Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[Ninae]

I have paid for some psychics who have told me lies but there are two who have both been consistent with each other and seem to be familiar with unlimited details from my personal life who I tend to believe.

However, I tend to trust "channels" more than typical psychics. I have learnt to function as a channel to some degree myself and it's not really that strange or feels a bit like someone hijacks your mind and you have access to unlimited energy. The great mystics of the different religions were a form of channels, too, in that they could communicate the truth about our lives to us but it's not all that rare. Either way, it's a lot more profitable for someone if they can tell you the truth as you tend to return to them.

 

[Ninae]

That's irrelevant. I'm not questioning the moral conviction behind letting your livestock graze in someone else's field.

The moral conviction is absolute. It is wrong to allow your livestock to graze in someone else's pasture without asking. That is the absolute.

The question, is by what terms do we define the ownership of the pasture?

I got what you meant but it's like you're trying to make a parable ambigious that wasn't meant to be to show that 1) these parables are wrong and 2) there are no moral absolutes.

This is part of why I don't like it as it's usually misused or not understood correctly. Those parables were (obviously) meant to apply to cases where there is no doubt. And there are enough cases like that so we don't need to go into those who are more ambigious.

It doesn't work to disprove a simple parable meant to show why stealing is wrong.

 

[RichardMooner]

I'm asking you, not the Bible.

I would say that it would be wrong to allow my goat to graze on my neighbors grass if it would harm my neighbor. Not because it's "his property", but because it would upset him or cause him distress.

I do not believe that people are entitled to ownership of anything. I believe that everything belongs to God.

I currently have a homeless friend living in "my" house, and if I could afford to house more homeless people that were not a threat to me, or my family, I most certainly would.

I do lock my doors at night, to prevent any possible dangers from entering "my" house.

 

[RichardMooner]

I got what you meant but it's like you're trying to make a parable ambigious that wasn't meant to be to show that 1) these parables are wrong and 2) there are no moral absolutes.

This is part of why I don't like it as it's usually misused or not understood correctly. Those parables were (obviously) meant to apply to cases where there is no doubt. And there are enough cases like that so we don't need to go into those who are more ambigious.

It doesn't work to disprove a simple parable meant to show why stealing is wrong.

You're still not getting it.

The point is not to disprove the parable.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You're still not getting it.

With all due respect, you're not getting it.

I would say that it would be wrong to allow my goat to graze on my neighbors grass if it would harm my neighbor. Not because it's "his property", but because it would upset him or cause him distress.

Okay, so it's wrong unless you know before hand that it's okay with your neighbor (and, therefore, not going to upset them). So far - practically speaking - you share everybody else's opinions about morals pertaining to property and theft.

I do not believe that people are entitled to ownership of anything. I believe that everything belongs to God.

I currently have a homeless friend living in "my" house, and if I could afford to house more homeless people that were not a threat to me, or my family, I most certainly would.

I do lock my doors at night, to prevent any possible dangers from entering "my" house.

But it's not your house, is it? It's God's house.
Whether or not you can afford it is not the issue.
You don't have to feed them.
Just let them live in your yard.
As many as you can fit.
Otherwise, you're not living up to your own statements.

You can attempt to justify it as protecting yourself from danger, but how is that any different from someone living in a gated community? And are you locking your doors or are you locking God's doors? Because, if you're doing the latter, you should check with God first in case that upsets him (according to your logic).

Like all idealists, once your beliefs are dissected they fall apart... Unless you're willing to abandon all property, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on (in the context of this discussion).

 

[Ninae]

You're still not getting it.

The point is not to disprove the parable.

I get what you mean, but by disproving the parable you're trying to disprove the moral absolute of stealing is wrong by extention. And also, just because a parable used to demonstrate a moral absolute is wrong doesn't mean it's not a valid absolute.

 

[RichardMooner]

I'm asking you, not the Bible...
But, honestly, I don't see the difference.

You said:


How is this a religious issue?
I mean: in society, stealing is a sin (just as concretely)... isn't it?
Stealing is defined through logical processes, as it always has been.
It's no different today.

It's a religious issue because we're talking about moral absolutes, and without some sort of theological paradigm, nothing is absolute.

But that answers my question, you would define stealing as is defined by our current social structure?

 

[Ninae]

Moral absolutes have nothing to do with theology. That would be like saying humans have no inherent ability to be moral without a religious belief. Which I don't believe.

But I would stop here, you're spinning yourself quite a yarn.

 

[ForEverAfter]

^... +1

without some sort of theological paradigm, nothing is absolute

Nonsense. It is wrong to rape people to death... It is unfortunate that some people can't see that without a religion telling them it is so. Ideally, religions shouldn't have to exist to inform of us of things that are obviously / objectively / absolutely wrong.

Like I said before: unless you're willing to abandon all personal property, you're contradicting yourself.
You own a house to protect yourself and your family. It is not God's house. It is your house.
You are not a saint and, clearly, you don't live by your ideals.

This is going in circles, and the thread is careening off-track.
I'm done with this discussion...

 

[RichardMooner]

I get what you mean, but by disproving the parable you're trying to disprove the moral absolute of stealing is wrong by extention. And also, just because a parable used to demonstrate a moral absolute is wrong doesn't mean it's not a valid absolute.

