Why do you take the risk of eating murdered animals?

[Rollo Tamasi]

Where does it say that? Quote please. I suddenly got to think about Daniel...
GB Mr Tamasi.
M

Romans 14
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.11It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" [1]12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food [2] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Rollo, I love animals and I stand up for their rights. When Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, He was serving them. So it is that when God placed man to rule over the animals, He was putting us here to be of service to them in justice. It's the kingdom principles of the greater who serves the lesser, you wouldn't understand that if you've only ever seen the greater oppressing the lesser (Mark 10:42-45).

I asked you a question earlier and you never answered me.
What does serving zion mean?

 

[Serving Zion]

It is, if the immorality goes against "true" morality.
In Hitler's Germany, it was immoral to allow Jews to hide in your house.
But that was Germany's morals and not God's morals.

There's a difference between law and morality. There's no real definition of morality, even though people have tried to define it. That's why I say that Matthew 7:12 is the greatest definition of morality. Jesus even said that it sums up the Torah and the prophets.

Mankind makes laws because it needs to write words that bind a person's behaviours.

Police are bound by the law to act only upon lawful instructions. The law binds Police by imposing consequences for disobedience to the writ.

A judge is sometimes needed when parties cannot agree as to the legality of a party's actions. The judge is also bound by law, and is responsible for hearing and deciding how the law should be applied.

In Hitler's law, there was nothing morally motivating his persecution of the Jews and especially those who gave them shelter as they were fleeing. Therefore we see that the law is at odds with morality. It comes back to the same question I asked earlier: why was the Jew born as a Jew and not as a German? It wasn't by any choice of their own, so therefore the German had no moral right to persecute the Jew on the basis of race.

Morality is part of the philosophical theories of Natural Law - which is a principle in justice that justice itself aspires to exercise it's power to uphold the natural rights of a party.

The human rights movement has grown over the years as a branch of philosophy that acknowledges all humans have intrinsic rights by nature. The direct outcome from this is that racism, sexism etc are all seen as the transgression of those human rights. Animal rights is a further application of those principles that acknowledges that there are intrinsic natural rights belonging to all creatures, regardless of their species.

As for sin, that's a different thing again. I recognize sin as not only the missing of the mark, because that would simply be a mistake, and anybody can make mistakes. But sin is defined by James 4:17. There's a certain level of awareness or knowledge required before somebody can be held accountable for their sin. That's what they mean when they talk about the "age of accountability" (but it isn't like they suddenly become accountable on their thirteenth birthday, it depends from person to person based upon what their culture is like, whether they are of average intelligence etc), but generally it begins to happen when a person discovers they have the power to deceive (so sin can begin at very young ages).

So I think that some people are innocent of sin while still being immoral. For instance, one good example is when you need to paint your cabinet. You'll need about one cup of paint, so you go to the hardware store and they have 250ml for $35. But hang on, for $47 you can get 500ml! So you're tempted to be greedy because it's only going to cost $23.50 instead of $35. You save over $10! Then, look: the 1000ml bucket of paint is only $60. Suddenly you can see that it's stupid to spend $35 when for less than twice that price you can have four times as much! But what are you going to do with it all? "Doesn't matter, I'll do something with it, it's just silly to spend more than twice the price for a little pot". So you buy the 1000ml and paint the cabinet. The rest of the paint hangs out in the corner of your shed and gets forgotten. One day it's settled so hard that you have to throw it away. Now look at this:

The price of a tin can is about the same whether the can is 250ml or 1000ml. The extra time it takes to stack the 250ml pots than the 1000ml pots is about two minutes of a worker's day, so it's nothing in practice. Transporting 1000ml takes around four times more fuel than the transporting of 250ml. So there's no real reason to charge more per litre of paint for the smaller pot. The only thing is that the paint manufacturer wants to sell as much paint as possible. But they have wasted your $25 and they have caused that paint to have been wasted too, which has environmental costs. All you needed was 250ml and they could have sold it to you for $15. So we're they doing unto you as they would have had done to themselves? No. They are clearly doing it immorally. It's not uncommon. But is it sinful? I think not necessarily. Many people do such things with good conscience, meaning that they have no shame or conviction of sin.

