Killing insects

[vajradhara]

Namaste knightlight,

thank you for the post.

To be clear, I don't think that nullifies what I said. Nearly all to me doesn't equate to all people. Maybe you'd like me to retract what I said and clarify that while not all people are meat eaters, an extremely overwhelmingly large percentage are. It should be obvious that vegetarians do not eat meat.

in my experience, online discourse is furthered by being specific. generalized sorts of comments often lead to beings having an invalid cognition of what is being discussed.

without having dialoged with you previously, there is no method for me to know the level of your awareness concerning other beings in the world. hence, the comment that was made.

I was trying to put the perspective that it's a people thing, and not a command to go and kill. To be clear, you can be vegetarian and christian at the same time.

"a people thing"? i'm not sure that i understand. we are only talking about human beings here, as far as i know.

i do not disagree. that, however, is not my point. my point is, from a doctrinal point of view, there is no prohibition upon the taking of sentient beings lives to be found in the doctrinal statements which form the basis of Christian theology, with the sole exception of humans.

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste non-religious,

thank you for the post.

Very true.....

This is going to sound kinda stupid, but I don't like spiders and whenever I see a fairly large spider crawling across my bathroom floor I can't bring myself to just squash it. If it was a tiny spider I would be brave enough to let it crawl onto something and place it somewhere more appropriate, but if it's large and I kill it I feel incredibly guilty after. I'll have no qualms pouring boiling water over a nest of ants, but when it comes to ladybirds, spiders, woodlice etc... I haven't got the heart to end their poor little lives especially daddy long legs which only live for a day anyway

i, too, have issues with some of the more creepy of the creepy crawly beings

it is to your credit that you are able to refrain from taking their lives, in my estimation.

metta,

~v

 

[knightlight72]

in my experience, online discourse is furthered by being specific. generalized sorts of comments often lead to beings having an invalid cognition of what is being discussed.

without having dialoged with you previously, there is no method for me to know the level of your awareness concerning other beings in the world. hence, the comment that was made.

You do realize that you said my comment was incorrect, and wrong? I was clarifying what I said, and that it wasn't incorrect. Whether "generalized" as you say of the first comment, or specific in my second.

"a people thing"? i'm not sure that i understand. we are only talking about human beings here, as far as i know.

I was making sure it wasn't being presented as a solely christian idea. But rather that nearly all the entire world has this stance of animals and insects held to a different level.

i do not disagree. that, however, is not my point. my point is, from a doctrinal point of view, there is no prohibition upon the taking of sentient beings lives to be found in the doctrinal statements which form the basis of Christian theology, with the sole exception of humans.

metta,

~v

I understand what you are saying, I made a further point, and an extension of the points. I was directing it to show that it is not an exclusive doctrine.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste knightlight,

tahnk you for the post.

You do realize that you said my comment was incorrect, and wrong? I was clarifying what I said, and that it wasn't incorrect. Whether "generalized" as you say of the first comment, or specific in my second.

you will pardon me, i'm sure, for thinking that you are not in a position to make any sort of statement regarding the majority of beings in any sort of substantive manner.

it is, of course, demonstrable that many human beings eat other beings. this is not in dispute, in my view.

perhaps i am just picking nits here.

I was making sure it wasn't being presented as a solely christian idea.

i do not believe that it was indicated otherwise.

But rather that nearly all the entire world has this stance of animals and insects held to a different level.

here, however, i would have to disagree as i do not feel that you have a sufficient knowledge of "nearly all the world" with regards to how humans feel about taking the life of sentient beings.

I understand what you are saying, I made a further point, and an extension of the points. I was directing it to show that it is not an exclusive doctrine.

i do not believe that any being has contended that this is so, at least on this thread.

metta,

~v

 

[knightlight72]

you will pardon me, i'm sure, for thinking that you are not in a position to make any sort of statement regarding the majority of beings in any sort of substantive manner.

it is, of course, demonstrable that many human beings eat other beings. this is not in dispute, in my view.