No, I am not trying to disprove the moral absolute. It goes no further than where it's at. Letting your livestock graze on someone else's field is wrong. That's the absolute, so now you have to decide how to define private ownership.

The moral absolute is not necessarily wrong at all. I'm saying that you have to question whether your livestock grazed in someone else's pasture, or not.

 

[RichardMooner]

^... +1



Nonsense. It is wrong to rape people to death... It is unfortunate that some people can't see that without a religion telling them it is so. Ideally, religions shouldn't have to exist to inform of us of things that are obviously / objectively / absolutely wrong.

No. Remove all belief in a higher authority, and ask yourself, why is it wrong?

I believe it is, but I also believe in a God.

 

[Ninae]

I just didn't assume the literal question of the lifestock was the main point. In that case, you're not debating in the way people normally do.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Remove all belief in a higher authority, and ask yourself, why is it wrong?

I believe it is, but I also believe in a God.

It is wrong because I don't want to be raped.

What are you suggesting, that atheists don't have the same basic moral code as theists?
I believe in God, but I don't adhere to any particular religion for my morals.
They are obvious, to me, just as they are obvious to anyone else.

If you need a religion to tell you that rape is wrong, then there's something seriously wrong with your moral fiber: I don't believe that you need religion to tell you it is wrong, by the way; I don't believe there is anything wrong with your moral fiber.

I'm saying that you have to question whether your livestock grazed in someone else's pasture, or not.

No, you don't... Pastures have fences... In order for your livestock to graze in somebody else's pasture, you'd have to open the gate and let them do it. If they broke through, then - according to the parable - you need to inform (and, potentially compensate) the owner of the pasture.

 

[Ninae]

No. Remove all belief in a higher authority, and ask yourself, why is it wrong?

I believe it is, but I also believe in a God.

This is a horrible thing to say and assumes no faith in humanity. It's like saying you don't believe humans are inherently capable of feeling empathy and stopping themselves from doing each other harm. Which I must greatly disagree with.

Also, the true God is within us, not within the pages of the bible. The God within us can stop it, yes. And when you're connected to the whole performing an act of violence towards someone else would be unbearable.

 

[ForEverAfter]

^... +1

I'm done.

 

[RichardMooner]

I just didn't assume the literal question of the lifestock was the main point. In that case, you're not debating in the way people normally do.

What? Man, it's an analogy.

 

[RichardMooner]

This is a horrible thing to say and assumes no faith in humanity. It's like saying you don't believe humans are inherently capable of feeling empathy and stopping themselves from doing each other harm. Which I must greatly disagree with.

Also, the true God is within us, not within the pages of the bible. The God within us can stop it, yes. And when you're connected to the whole performing an act of violence towards someone else would be unbearable.

Of course I do. Doesn't make anything we feel to be right or wrong, actually right or wrong.

I'm not christian.

 

[RichardMooner]

It is wrong because I don't want to be raped.

What are you suggesting, that atheists don't have the same basic moral code as theists?
I believe in God, but I don't adhere to any particular religion for my morals.
They are obvious, to me, just as they are obvious to anyone else.

If you need a religion to tell you that rape is wrong, then there's something seriously wrong with your moral fiber: I don't believe that you need religion to tell you it is wrong, by the way; I don't believe there is anything wrong with your moral fiber.



No, you don't... Pastures have fences... In order for your livestock to graze in somebody else's pasture, you'd have to open the gate and let them do it. If they broke through, then - according to the parable - you need to inform (and, potentially compensate) the owner of the pasture.

No, and I will not explain this again. Read The Death of God if you're really interested. The concept is not that hard to grasp. Reason can't define an objective moral right and wrong. Therefore, it takes the existence of something (doesn't matter what) that surpasses human reason to define an objective moral right and wrong. Not something to lay out laws, but something to give meaning to the inherent knowledge of right and wrong that exists within us. Otherwise it means nothing.

 

[Ninae]

This is a good example of what I meant and what sets of alarm bells when I hear people expressing themselves in that way to begin with. From experience they have either:


a) Some shady moral principles they want to defend (even if it's just denying the harm drug-addiction can do to themselves and people around them).

or

b) Some serious breach in logic somewhere.


Neither of which I think should be encouraged. Not that everyone will turn out like that but more often than not they tend to.

You can also ask yourself of the possibility of discussing the ethics of vegetarianism when it can be hard enough to agree on the most basic moral principles.

 

[RichardMooner]

With all due respect, you're not getting it.



Okay, so it's wrong unless you know before hand that it's okay with your neighbor (and, therefore, not going to upset them). So far - practically speaking - you share everybody else's opinions about morals pertaining to property and theft.



But it's not your house, is it? It's God's house.
Whether or not you can afford it is not the issue.
You don't have to feed them.
Just let them live in your yard.
As many as you can fit.
Otherwise, you're not living up to your own statements.

You can attempt to justify it as protecting yourself from danger, but how is that any different from someone living in a gated community? And are you locking your doors or are you locking God's doors? Because, if you're doing the latter, you should check with God first in case that upsets him (according to your logic).

Like all idealists, once your beliefs are dissected they fall apart... Unless you're willing to abandon all property, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on (in the context of this discussion).

I truly do not believe it is my property. I have no inherent right to own anything, nobody does. Does that mean I can not have items that are only for my personal use? No.

My beliefs have yet to fall apart.