'm not. I accept that you firmly believe what you believe.

Anyway. Yeah, I'm gonna hit you guys from a way different angle than lily is. lol. I'm gonna challenge your fundamental application of libertatianism. I 'd like to know why some friends think they're libertarian. I'd like to know what foundation for moral code they base they're views from.

The reason for that, though, is because I got the impression that some people here were trying to paint lily into some kind of liberal. Which she isn't.

But I'm tired of this tonight. I'm going to bed. I'll see ya later.
 
Last edited:
I don't think they contradict at all. Its pretty simple. God owns all things, God owns trees, mountains, cats, and Dixie Cups. He can give them to whoever he pleases.

Yes, God gives (entrusts to us) things… Whether that's money, children, or any other blessings. But God is still the owner. I mean I know that sounds hard to accept, but even our own money is not really ours. So why are you trying to make an exception for animals?

God put us in charge of the animals, but that is different than saying "You are the owner to do whatever you want with them." We know that is not the case because there are scriptures that talk about how we should treat animals. I can post those too, if you want. If animals were truly our possessions and ours alone, then we wouldn't be accountable to anyone for them, we would be able to do whatever we want with them.
 
Well, what the heack, I'm not Lily. she's doing her own debating.
Right but you were talking about my debate with her.

Anyway, I edited that post you quoted, because came off rude to you.
No worries, we're good, carry on.:D

You just insinuated that I was avoiding honest debate. I simply told you than, no...I'm not. But, gosh, Williiam, now you're projecing even further saying that I'm doubting your hinesty. I'm not. I accept that you firmly believe what you believe.

Anyway. Yeah, I'm gonna hit you guys from a way different angl than lily is. lol. I'm gonna challenge your fundamental application of libertatianism.
Oh, well I didn't mean to say you were avoiding honest debate I just wanted an answer to my question. Carry on with the meat of the subject.
 
Yes, God gives (entrusts to us) things… Whether that's money, children, or any other blessings. But God is still the owner. I mean I know that sounds hard to accept, but even our own money is not really ours. So why are you trying to make an exception for animals?
I am not making any exceptions. I believe you're pet or farm animal is exactly as much your property as your money is. For all intents and purposes your money is yours, yes you should use it in ways that please God. But that's between you and Him.

God put us in charge of the animals, but that is different than saying "You are the owner to do whatever you want with them." We know that is not the case because there are scriptures that talk about how we should treat animals. I can post those too, if you want. If animals were truly our possessions and ours alone, then we wouldn't be accountable to anyone for them, we would be able to do whatever we want with them.
Such as the scriptures telling us which animals to eat, and not to eat them with the blood, and how Israel should offer them as burnt offerings?There are scriptures that talk about what to do with money as well. We are accountable to God for all things. By your argument we should stop using words like ownership at all since God owns all things.
 
Well I'm not running but I need some sleep. If you guys say anything else I'll respond tomorrow if I can. Good night, pals. :)
 
Ha, Nope. You don't understand that scripture, Suz. Sorry. You're inserting your own 'consideration.'

I don't understand your interpretation but I think the scripture is fairly self explanatory.

That scripture is about punishment. Why do you think someone would pay more restitution for 1 - taking an ox and 2- killing it on top of that? And why the comparison with the sheep? Why is it that the sheep is a lesser restitution?


And why do you think God would demand restitution be paid at all? Because it's stealing and stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. If the original farmer didn't own the livestock, why call it theft? You can't steal steal something from me that I don't own.

No place in that scripture is it made God's law (again we get back to what is lawful versus what is legal here) that the animal was a material thing.

The rules God play by and the one's we were GIVEN BY GOD to play by are totally different and in that scripture, God treated the animal like a material thing.
 
"The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it." Psalm 24:1


"If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains." Psalm 50:12


"For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills." Psalm 50:10


"I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine." - Psalm 50:11


"O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions." Psalm 104:24


"The sea is His, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land." Psalm 95:5


'The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me." Leviticus 25:23​


I could go on, but I think that's enough for now.

I am not making any exceptions. I believe you're pet or farm animal is exactly as much your property as your money is. For all intents and purposes your money is yours, yes you should use it in ways that please God. But that's between you and Him.

Such as the scriptures telling us which animals to eat, and not to eat them with the blood, and how Israel should offer them as burnt offerings?There are scriptures that talk about what to do with money as well. We are accountable to God for all things. By your argument we should stop using words like ownership at all since God owns all things.

I think William Tell covered that. I don't have anything to add.
 
I would really like to see your source on Vegan Jesus and I pray it's not some of the garbage PETA put out. They ran a vegan Jesus campaign years ago that was complete and utter nonsense and it seems quite a few vegan activists took the information and posted it all over the internet as fact.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-jesus-a-vegetarian-as-peta-claims

Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

Last week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a new ad campaign that features an image of the Shroud of Turin and the slogan "Make a Lasting Impression—Go Vegetarian." PETA explained in a statement that it "chose Jesus as its new 'poster boy' because he is widely believed to have been a member of the Essenes, a Jewish religious sect that followed a vegetarian diet and rejected animal sacrifices."

