Pope Leo says faith and love for migrants are connected

[rambot]

Is there a reason why you appear skeptical that the "rules would be followed to the T"?

Is it because their Muslims or just because it's people doing something that you disagree with REGARDLESS of their religion or skintone?

It's interesting.

My son would be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATED watching that.

Mmhmm, I'm sure they're all following that rule to a T.

Not to mention "Hey city, I'm just letting you know that I'll be having part of a dead goat in my back yard tomorrow, here's my $200, you can come look at it if you'd like"

I'm sure that'll ease the shock of neighbor's kids seeing 5 men hold down a live goat that's conscience and aware, and slitting its throat and then watching it squirm and yelp in pain on the ground (and often vomit and convulse...yeah, that's part of it).

Lol.
Your charaterization of events is actually comically pessimistic to me.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is there a reason why you appear skeptical that the "rules would be followed to the T"?

Is it because their Muslims or just because it's people doing something that you disagree with REGARDLESS of their religion or skintone?

It's interesting.

My son would be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATED watching that.

Lol.
Your charaterization of events is actually comically pessimistic to me.

Yes, my skepticism is driven off of past behaviors I've seen with regards to fundamentalists sects of various religions taking serious liberties with existing rules and exemptions.

There were similar legal battles in Brooklyn back in the 2010's about the Kapparot slaughter they were doing in the streets (which was running afoul of NYC ordinances that would normally require sanitation inspections and a slaughterhouse license)

They ended up fighting the rules in court and happened to find a sympathetic judge.

“No one has the right to change our religion, and this ruling proves we can’t be touched,” said Yossi Ibrahim, a member of the large Hasidic community in Crown Heights, Brooklyn.

They were doing it before it was officially legal, and after a court ruling upheld it, their statement was "we can't be touched".

Which means, even if the judge had ruled the other way, they would've kept on doing it just like they had been...


Sorry, but ignoring a law in the first place, and then after getting a court victory, saying "ha! see, this proves that our religious practices are untouchable" doesn't strike me as the kind of person who pays any mind to secular rules or ordinances.

 

[BCP1928]

I mean, do you want me to post a video or two? It's not a pleasant thing to watch.

It's even less pleasant when you realize that they think it means they're "putting their sins" on that animal, and killing it for something they did...

"Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic.



My values would actually lean more towards the left-libertarian quadrant of this graph

View attachment 371549

Are my values more in-line with the American ideal than that of someone who prefers an authoritarian or theocratic power structure, but simply moved here because "that's where the jobs are"? I'd say yes.

I'd say no.

 

[rambot]

"Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic.

I find it surprising none of the mods on CHRISTIAN Forums have had anything to stay about this statement.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Mmhmm, I'm sure they're all following that rule to a T.

Right. Because anyone doing something that you object to is invariably doing it wrong too. Not because of any real evidence, mind you - it's all just vibes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I find it surprising none of the mods on CHRISTIAN Forums have had anything to stay about this statement.

Do Christians practice the concept of ceremonially putting their sins on a scared animal and slitting it throat with no stunning?

Perhaps there are some Christian sects I'm not aware of doing that...but I can't say I've ever encountered it.

Closest I've seen to things involving animals was the Pentecostal church my great aunt went to in one of the back "hollers" of Kentucky that dabbled in a bit of the snake handling.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Right. Because anyone doing something that you object to is invariably doing it wrong too. Not because of any real evidence, mind you - it's all just vibes.

I would argue that there are right/wrong ways to perform animal slaughter. Both in terms of ethics and hygiene.

This is starting to resemble the pushback and accusations of "cultural insensitivity" I got when I was critiquing Chinese wet markets a few years back.

"Just because it's different and not what you're used to doesn't make it bad"
to which I'd reply
"No, it's bad because they're cutting up snake meat on a dirty table in the hot sun next to a cage full of diseased, scared, and abused dogs"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Do Christians practice the concept of ceremonially putting their sins on a scared animal and slitting it throat with no stunning?

Perhaps there are some Christian sects I'm not aware of doing that...but I can't say I've ever encountered it.

Closest I've seen to things involving animals was the Pentecostal church my great aunt went to in one of the back "hollers" of Kentucky that dabbled in a bit of the snake handling.

"Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic.

That's literally the whole premise of Christianity - Jesus died to atone for the sins (past, present and future) of humanity.

 

[rambot]

Do Christians practice the concept of ceremonially putting their sins on a scared animal and slitting it throat with no stunning?

Your quote that I quoted and responded to:
""Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic."

Jesus took our sins and he sufferred and paid the price for it.


This is what Christians believe; like it...or consider it borderline sociopathic.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would argue that there are right/wrong ways to perform animal slaughter. Both in terms of ethics and hygiene.

I agree - but you're going to have to demonstrate that people are actually performing unethical/unhygenic methods of animal slaughter before declaring it so. And no, pointing to what other people have done in other locations doesn't count.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's literally the whole premise of Christianity - Jesus died to atone for the sins (past, present and future) of humanity.

And if people were in the streets of Brooklyn or Dearborn Michigan performing ritualistic human sacrifice, we'd object to that practice being carried out today, correct?

Conflating the biblical story of Jesus voluntarily sacrificing himself to pay for others since is very different than holding down a living creature against their will (who has no say in the matter), and slitting it's throat with no stunning or measures to mitigate the pain.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree - but you're going to have to demonstrate that people are actually performing unethical/unhygenic methods of animal slaughter before declaring it so. And no, pointing to what other people have done in other locations doesn't count.

Are they slaughtering animals without stunning them first?

If the answer is yes, then I'd say that's unethical. What I'm saying shouldn't be controversial, I listed nearly a dozen other progressive nations that have banned the practice of "no-stun slaughter"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Are they slaughtering animals without stunning them first?

I dunno. And you don't either. Which is the whole point of my post.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

5. Love for the Lord, then, is one with love for the poor. The same Jesus who tells us, “The poor you will always have with you” (Mt 26:11), also promises the disciples: “I am with you always” (Mt 28:20). We likewise think of his saying: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). This is not a matter of mere human kindness but a revelation: contact with those who are lowly and powerless is a fundamental way of encountering the Lord of history. In the poor, he continues to speak to us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your quote that I quoted and responded to:
""Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic."

Jesus took our sins and he sufferred and paid the price for it.


This is what Christians believe; like it...or consider it borderline sociopathic.

It's my understanding that Christians believe that Jesus voluntarily went to the cross to pay for sins... not 5 guys forcibly holding him down to kill him against his will because they didn't want to pay for their own mistakes.

It would seem there's a pretty big contextual difference there.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And if people were in the streets of Brooklyn or Dearborn Michigan performing ritualistic human sacrifice, we'd object to that practice being carried out today, correct?

Conflating the biblical story of Jesus voluntarily sacrificing himself to pay for others since is very different than holding down a living creature against their will (who has no say in the matter), and slitting it's throat with no stunning or measures to mitigate the pain.

Y'know, you could just admit that you phrased that poorly rather than trying to move the goalposts.

 

[rambot]

It's my understanding that Christians believe that Jesus voluntarily went to the cross to pay for sins... not 5 guys forcibly holding him down to kill him against his will because they didn't want to pay for their own mistakes.

It would have been more convincing if you had initially included all the caveats when you chose to characterize the Christianity that way.

"Voluntarily" does not mean "happily"; nor that it was his Will. I mean, he clearly says it's His "Father's will".

Christians don't want to pay for their own mistakes either.

Also, there WERE people holding him down and nailing him to a cross.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I dunno. And you don't either. Which is the whole point of my post.

Halal and Kosher slaughter has to be done without stunning.

Since one of the rules is that the animal has to be "un-injured" at the time it's killed (and stunning injures the animal thereby making it unclean), the animal has to be awake at the time the knife to the throat happens.

 

[BCP1928]

Are they slaughtering animals without stunning them first?

If the answer is yes, then I'd say that's unethical. What I'm saying shouldn't be controversial, I listed nearly a dozen other progressive nations that have banned the practice of "no-stun slaughter"

Which does not conflict with Islamic practice--stunning being allowed

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Halal and Kosher slaughter has to be done without stunning.

That does not seem to be the case, at least when it comes to halal.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review - PMC

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Is Stunned Meat Halal? - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info