 

[Serving Zion]

I asked you a question earlier and you never answered me.
What does serving zion mean?

I am being of service to Zion. Zion is the city of God. I didn't see your question, I hope this clears it up for you.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I am being of service to Zion. Zion is the city of God. I didn't see your question, I hope this clears it up for you.

Why are you serving a city?
How do you do that?

 

[Edward]

I consider animals are my neighbours. We are each living here side by side. I am putting animals above humans in a way too, because they were put here before we were and we were put here in order to serve duty to them as godly rulers.

We most certainly were not put here to serve animals. We are to have dominion over them.

Man's purpose when God created Him and always has been and still is to this day, is to serve God and to worship God. (You want the scripture?)

 

[Serving Zion]

Why are you serving a city?

Because it is the city of the living God (Hebrews 12:22).

How do you do that?

I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of your question is. It looks like you might have meant it as a rhetorical question. Could you please help me to understand why you are asking that question?

 

[Serving Zion]

We most certainly were not put here to serve animals. We are to have dominion over them.

Man's purpose when God created Him and always has been and still is to this day, is to serve God and to worship God. (You want the scripture?)

Yes give me scripture and I will give you scripture too.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Because it is the city of the living God (Hebrews 12:22).

I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of your question is. It looks like you might have meant it as a rhetorical question. Could you please help me to understand why you are asking that question?

It seems to distance me when a name cannot be explained
You cannot explain to me why you are serving zion
Zion is not God
Zion is a place on the globe and I assume you imply that it is the place where Jesus reigns or will reign
You cannot serve Zion and claim you are serving Jesus
It doesn't make sense
At best, it is a metaphor.

That's all I was wondering about
I guess you answered it or else I did.

 

[Serving Zion]

It seems to distance me when a name cannot be explained
You cannot explain to me why you are serving zion
Zion is not God
Zion is a place on the globe and I assume you imply that it is the place where Jesus reigns or will reign
You cannot serve Zion and claim you are serving Jesus
It doesn't make sense
At best, it is a metaphor.

That's all I was wondering about
I guess you answered it or else I did.

It's just a username, and yes you did answer the question yourself!

You might like to look at the way it's used in scripture, because "God is spirit", therefore it isn't a physical place.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

Where is zion?

 

[JLB]

I disagree.
I think he insinuated that he worshipped animals.
I asked him to explain himself better and he did not.
Now it appears you are trying to put words in my mouth.

I only asked you not to insinuate that he worshipped animals.


Maybe you could explain how asking you not to insinuate that he worships animals, is putting words in your mouth?




JLB

 

[JLB]

Why are you serving a city?
How do you do that?

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Matthew 5:14

The Church is symbolically referred to as Zion.

Some may disagree.


A servant of Zion, is a servant of God, because he serves God’s people; thus serving God.



JLB

 

[WIP]

Perhaps meat eaters will not be punished because they are so brainwashed.
Perhaps evil forces wanted to destroy you spiritually and decided to convince you meat is not murder.

Why are you risking everything for meat when there are so many alternatives? To me that is insane.

You asked, "Why do you take the risk of eating murdered animals?"

What risk? I see no risk.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

Humans be arguing since the dawn of humankind.

 

[Hopeful]

What are God's morals?

God's morals are to love Him above all else, and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

 

[Hopeful]

There's a difference between law and morality. There's no real definition of morality, even though people have tried to define it. That's why I say that Matthew 7:12 is the greatest definition of morality. Jesus even said that it sums up the Torah and the prophets.

Mankind makes laws because it needs to write words that bind a person's behaviours.

Police are bound by the law to act only upon lawful instructions. The law binds Police by imposing consequences for disobedience to the writ.

A judge is sometimes needed when parties cannot agree as to the legality of a party's actions. The judge is also bound by law, and is responsible for hearing and deciding how the law should be applied.

