Yes, the references to black masks and gasoline seem to connote black bloc anarchism, but it really reminds me of militant "ecoterrorism" in the vein of the ALF and the ELF . . . think arson. It also reminds me of the slogan so many groups like those mentioned use: "If not you, who? If not now, when?" But I definitely understand how someone could get the black bloc out of the black masks.
Also, shallowXgrave, it is entirely erroneous to assume that because animal exploitation was common practice in the days of the Bible's origin, that it is God's will that humans exploit animals. It is necessary to consider the social influences upon the actual text of the Bible; whether you believe God was truly the author is irrelevant. A book that did not support the values of the time would have been violently opposed and most likely ammended to reflect these values. Also, hypothetically, if a "superior" life-form began eating us and we were relegated to a lower position in the food chain, would you consider this justifiable for this "superior" life-form simply due to its standing in the food chain? You must consider morals rather than falling back upon this cold adaptation of darwinist ideology (an adaptation that shares most of its premises with the even colder idea of social darwinism). Food for thought, if you will.
Yes, the references to black masks and gasoline seem to connote black bloc anarchism, but it really reminds me of militant "ecoterrorism" in the vein of the ALF and the ELF . . . think arson. It also reminds me of the slogan so many groups like those mentioned use: "If not you, who? If not now, when?" But I definitely understand how someone could get the black bloc out of the black masks.
Also, shallowXgrave, it is entirely erroneous to assume that because animal exploitation was common practice in the days of the Bible's origin, that it is God's will that humans exploit animals. It is necessary to consider the social influences upon the actual text of the Bible; whether you believe God was truly the author is irrelevant. A book that did not support the values of the time would have been violently opposed and most likely ammended to reflect these values. Also, hypothetically, if a "superior" life-form began eating us and we were relegated to a lower position in the food chain, would you consider this justifiable for this "superior" life-form simply due to its standing in the food chain? You must consider morals rather than falling back upon this cold adaptation of darwinist ideology (an adaptation that shares most of its premises with the even colder idea of social darwinism). Food for thought, if you will.