Untitled

Charlemagne (Re the devastation done by homosexuals to young boys):

I cannot help but wonder how many boys' lives, and their families' lives, must be destroyed to indulge the 1.75% of born deviants, mutants, who should abstain for the common good.

Me:

If I may offer a speculation on the motivations of that small minority who would destroy lives on the altar of their perversity--I think they realize that they are at odds with the whole fabric of the universe. This is too much of a mental/moral burden, so they feel compelled to destroy/remake the entire universe, if possible, to accommodate themselves and their sexual practices as normal. Whatever must be swept away will be. It's akin to Lenin's pronouncement that you've got to "break a few eggs (in his case, sacrifice perhaps 60 million lives) to make an omelet". The greater cause in Lenin's mind was the establishment of world communism. In the case of the militant homosexuals, it's the acceptance, even the approval, of their practices.  This is actually, if you think of it, no less of a paradigm shift than the acceptance of the marxist dialectic.

Christian Societies vs. Muslim Societies

Ron asked, in regard to the refugee crisis in Europe:

...what about my question of why Muslim countries are not taking care of these people fleeing war? Neighboring countries?

I replied:

Muslims don't really care for their own people. It's not in their worldview. You have to understand, whether you're a Christian or not, much of your worldview is shaped by your being born and living in an historically Bible-based culture. The fact you're even asking the question is evidence of that.

I was part of a Christian NGO that responded to the crisis in Iran after the earthquake in Bam some years back. My thoughts at the time were, "Hey, there's 70 million people in Iran. There are around half a million survivors of the earthquake in need of food, clothing, and shelter. You mean to tell me that 140 people in this society can't find the wherewithal to take care of one person's needs in an emergency?" And Iran wasn't a poverty-stricken basket case like, say, Bangladesh. Their per capita income is about a third of our obscenely wealthy level, and WAY above the level of the country my wife and I were living in at the time, so I had some perspective.

What the Iranians were doing in response to the crisis was to hamper and hamstring our efforts while diverting as much to their own pockets and Tehran as possible. And the grassroots efforts at sending aid and help to the devastated area that you'd expect in the US or any western country? ^Crickets.^

Some friends of mine were collecting clothing and sending it in semis to the affected areas. You know what the response of most of the recipients was? They threw the clothing on the ground since it wasn't new. I'm not sure if they were insulted being given second-hand clothing (much of what I wear was bought at thrift stores), or if they felt they'd be contaminated wearing what some infidel wore, I don't know.
Muslim societies are VERY different from historically Christian societies.

A Response to a New Convert to Animal Rights and Veganism

I too am (mostly) on a "whole-foods, plant-based diet". I've encountered a lot of "yeah, buts" when asked, but I think you can't argue with results. And people like Colin Campbell, John MacDougall, and Caldwell Esselstyn have results. The results are also evident in my own personal experience. The last time I had a thorough checkup the doctor said that all my results were "so normal, it's abnormal". At age 66, I work a job that requires much physical effort.

Having said that--I DO eat meat now and then and feel no qualms about doing so, except for the knowledge that I shouldn't do it too often, or too much. Since my worldview is informed by the Bible, I make a clear distinction between humans and animals. Yes, we ARE similar, physically, to animals--is that so surprising, since we occupy the same environment? But there is an enormous gulf between humans and animals, which even the animal-rights activists tacitly admit. The animal-rights groups are very convinced of our duty to act morally toward animals, a burden they would never place upon animals. In this respect, they are recognizing that we ARE different, and fulfilling the Biblical mandate to be stewards of the natural order, although they would never admit it.

That doesn't mean I advocate cruelty or wanton violence to animals. Far from it. Since we are the humans, the ones made in the image of God, we understand the moral aspects of our dealings with other living things. The animals do not. The steward (that's us) is placed OVER those things which are entrusted to him and for which he must give an accounting. The animal-rights proponents' logic, IMO, is a little skewed since it starts with the false premise that the difference between humans and animals is one of degree, not of kind, but their conclusion, that it is contingent upon humans to care for animals, and not vice-versa, is entirely consistent with their humanity.

I find it interesting that you admit your moral perceptions have been greatly influenced by your desires. That's a very great part of the human experience in a nutshell! However, we can't always arrive at correct conclusions regarding ethics, morality, or many other things simply starting from ourselves and working our way out by reasoning, because that same reasoning has been demonstrated by our own experience to lead to false conclusions. How do you know your original premise (eating "dead animals" is okay) was wrong, and your later conclusion was right?

On the subject of "rights": I don't use that term very often. Libertarians (and all other political groups) like to use the term to run interference for them, but I find I can't truthfully or honestly use it very often, or very forcefully. I find myself instead confronted with the reality of privileges, obligations, and blessings.