The Christian Thread

StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Let me ask. If you found yourself in the unfortunate position of being killed because you were threatening another, would you wish to be spared?  Yes.  But it isn't my call. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Again, quoting out of context doesn't help anything.  Taking something said 2000 years ago, divesting the original language of its meaning, deracinating its cultural context and implanting it in another one, and ignoring the immediate context is the basis for so much biblical error nowadays.

The concept of "love" back then is not what is generally accepted by most people today.

p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time. As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up.

Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism.

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time. As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up. Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism.

I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts.

I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway.

p0mt3 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Let me ask. If you found yourself in the unfortunate position of being killed because you were threatening another, would you wish to be spared?  Yes.  But it isn't my call. Love your neighbor as yourself.  That statement refers to the fact that we should treat others with just as much respect or fairness as we ourselves would wish to be given. Rob has said already that he would do all he could to avoid killing another without having to resort to that, so how is this a contradiction? He would give the intruder a chance just like he would wish to be given. But if it came down to the intruder's life or the lives of your family, which one would you choose? And if I would be the one threatening another's family, I would expect no less than to be stopped by any means.

StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Let me ask. If you found yourself in the unfortunate position of being killed because you were threatening another, would you wish to be spared?  Yes.  But it isn't my call. Love your neighbor as yourself.  Again, quoting out of context doesn't help anything.  Taking something said 2000 years ago, divesting the original language of its meaning, deracinating its cultural context and implanting it in another one, and ignoring the immediate context is the basis for so much biblical error nowadays. The concept of "love" back then is not what is generally accepted by most people today. I'm just saying to rethink your killing of another.

Your wording makes it sound like I am eager to kill- far from it! 

I pray I never am faced with such a situation, but if I am, I pray that I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect my home and family.

p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time. As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up. Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism. I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts. I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway.

1) Why do we not kill members of our own species? It's respect for the intelligence of other people. "Do unto others..." requires both parties be equally capable of understanding each other.

2) The situation has two aspects as I see it: reducing pain and recognizing intelligence. Unless you believe God gave humans domain over everything, then you cannot ignore the suffering animals undergo for our benefit. Then you treat their suffering as inferior to our suffering, or rather our inconvenience.

3) Animals kill senselessly because they don't have the level of intelligence to consider the implications of their actions, as well as in a lot of cases being physically unable to survive without meat. Humans can survive without meat and can acknowledge that killing animals causes unnecessary pain, as well as disregards their intelligence. You put humans in the same class as animals in acknowledging that we kill as senselessly as they do, but don't understand that's only because we haven't evolved past that mindset.

p0mt3 wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time. As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up. Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism. Actually, in the Bible there was one donkey that spoke to his rider. Oh, and I'll never give up meat. Good point, Robert.    Animal cruelty was in fact addressed in the Bible, but it was God's call on what was 'senseless' or not. Again, this touches upon whether or not to question God's authority. If God to you is simply a fictional character who was created simply to justify barbaric behavior, then obviously no answer I can give will satisfy you. However, if God is what I believe it is, a multi-dimensional being that created all things, then the bottom line is: who are we to question all of His motives?

Not sure I have anything to add to that.

By the way, gentlemen, thank you for keeping this thread cool and clean (I'm pleased to see we can discuss matters without it degenerating into an unintelligent slug fest).

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time. As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up. Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism. I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts.I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway. 1) Why do we not kill members of our own species? It's respect for the intelligence of other people. "Do unto others..." requires both parties be equally capable of understanding each other.2) The situation has two aspects as I see it: reducing pain and recognizing intelligence. Unless you believe God gave humans domain over everything, then you cannot ignore the suffering animals undergo for our benefit. Then you treat their suffering as inferior to our suffering, or rather our inconvenience. 3) Animals kill senselessly because they don't have the level of intelligence to consider the implications of their actions, as well as in a lot of cases being physically unable to survive without meat. Humans can survive without meat and can acknowledge that killing animals causes unnecessary pain, as well as disregards their intelligence. You put humans in the same class as animals in acknowledging that we kill as senselessly as they do, but don't understand that's only because we haven't evolved past that mindset.

You are basing your point on the assumption than animals are in fact on the same level as we are; an opinion I already addressed as being debatable. No, I do NOT believe God gave humans domain over EVERYTHING (he gave lucifer rule over the current earth, for instance) but he did give us authority over animals. To suggest that I assume I can have free reign over everything simply because I take a different stand on one single issue (animal rights) is absurd, with all due respect.

So you're saying the reason why we don't kill our own kind is because we respect the intelligence of our fellow man, then you turn around and say that animals don't have as much intelligence as humans in your attempt to explain away their lack of regard for other creatures they kill. By that logic, we in fact shouldn't respect animals either, because their intelligence does not mirror our own. I must have missed the point you were trying to make.

I am against animal cruelty to a degree, but the concept of treating them like a human being is a little 'out-there', to say the very least.

Ultimately, we will never agree on this, so why debate it? I can respect your viewpoint without agreeing with it, after all.

Edited by p0mt3 - June 03 2009 at 15:47

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Unless you believe God gave humans domain over everything, then you cannot ignore the suffering animals undergo for our benefit. Actually:God blessed them (that's Adam and Eve); and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:28, parentheses mine)God clearly created the animals (according to the Old Testament) for several reasons, but two of those reasons were for eating and for sacrifice.

This also coencides with the edits I made to my previos post: I do not presume to say I am superior to anything, animals included, but as a believer I simply recognise what God has provided for me.

My feelings on animals have nothing to with the now overly-used and misrepresented 'human arrogance', but rather my belief in the Bible. You may say the the two are one and the same, but that is opinion; not fact.

StyLaZyn wrote: p0mt3 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time. As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up. Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism. I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts.I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway. That's right. The only life we should respect is human life. Let me buy a hunting rifle and I'll meet up with you in the field. Venison. Yum. I never said we shouldn't respect the lives of other creatures. I was simply pointing out the fact animals could care less about the lives THEY take, so why is it so horrible of people to eat a steak? I've never understood this argument of how it's evil to eat animals, when animals won't think twice about eating a lower member of the food chain themselves. The fact that you clearly do nothing but stick words in people's mouths and take others' post out of context in order to prove your point makes me wonder why I even bother debating with you. Well you could have fooled me with your calling people nuts.

You make a good point, here. I am sorry, I shouldn't have made that statement. It was rather rash. Forgive me.