Thread 40916921

Anybody ever notice that you have to dish out massive amounts of kindness first to get any in return, for it to start coming back to you?
This isn't all that weird initially and on good days: obviously kindness comes from within yourself and is drawn out from there. This is a particularly brutal pattern when you have bad days (or a series of them) and don't have the energy to dish out kindness like normal. You're just kind of left there, mending it yourself until it's good enough to get back up and walk on. It certainly makes me wonder how kindness is passed from person to person and how it moves through the world.
How many people are out there really and truly trying to be kind to others? Do they always have to pour from an empty cup? Is there enough to go around in the first place?

>>40916921 (OP)
There's no kindness outside that of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else is larp and self-righteousness.

idk sometimes the turn around is almost instant.
>see depressed person
>talk to them and make them feel better.
>couple days later start to feel sad
>"Oh yeah I told that person..."
And then you're taking your own help because you already handled that problem while emotionally neutral.
Plus kindness is it's own reward, feels good man.

>>40916921 (OP)
>>40916921 (OP)
dish out kindness?
can you describe in detail what this looks like exactly and why you think it comes back to you when you dish it out?

also how is this paranormal?

>>40916921 (OP)
Be kind to yourself too

>>40916921 (OP)
Why do you track it? Like, just be kind and don't give it any more thought one way or the other. That way it just becomes a natural way to be and you don't think about it at all.

>>40916962
This is probably the real answer. It's just that
>want people to be kind to you
>be kind to others randomly, going out of your way, and taking special care for those who are important to you. -Expect- nothing in return, but hope someday that somebody does for you the kind of things you do randomly for othets.
>somehow this is insufficient still
I'm not blaming other people for it or anything. It just sucks to feel hurt, look around for somebody there to lend a hand, and then realize "oh that's my job" kek. I can do it for myself. Little assistance would be nice from time to time. The empty cup is a good example.

>>40916921 (OP)
truly kind people are extremely rare
So few vegans, abortion abolitionists and effective altruists

>>40917023
>So few vegans, abortion abolitionists and effective altruists
Lol this is gonna turn into a copypasta if you repeat it enough times

>>40917040
It's true though if you believe in free will and personal responsibility and everything then most people are not good.

Almost everyone I encounter is filled with at least one obvious demon.

>>40916921 (OP)
They could be so different in the way they think than you that if you were to say "I love you" they would look at you like some medieval Spanish peasant. It's a difference in love language but it really applies to all interpersonal relationships. It's not a failing of yours or theirs. It's how they process kindness.

>>40917023
I am a vegan but I am not kind.
I dislike most animals, they are annoying and stupid, but I think it is better to not take an animals life if it can be avoided, because I recognize that to the animal, it's life is important to it. And I don't know if animals have an afterlife so from my POV it would be unnecessarily cruel to take an animals life for food regardless even though it could be avoided.
Also I don't care much for insects like gnats, flies or mosquitos, bees are okay though. It gets really weird really quick if you think about it.

what is kindness even suppose to be

>>40916921 (OP)
Nah not massive amounts, just has to be genuine and unconditional.

>>40917074
>And I don't know if animals have an afterlife.

They don't. They're just natural resources God gave to man.

“Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

>>40917088
I don't believe in that book. so whatever

>>40917074
>I dislike most animals, they are annoying and stupid, but I think it is better to not take an animals life if it can be avoided because I recognize that to the animal, it's life is important to it
I would call this being kind especially because you care about others' feelings even when you don't personally like them.
>generous, helpful, and thinking about other people's feelings
>not causing harm or damage
>of a sympathetic, helpful, or forbearing nature
Kindness does also have an association with being affectionate, but I don't think that's a strict requirement for it. Though maybe "principled" would be a better word to avoid that association.

>>40917088
Your Ecclesiastes quote is Solomon doubting the that humans are special compared to animals. Fuller context:

Ecclesiastes 3:16-22
Moreover, I saw under the sun that, in the place of justice, wickedness was there, and in the place of righteousness, wickedness was there as well. I said to myself, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter and for every work.” I said to myself with regard to humans that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?

>>40917177
>"Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?".

Is not saying the same thing as:

“Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

Your choice translation suggests a person does not know where either spirit goes.

