Tourniquet is losing me.

Driven wrote:

I have no problems with not eating meat or even not using any animal products, as a personal choice. I'm going semi-vegetarian, where I don't use meat in all of my meals, simply because store-bought meat is expensive and isn't that great. But I won't go out and say that we're not supposed to eat meat ever at all. Yes, in the original creation, everything ate plants, but God has increasingly allowed his people to eat meat. To say otherwise is

Very wise for someone your age.

My wife and I eat a plant based diet 90% of the time or better - meaning no meat, dairy, eggs, or processed/junk food. We allow for that 10% for birthdays, weddings, etc. - special occasions.

Our reasons are mainly health based, but I also took a vow of non-violence about 18 months ago and this includes animals. I also think that we have the liberty to eat meat but if you read prior to Genesis 7 (maybe 6) when the flood happened (or was that just an allegory?), God told Adam and Eve that the plants will provide all their food.

But, Paul tells us that some have the freedom to eat meat and some don't. So please don't let my own decisions affect yours.

And that's not what bothers me. What does bother me is how Ted has seemingly disregarded any Scriptures that others have tried to bring up, making them subservient to his cause. See his response when an old friend brought up Romans 14.


https://www.facebook.com/ted.kirkpatrick.98/posts/10154827441205011?comment_id=10154828090250011&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

Candlemass wrote:

"All of God's creatures will be in Heaven, including every pig that ever lived." --Ted Kilpatrick


Awesome, bacon in Heaven!

Only just seen this post.

Samson wrote:

Move along, nothing to see here

https://www.facebook.com/ted.kirkpatrick.98/posts/10154827441205011

Sorry Ted, Franklin Graham deciding not to do something might just encourage me to double down on it.

Samson wrote:

And that's not what bothers me. What does bother me is how Ted has seemingly disregarded any Scriptures that others have tried to bring up, making them subservient to his cause. See his response when an old friend brought up Romans 14.


https://www.facebook.com/ted.kirkpatrick.98/posts/10154827441205011?comment_id=10154828090250011&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

Love that meme; "You're forgetting someone!"

Someone ought to clue Uncle Ted in that animals are not a "someone"...

messiaen77 wrote:

Samson wrote:

Move along, nothing to see here

https://www.facebook.com/ted.kirkpatrick.98/posts/10154827441205011

Sorry Ted, Franklin Graham deciding not to do something might just encourage me to double down on it.

Candlemass wrote:

Samson wrote:

And that's not what bothers me. What does bother me is how Ted has seemingly disregarded any Scriptures that others have tried to bring up, making them subservient to his cause. See his response when an old friend brought up Romans 14.


https://www.facebook.com/ted.kirkpatrick.98/posts/10154827441205011?comment_id=10154828090250011&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

Love that meme; "You're forgetting someone!"

Someone ought to clue Uncle Ted in that animals are not a "someone"...

That was the exact same thing I thought as well.

Never heard Ted talk about how non-human animals eat other animals, apparently they don't hold to his worldview...

Full disclosure:  I have no problem with vegans.  I do have a problem with ANYONE who tries to impose their dietary choices on me and/or demeans me for not sharing their view on anything.

I wonder if Uncle Ted is willing to go into the jungles of Africa and reason w/the animals on how they are supposed to be companions...

Ok fine, let's give animals the same rights as humans, but what about insects, viruses? Those hornets have a right to their home as much as we do, and leave all those ant hills alone! Stop trying to cure all these diseases, it's simply a matter of population control, and the virus asserting it's right to survive...you murderers!

Animals can have human rights the day they speak up and assert them for themselves.

As for "sport hunting", it falls completely in line with the concept of good stewardship. What often happens with uncontrolled animal populations is a boom-bust cycle. Plenty of resources, you get plenty of deer. Deer start to outgrow their resources, and they start to starve, and pass around diseases. (Imagine succumbing slowly to disease, without medical care. Tell me that's more humane than hunting?) Deer dwindle, and the resources grow back, leading to another cycle. Same thing with predators, in which case the deer are their resources.

Now insert man into the equation. We can analyze the carrying capacity of a certain ecosystem, do a census of the animal populations, and issue the appropriate number of licenses to cull the populations to a stable, sustainable level. Whether you eat the game, or mount it on a wall, really makes no ethical difference, IMO.

^Agreed, though I think of "sport hunting" as hunting purely for the "sport" of it (the thrill of the chase, obtaining a trophy, etc.), not necessarily at all with regard to the effect it may have on the ecosystem and such. I would argue that killing animals simply to kill them would be particularly bad stewardship. Hunting for food or to stabilize an animal's population or the like on the other hand, would be good stewardship. My two cents anyways.

The sport hunters I know donate the meat.  It doesn't go to waste.

I hate to take the conversation this direction but my understanding is that Ted isn't against hunting necessarily but is more opposed to huge factory farms like Cargill and Purdue where the animals are mass produced like so many pairs of sneakers.

In this regard, I agree that isn't really good stewardship. I don't have a (good) solution (that anyone in the industry will listen to) but there it is.

kerrick wrote:

^Agreed, though I think of "sport hunting" as hunting purely for the "sport" of it (the thrill of the chase, obtaining a trophy, etc.), not necessarily at all with regard to the effect it may have on the ecosystem and such.  I would argue that killing animals simply to kill them would be particularly bad stewardship.  Hunting for food or to stabilize an animal's population or the like on the other hand, would be good stewardship.  My two cents anyways.  

That's not hunting. That's killing. Killing is not a sport. They are not "sportsmen".

I get real tired of hunters being portrayed that way when some TV show with green leanings needs a bad guy.

A sportsman with a gun, in my opinion, would be someone shooting at various targets (paper, metal, etc.) competing for marksmanship.   They could be shooting for distance, speed, or moving (either targets or the shooter moving).

Hunting is hunting.