Jesus a weed-eater? It's not a new claim, but a new spin on an old one. Vegetarianism's true believers have long held that the Garden of Eden was a meatless paradise ("And God said, Behold, I have given you ... the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat," Genesis 1:29). They've also claimed that the New Testament supports Jesus' vegetarianism, although that requires you to believe that Jesus' frequent encouragement of fishermen was symbolic, "fish" being mere symbols of "disciples," and that he cast the sinners out of the temple because he wanted to rescue the Passover lamb.

No mainstream theologian buys the vegetarians' argument because the Gospels are fairly straightforward about the Messiah's tastes in food. "Jesus said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish. ... And he took it, and did eat before them" (Luke 24:41-43). The story of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, not to mention that Passover lamb, argues against vegetarianism, too.

But with this new campaign PETA foils the scholars by ignoring the biblical evidence—and the Bible altogether—preferring sources from the fringe field of "vegetarian theology," who depend on coincidence, historical speculation, and creative exegesis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts to make their case that 1) Jesus was an Essene; and 2) that the Essenes practiced vegetarianism.

Was Jesus an Essene? Did the Essenes practice vegetarianism? And just who were the Essenes?

The Essenes were a Jewish ascetical sect that lived in the Judean desert on the western shore of the Dead Sea during the time of Jesus. Secretive and communal, the Essenes broke with official Judaism and retreated from the world because they thought both "had become polluted, unclean and ungodly," says Marcus J. Borg, a religious studies professor at Oregon State University and a leading New Testament scholar. "They had rigorous understandings of purity that could only be met by separating themselves from others, and they looked forward to an apocalyptic war in which God would destroy their enemies." (In that sense they were a little like the Branch Davidians, only without the automatic weapons.) Many scholars also believe the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To prove Jesus was an Essene, the vegetarian theologians work backward from John the Baptist. A few scholars have speculated that John might have been an Essene. Indeed, he preached along the Jordan River near the Essenes' Dead Sea settlement, he held political beliefs similar to those of the Essenes, and lines found in the Dead Sea Scrolls echo in his preaching. For instance, Isaiah 40:3 makes this reference to John: "The voice of him [John] that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." The same passage appears frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So if John was an Essene—which is by no means certain—the vegetarian theologians maintain that he made Jesus one too by baptizing him. That's quite a stretch. So is the vegetarian theologians' second argument. The Gospels identify the two other major Jewish sects of the day, the Sadducees and Pharisees, as opponents of Jesus. But the Gospels don't mention the Essenes, therefore Jesus must have been an Essene. This is what is known as an "argument from silence." (William Phipps used a similar tactic for different ends in his controversial 1970 book, Was Jesus Married?) "It's a lot of baloney, as far as I'm concerned," says Father Joseph Fitzmeyer, a professor of biblical studies at Georgetown University and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Then were the Essenes vegetarians? Not likely. Vegetarianism goes unmentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And since the Essenes were purists, Borg points out, it's likely they would have slaughtered a lamb at Passover. PETA draws its mainstream proof of Essene vegetarianism from a brief article in the May/June 1999 issue of Archaeology, which reports that a dig of what may have been an Essene settlement hasn't unearthed any animal bones.

And while PETA is right about the Essenes rejecting animal sacrifice, it wrongly attributes this stance to compassion for God's lesser creatures. When the Essenes split from the Jewish establishment they rejected all rituals performed in the temple by the priests, of which animal sacrifice was only one.

Assuming that you accept the "Jesus was an Essene" argument, you still have to resolve the fundamental differences in their teachings. "Wherever there's an overlap in subject matter, there is significant disagreement," Borg says. Jesus socialized with lepers. The Essenes rejected even healthy Jews. Jesus spoke of loving one's enemy. The Essenes believed an apocalyptic war would wipe out theirs. Jesus taught that we're all God's children. The Essenes believed they were "children of light" while others were "children of darkness"—a lot like a certain group of proselytizing vegetarians.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crapshoot/2000/10/was_jesus_a_vegetarian.single.html
 
Last edited:
Without going all theologian I don't see harvesting meat as being any different than harvesting plants.

I happen to enjoy eating both.
 
I would really like to see your source on Vegan Jesus and I pray it's not some of the garbage PETA put out. They ran a vegan Jesus campaign years ago that was complete and utter nonsense and it seems quite a few vegan activists took the information and posted it all over the internet as fact.
Does saying, "Jesus was a vegan/vegetarian." mean that he was all his life?

I would argue no. Anybody ever tried going meatless? I have. Made it about 90 days lol

I've read compelling proposals that Jesus' "lost years" were spent in India, where vegetarianism is quite common.

When he made it back to the Holy Lands maybe he was in a vegetarian phase...? I've got no problem thinking the Essenes were veg-heads. I've read stuff saying it was the Essenes that hatched the plan to fake Jesus' death, so it would make sense that Jesus was a member of the sect.
 
Does saying, "Jesus was a vegan/vegetarian." mean that he was all his life?

I would argue no. Anybody ever tried going meatless? I have. Made it about 90 days lol

I've read compelling proposals that Jesus' "lost years" were spent in India, where vegetarianism is quite common.

When he made it back to the Holy Lands maybe he was in a vegetarian phase...? I've got no problem thinking the Essenes were veg-heads. I've read stuff saying it was the Essenes that hatched the plan to fake Jesus' death, so it would make sense that Jesus was a member of the sect.

If so, it didn't stick. He seemed to have gotten over that phase by The Last Supper and after he was resurrected.
 
Back
Top