Mine does assert man's spirit goes upward and the beast's downward, only that you don't know the spirits themselves.

There's a clear distinction between a beast's spirit that goes back to the dirt and a man's spirit that goes back to God, and that irrespective of the author's gloomy, defeated outlook on life.

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

>>40917225
If you read it in context, even in the KJV, it's apparent that the athor must be expressing lack of knowledge. Immediately before, it says,

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

Pretty much every modern English translation I've checked agrees on the meaning and has it mean the same as the one I initially quoted, which is from the NRSVUE.

Looking at commentaries (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ecclesiastes/3-21.htm)

>The LXX. [the preferred early Christian old testament btw], followed by a great body of interpreters, ancient and modern, translate, “Who knoweth whether the spirit of man goeth upward?” &c, and this agrees better with the context of this paragraph. The sceptical thought is, “We see that death resolves into dust the bodies of men and animals alike; and if it be alleged that there is a difference as to what becomes of their spirits, can this be asserted with the certainty of knowledge?”

>Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward] The words imply a strictly sceptical rather than a negative answer. They do not actually deny, still less do they affirm, as some have thought, that the spirit of man does ascend to a higher life, while that of the brute returns to dust. This would indeed be inconsistent with the whole context, and the consensus of the LXX., the Vulgate, the Targum, and the Syriac versions, all of which give “Who knoweth whether the spirit of man goeth upward?” is practically decisive.

>>40917149
>>40917149
>Though maybe "principled" would be a better word to avoid that association.
possibly, or decency

it doesn't really make a difference though if a person is a vegan i think.
if all people would be vegans, the space animals occupy as being livestock, would be removed with onions farms or something.
So instead of live +death of animals.
you will have only no live for animals in the first place.
that is except for wild animals and pets
So I don't know, maybe its just emotionally charged virtue signaling.

>>40917283
>So instead of live +death of animals.
>you will have only no live for animals in the first place.
I think one of the main things is that most animal products people consume come from places that could be described as factory farms, and for animals in factory farms it would be preferable for them to not exist than to exist like that.
https://benthams.substack.com/p/extreme-suffering-on-the-farms
> Egg-laying hens in conventional farms endure about 400 hours (!!!!!) of this kind of disabling agony. Remember, this is agony about as bad as the worst thing that’s ever happened to you, unless you’ve had an experience as bad as being severely tortured. This is the agony that makes it impossible to think of anything else. The hens endure about an hour of a day of this extremely intense agony.
There's also a case for veganism being less polluting and more efficient with regard to land and resource use on the whole, though it's been a while since I argued about that so I'm not super up-to-date on everything involved.

I'm wary of recommending full veganism because I think getting the nutrition right over the very long term is more difficult than most people recognize and still not quite perfectly understood, but I'm also entirely certain that the average american's diet could be a million times more ethical and even healthier if they massively cut down on their animal product consumption. So, Idk, I don't have any clear guidelines to propose, but I have lots of respect for vegans and I think people should be more like them rather than less like them..

>>40917266
I'll stick with the kjv reading.

There isn't anything in that bible that suggests beasts have any kind of preeminence or relationship with God. No beast praying, no beast having a soul, no beast getting saved, no beast being held accountable under any law, no beast being inputed sin, no beast loving God, no beast being promised anything, no beast being brought under a covenant, no beast being created in God's image. Nothing, and the reason is obvious:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

>>40917349
>>40917349
>animals in factory farms
But this is not because people are cruel, but because people are poor. and factory farm meat is cheaper.
and if you want to have more money, you gotta do a job unfortunately most if not all jobs are unethical.
I am all for everyone having there little garden with their own animals who live a more worthwhile live.
but I think this is not a problem of kindness.

>full veganism
yeah I would not do it without supplements and i do supplement heavily.

> cut down on their animal product consumption
I think animal product has certain effects similar like drugs, they are not simply foots but they give a sense of comfort or a sense of something people like and repeatedly wanna get.
it's harder to get this with tofu products or other
there are emotional reasons behind some sort of animal consumption and it is impossible to remove this large scale, so yeah i don't have a guideline either

>>40917355
>There isn't anything in that bible that suggests beasts have any kind of preeminence
Even in the KJV, it says, as I just quoted, "yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast." And notably in the Hebrew the word translated "breath," ruach, is the same word translated "spirit," in the verse under discussion. Man and beast all have one spirit.