In Hitler's law, there was nothing morally motivating his persecution of the Jews and especially those who gave them shelter as they were fleeing. Therefore we see that the law is at odds with morality. It comes back to the same question I asked earlier: why was the Jew born as a Jew and not as a German? It wasn't by any choice of their own, so therefore the German had no moral right to persecute the Jew on the basis of race.

Morality is part of the philosophical theories of Natural Law - which is a principle in justice that justice itself aspires to exercise it's power to uphold the natural rights of a party.

The human rights movement has grown over the years as a branch of philosophy that acknowledges all humans have intrinsic rights by nature. The direct outcome from this is that racism, sexism etc are all seen as the transgression of those human rights. Animal rights is a further application of those principles that acknowledges that there are intrinsic natural rights belonging to all creatures, regardless of their species.

As for sin, that's a different thing again. I recognize sin as not only the missing of the mark, because that would simply be a mistake, and anybody can make mistakes. But sin is defined by James 4:17. There's a certain level of awareness or knowledge required before somebody can be held accountable for their sin. That's what they mean when they talk about the "age of accountability" (but it isn't like they suddenly become accountable on their thirteenth birthday, it depends from person to person based upon what their culture is like, whether they are of average intelligence etc), but generally it begins to happen when a person discovers they have the power to deceive (so sin can begin at very young ages).

So I think that some people are innocent of sin while still being immoral. For instance, one good example is when you need to paint your cabinet. You'll need about one cup of paint, so you go to the hardware store and they have 250ml for $35. But hang on, for $47 you can get 500ml! So you're tempted to be greedy because it's only going to cost $23.50 instead of $35. You save over $10! Then, look: the 1000ml bucket of paint is only $60. Suddenly you can see that it's stupid to spend $35 when for less than twice that price you can have four times as much! But what are you going to do with it all? "Doesn't matter, I'll do something with it, it's just silly to spend more than twice the price for a little pot". So you buy the 1000ml and paint the cabinet. The rest of the paint hangs out in the corner of your shed and gets forgotten. One day it's settled so hard that you have to throw it away. Now look at this:

The price of a tin can is about the same whether the can is 250ml or 1000ml. The extra time it takes to stack the 250ml pots than the 1000ml pots is about two minutes of a worker's day, so it's nothing in practice. Transporting 1000ml takes around four times more fuel than the transporting of 250ml. So there's no real reason to charge more per litre of paint for the smaller pot. The only thing is that the paint manufacturer wants to sell as much paint as possible. But they have wasted your $25 and they have caused that paint to have been wasted too, which has environmental costs. All you needed was 250ml and they could have sold it to you for $15. So we're they doing unto you as they would have had done to themselves? No. They are clearly doing it immorally. It's not uncommon. But is it sinful? I think not necessarily. Many people do such things with good conscience, meaning that they have no shame or conviction of sin.

For Christians, morality trumps law.
Abortion, pornography, death penalties, and war are legal, but immoral.
Helping illegal border crossers is illegal, but moral.
We have got to do the right thing according to God all the time.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

This world.

 

[Edward]

You asked, "Why do you take the risk of eating murdered animals?"

What risk? I see no risk.

There's no murder either. More of a harvest. And from living in Colorado for 30 years and rubbing elbows with lots of hunters, I can confidently say that 99.9% of all hunters are very conscientious people. Always harping on, one shot one kill-stalk closer- cause no undue suffering- nothing is wasted, and all that. Some say thank the animal for it's sacrifice. I did when I took big game.

Those type of people are about as far away from a (murdering) attitude as you can get. So the entire thread premise is flawed. Hunters are the good people. They're not murderers Lol!

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

For Christians, morality trumps law.
Abortion, pornography, death penalties, and war are legal, but immoral.
Helping illegal border crossers is illegal, but moral.
We have got to do the right thing according to God all the time.

And christians use the scripture where Paul says Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities to justify full obiedience to government. Its probably the only one verse in the bible that governments would never allow to be banned. Everyone open your banned bible to the one verse still allowed, let everyone be subject to there governing authority.

Step back in history and the most horrible things have resulted through government obedience, all the genocide, wars, and so on.

Im a lover not a fighter.