I don't understand the reasoning here. You stated I was wrong, and incorrect, but then later say it is not in dispute that many eat animals. What is also confusing, is that you say I am not in a position to make a statement that says that, but somehow you feel that you are in a position to state it clearly that it is not true. If I'm not in a position to say that a overwhelming majority are animal eaters, but you disagree with me on that, and say I'm not in a position to state that, but then add that comment is not in dispute...


I understand you might want to disagree due to your faith, but You earlier stated I was wrong. If that is not in dispute, it seems silly.


As to the rest and what was pointed out, I have stated I was just adding points, not countering points.

 

[Moros]

A lot of people are allergic to bee venom and would in fact die if stung. It would be wrong to ignore the survival instinct by allowing the bee to live and your life to be sacrificed. Who wants to die of a bee sting?

The 'food chain' is very real. Survival of the fittest is put to the test every day.

I personally abhorr insecticide for the sake of insecticide (not the chemical spray, but rather the "random" killing of insects), but only because I recognize the vital role insects play in maintaining the natural balance.

 

[LouTheWicked]

I certainly hope it's not a sin to kill wasps, I hate the little burning pain injectors, they serve no other purpose on earth but to sting you and eat your food.

 

[freedom4all]

It all depends. If I see a tiny spider in the house, I let it be. If I see a huge spider in the house, I put it in a jar and let it outside. Everyone thinks I'm really odd for doing that, but it seems kind of mean, plus I don't like the crunching noise when you squash them. If I am outside, and one lands on me, I brush it off. I'm allergic to bees and such, so I usually run away from them, or if they keep bothering me, well then, it's die time.

 

[mare61]

When I drive home each evening, I kill hundreds of bugs Their remains are on my windshield. I have bat-houses to encourage inhabitation to kill bugs.

I also put down my 19 year old dog when he could no longer stand or eat.

None of it is murder.

Blessings, Mare

 

[elman]

Namaste knightlight,

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not. though we Buddhists are not as numerous as you Christians, 300 million beings is a fair amount of beings that feel taking the life of sentient beings is unskillful, or in your parlance, wrong.

I think letting your children or anyone else for that matter starve while living among cattle or any other animal is wrong.

 

[non-religious]

[freedom4all] plus I don't like the crunching noise when you squash them.

Yeah I agree that crunching sound is awful....Although I recently watched a cookery programme and the presenters were in Veitnam and had inadvertantly eaten dog. They did however knowingly eat deep fried scorpians, spiders and other rather large insects. They were very crunchy and actually (apparantly) tasted really nice
In Australia they eat those big white maggot looking things (can't remember what they are called) I wonder what they taste like???

 

[vajradhara]

I think letting your children or anyone else for that matter starve while living among cattle or any other animal is wrong.

Namaste elman,

well that is an interesting point of view. a bit human-centric, but interesting.

of course, that isn't anything to do with the Buddhist tradition, so i'm unclear on why you would mention it.

perhaps you are confusing the Santana Dharma with the Buddha Dharma in this respect?

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste knightlight,

thank you for the post.

I don't understand the reasoning here. You stated I was wrong, and incorrect, but then later say it is not in dispute that many eat animals.

my words were, actually "whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not."

that is not the same as saying that your view is "wrong", in my parlance.

many does not equal most.

What is also confusing, is that you say I am not in a position to make a statement that says that, but somehow you feel that you are in a position to state it clearly that it is not true.

indeed, this is so.

it is an easy statement to make. one can reasonably assume that any particular individual being does not know a great many other beings. thus, when a claim is made that "most" beings do something, it can be seen as an argument from popularity and is a well known logical fallacy.

you can, of course, demonstrate that this is incorrect in some manner, should you have knowledge of how most human beings view the taking of sentient life, i would imagine.

If I'm not in a position to say that a overwhelming majority are animal eaters, but you disagree with me on that, and say I'm not in a position to state that, but then add that comment is not in dispute...

that a being consume flesh does not indicate how a being feels about taking the life of a sentient being. i hope that i am clear on this here.

I understand you might want to disagree due to your faith, but You earlier stated I was wrong. If that is not in dispute, it seems silly.

it is, perhaps, just a semantic disagreement betwixt us.

i am speaking of the thoughts and views beings have with regards to taking sentient life. there is no question, however, that humans take the life of sentient beings. does that clarify?

metta,

~v

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman




I think letting your children or anyone else for that matter starve while living among cattle or any other animal is wrong.





Namaste elman,

well that is an interesting point of view. a bit human-centric, but interesting.

of course, that isn't anything to do with the Buddhist tradition, so i'm unclear on why you would mention it.

perhaps you are confusing the Santana Dharma with the Buddha Dharma in this respect?

metta,

~v

I am not talking about Buddah or SantanDharma or anyone in particular. I am responding to the killing of animals being wrong. I think the failure to kill animals and let your children starve is wrong, not the killing of the animals.

 

[knightlight72]

my words were, actually "whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not."

that is not the same as saying that your view is "wrong", in my parlance.

many does not equal most.

Well, respectfully to say you are incorrect, is the same as saying you are wrong.

but to be specific, you actually did say I was wrong. (you should have kept your quote of yourself going, as it was in the same paragraph you quoted)

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not. though we Buddhists are not as numerous as you Christians, 300 million beings is a fair amount of beings that feel taking the life of sentient beings is unskillful, or in your parlance, wrong.

Really, I do feel you seem to go back and forth, and I'm mostly using your own words to counter this issue.

 

[vajradhara]

I am not talking about Buddah or SantanDharma or anyone in particular. I am responding to the killing of animals being wrong. I think the failure to kill animals and let your children starve is wrong, not the killing of the animals.

Namaste elman,

yes, that is what we are discussing; Christians have no issues with taking the life of sentient beings, doctrinally speaking.

some, individually, may have issues with it, but in terms of Theology, there is no particular worry.

however, one does not have to take the life of other sentient beings to feed ones children, especially in the more industrialized nations. of course, in dire situations people will do what it takes to survive including taking the life of sentient beings.

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste knightlight,

thank you for the post.

Well, respectfully to say you are incorrect, is the same as saying you are wrong.

really? that doesn't seem to be all that congrutent with the term used. it was not my intent to claim that your view was "wrong".

but to be specific, you actually did say I was wrong. (you should have kept your quote of yourself going, as it was in the same paragraph you quoted)

actually, i mentioned that would be the term to use in your parlance. in my lexicon, the term is unskillful, not wrong. i believe i made that disctinction in the post, did i not?

Really, I do feel you seem to go back and forth, and I'm mostly using your own words to counter this issue.

there is NO back and forth on this, in my view. taking the life of sentient beings is remarkably unskillful. that is a postion which i've advocated for many years on this forum.

using my words to counter my statements would imply that you have an understanding of the way in which i am meaning the words to be understood.

since we are disagreeing, it would appear that you lack the ability to know my thoughts on this.

you are, of course, free to understand how you wish if my explanations are not satisfactory.

metta,

~v

 

[elman]

Namaste elman,

yes, that is what we are discussing; Christians have no issues with taking the life of sentient beings, doctrinally speaking.

some, individually, may have issues with it, but in terms of Theology, there is no particular worry.

however, one does not have to take the life of other sentient beings to feed ones children, especially in the more industrialized nations. of course, in dire situations people will do what it takes to survive including taking the life of sentient beings.

metta,

~v

I agree but I have no problem killing an animal to eat even if I don't have to do so to feed my children. I don't think killing a fish to eat it is much different from killing a plant and eating it. I do think from the teaching of Paul in Rom 14 and the Christian context that if you think it is wrong, it is wrong for you.

 

[levi501]

Animals are property.
In so far as they hurt or help humans is the only basis for making moral decisions about them.

 

[elman]

Animals are property.
In so far as they hurt or help humans is the only basis for making moral decisions about them.

I think being cruel to animals is morally wrong. Killing them for food or because they are dangerous or causing problems even because they are old and suffering is not wrong.