>no beast having a soul
The main Hebrew word usually translated as soul is nephesh, which is applied to humans and animals. It used of animals before humans in Genesis.
>No beast praying
Job 38:41 "Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?"
Psalm 104:27 "27
"All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time."
>no beast being promised anything
Isaiah 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the Lord.

I will say that the Abrahamic religions are, on the whole, very human-centric religions with limited concern for animals, and that's one of the things that makes me pretty confident that they're wholly human inventions, but if you're willing to look, you can certainly find that animals aren't wholly excluded or relegated to being just props.

Romans 8:19-23
"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God, for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning together as it suffers together the pains of labor, and not only the creation, but we ourselves..." And word translated creation can mean creature as well. It includes all living things.

>>40917459
Oh, there's also ye olde talking donkey story, which as silly as it may be does attribute obvious intelligence to an animal when given the power to speak.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022%3A21-39&version=NRSVUE

Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!” But the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” And he said, “No.”

>>40917493
There's also 1 Kings 17, where God says to Elijah, "You shall drink from the wadi, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there.” and the Hebrew word used for God commanding the ravens is the same word used many times for God commanding humans to do things throughout the Tanakh, including God's command to a widow just a few verses later.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tzivviti_6680.htm

>>40917355
>Genesis 1:28
And then immediately after that in Genesis 1:29 he makes all animals including humans vegan, and he declares it good. It's only after the flood that God gives humans permission to eat animals, which would seem to mean that this "having dominion over" doesn't just mean "do whatever you want with them," as if they were just natural resources.

>>40917355
>no beast being brought under a covenant
Genesis 9:9-10 (In your preferred KJV) "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."
God established a covenant not only with humans, but with every beast of the earth as well.

>>40917459
>Even in the KJV, it says, as I just quoted, "yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast." And notably in the Hebrew the word translated "breath," ruach, is the same word translated "spirit," in the verse under discussion. Man and beast all have one spirit.

That's the breath of life that some creatures have: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” (Genesis 7:22)

This has nothing to do with a spiritual connection with God.

>The main Hebrew word usually translated as soul is nephesh, which is applied to humans and animals. It used of animals before humans in Genesis.

Not in the kjv, none of my business.

>Job 38:41 "Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?".

That's not praying for God's sake, that's a reference to ravens croaking in distress for lack of food and God being mindful of that.

>Psalm 104:27 "27 "All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time."

Again, that's called figure of speech, and expectation wouldn't be the same as prayer anyways.

>Isaiah 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the Lord.

That's not a promise to beasts, that's a promise to man concerning beasts. Come on now.

>And word translated creation can mean creature as well. It includes all living things.

God loves His creation and would rather have no creature kill or die, that's for sure (that was the system initially), but to say beasts have anything going on that transcends their purpose as natural resources for man, is an unbiblical stretch.

>>40917692
>This has nothing to do with a spiritual connection with God
Breath and spirit are the same word in the Hebrew, so it's up to the translators to make the distinction.
>Not in the kjv, none of my business.
I guess no one correctly understood God until the KJV was written, though the KJV translators themselves were under no illusions about being divinely inspired. https://dbts.edu/2012/04/09/the-embarrassing-preface-to-the-king-james-version/
>That's not praying for God's sake, that's a reference to ravens croaking in distress for lack of food and God being mindful of that.
>Again, that's called figure of speech, and expectation wouldn't be the same as prayer anyways.
Who are you to tell the writers what they mean?
>That's not a promise to beasts, that's a promise to man concerning beasts. Come on now.
I wouldn't have expected to find a direct promise to animals in a book written for humans, but to my surprised I did above, in Genesis 9:9-10, where God explicitly establishes a covenenant not only with humans but with every beast of the earth, and he promises to them as well as to humans never to flood the earth again.

If you wanna be kind, be kind.
Don't do it expecting reward.

>>40917722
Another instance of God making (promising to make) a covenant with animals is in Hosea 2:18. "And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely."