The great Hobby Lobby artifact heist

This is not true. Quite a lot of animals are neither territorial nor at war constantly.

> will often attack other kinds animals that compete for their food sources

You should know that non aggressive animals exist. They are not some kind of exception at all. That being said, people have literal wars over important resources. They are no strangers of systematically abusing half the population or more ... or even enslaving them. There are people who believe empathy is weakness and they won election, because huge amounts of electorate agrees.

> , unless there is mutual benefit (e.g. deers and monkeys sharing alarm calls for tigers).

Nice example of cooperation. It is no different then humans cooperating with each other.

> Not their competitors, friend.

What kind of new standard you are putting on in there? How do you define competitor and is it really that different then social behavior of people? Like right now, you see half of America cheering on harm done to other Americans. You see them attacking other countries and people over percieved competition ... that completely their own construction.

Jesus never opposed "capitalism" in secular life.

That isn't what you originally claimed and is not what I'm taking issue with. What you said was: "Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them [...] is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays."

What you're saying is that anyone who does not support the welfare state as an apparatus is not a Christian, and I am contesting that, because there have been plenty of moral theories developed by Christians who opposed state welfare. Consider that the device you are using to post is likely worth more than the majority of the world's population earns in a year. Does it stand to reason that I could justifiably take it away from you and give it to someone who needed it more? What if we formed a committee you had no part in and voted on it being the right thing to do?

> Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before.

Denying the divinity of Jesus undermines the entire belief system. It seems to me that you can't reconcile the treatment of Job with your reading of the New Testament, so you've decided to disregard the story entirely. There is some basis to this (e.g. the mixed fabrics issue you addressed in another comment), but it isn't as simple as saying "We can disregard everything prior to the New Testament."

> We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.

Young translates that line as authority, not "right." In the KJV (which is the version I originally read), it is translated as "power." That is, because the author has come to minister to the church, he has the authority to ask for bread without having to work for it, but he does not, because he does not want to burden those around him: "8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:"

The passage continues after this line: "10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. [...] 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."

The author? She can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose.

> Expressions change over time, but normally by consensus. Without consensus, one is entitled to wonder whether the writer knows what the expression means.

Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it...

> Some writers don't need a spell checker. Others require it.

Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article.

Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on.

It contains a classic beginner's error -- object ambiguity. Rather funny in this specific case.

> Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it, come on.

Not at all -- but it was abundantly clear that the author didn't take the time to unambiguously identify the sentence's object, with a humorous outcome.

> Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article.

This is called a "false choice". But I think you know that. A vast middle ground lives between those extremes.

> Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on.

I have no stake in the article's topic, only its form. For all I know, these people are acting to protect irreplaceable historical artifacts. Just for the sake of argument.

I just noticed something. The article's title -- "The great Hobby Lobby artifact heist" -- is itself a classic example of begging the question, because it presumes the truth of what it should be proving.