P. E. T. A.

[Woodsy]

LOL,

We are drifting off topic here now... This seems to happen no matter what we try, whenever peta is discussed it always turns into basic veg/omnivore discussions. Anyhow, does anyone have any other thoughts on the 'holocaust on your plate' campaign? Before we are totaly seperated from the topic TheBear was trying to share. I've already said I think it's disgusting tactics on peta's part. Anyone know more about peta's other campaigns for that matter?

Thanks for bringing us back on-topic.
Here's another of PETA's campaigns: Unhappy Meals

Excerpts:
"In a sickening parody of the perennial McDonald’s kids promotion, PETA announced that it will go to school-yards and McDonald’s restaurant playgrounds to hand kids a package containing a stuffed “Son of Ron” doll— a bloody Ronald McDonald wielding a bloody butcher’s knife. The “Unhappy Meal” box, which willbe handed out to children while they are playing in July and August, features a picture of a bloody, severedcow’s head and allegations that McDonald’s is responsible for cruelty to animals used for its food."

"One leaflet features Ronald McDonald wielding a bloody knife over a chicken he is about to kill, alongwith the phrase, “Son of Ron: America’s #1 Serial Killer.” Another contains a picture of slaughtered pigshanging upside-down, with the slogan “Animals deserve a break today. McDonald’s Cruelty to Go.” A moregraphic photo features yet another bloody, severed cow’s head–skinned, hanging on a hook, and drippingwith blood–asking, “Do you want fries with that?”PETA’s press materials say the goal of this disgusting campaign is to get kids to see “that Ronald McDonaldisn’t a clown, he’s a murderer.” And PETA wants kids to “lose their lunch . . . about . . .McDonald’s ’HappyMeals.’” And, of course, the ultimate goal is to traumatize your child into becoming a vegetarian."

 

[Ryder]

Having grown up in the country, none of the above would elicit much more than a chuckle from me, but this will severely affect city kids me thinks. I think the city kids, who grow up cut off from the farmlands and all the experiences of living by animal farms (that most people grew up with for centuries) ,is going to be peta's edge. They target these kids. I don't think campaigns like this had a prayer of working a hundred years ago, but now that so few kids actually see farms, that stuff in the unhappy bags is shocking to them, when it wouldn't have been very shocking a scant two or three generations ago.

 

[Woodsy]

I wonder if these PETA folks would mind if I went to school and gave their young children graphic anti-abortion pamphlets (with pictures of aborted children) made up to look like a vegetarian lunch...

 

[EvolvEarth]

Tribe, I wouldn't care if you would give my children anti-abortion pamphlets because I'll also tell my side of the story.

Anyway, I think many of you are using the Bible as an excuse to not have compassion for other creatures. People used to use the Bible to support slavery, oppression of women, and to outcast homosexuals. I don't know why anyone would want to support anything out of a book of such evilness as the Bible to begin with.

It seems the more the people stay away from the literal teachings of the Bible, the more compassion they seem to have for fellow humans and other animals--including this planet.

 

[Ryder]

Tribe, I wouldn't care if you would give my children anti-abortion pamphlets because I'll also tell my side of the story.

Anyway, I think many of you are using the Bible as an excuse to not have compassion for other creatures. People used to use the Bible to support slavery, oppression of women, and to outcast homosexuals. I don't know why anyone would want to support anything out of a book of such evilness as the Bible to begin with.

It seems the more the people stay away from the literal teachings of the Bible, the more compassion they seem to have for fellow humans and other animals--including this planet.

We aren't exactly trying to discuss whether or not the Bible supports meatenus eatenus! We are trying to focus on the campaign tactics of peta. Besides your last sentance is just an invitation to Argument of the Century, part I lost count. So do you think peta should or should not equate, and show, graffic pictures of holocaust victums to fried chicken?

Since the moral side of the debate is a hot topic,

http://www.christianforums.com/t48926

Cheers,

Ryder

 

[two feathers]

NIrV...no wonder I did not find it. It is not a legimate translation of scripture, by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, it is a relatively new 'study' aid, (mainly geared towards children 12 and under), not translated from the original Hebrew, Latin or Greek manuscripts, but 'based' on the NIV. In other words, it is an interpretation of a translation, watered down to be understood by children. They have also come out with another NIrV geared towards adults, but again, these are interpretations of a translation....a 'study' aid...nothing more.

Your argument is weak. Whether it's the NIrV, the NIV, the KJV...it doesn't matter. They all say the same thing: God will hold animals accountable for their actions, animals have the ability to praise God, all creation is awaiting the Lord, etc, etc...

I've yet to see any scriptures that would lead me to the conclusion that animals are without souls.

If you have a Biblical basis behind your belief, then present it.

 

[two feathers]

to say nothing of the widely held mother earth mother geia nonsense that many of these groups also put forward.

Mother Earth nonsense?

Explain yourself.

 

[Ryder]

Mother Earth nonsense?

Explain yourself.

A large number of animal rights activists have attatched a quasi-religious flavour to their 'crusade'. But as this is not 'officially' stated anywhere that I could find (just believed by most animal rights people I've talked to) I'll retract my comment. It's not official, so my bad.

 

[two feathers]

A large number of animal rights activists have attatched a quasi-religious flavour to their 'crusade'. But as this is not 'officially' stated anywhere that I could find (just believed by most animal rights people I've talked to) I'll retract my comment. It's not official, so my bad.

Don't sweat it.

 

[EvolvEarth]

Ryder, many of those that eat meat bring a Biblical stance into this. All the others that eat meat really have no argument other than by taste. Either way, both sides have no real excuses other than either God said it was okay to murder, or nature said it was okay to murder.

 

[TheBear]

If anyone can show me in the scripture where it specifically says "animals do not have souls and do not go to heaven," I would appreciate it. There is also no scripture saying animals do have souls and are going to heaven.

Got it backwards. If anyone can show us in scripture that animals do have souls and do go to Heaven, we would all appreciate it. The burden of proof is on those who claim that animals do have souls and will go to Heaven - not the other way around.

There is enough scripture supporting the possibility of animals being in heaven to cause doubt. It is a matter of what you believe. The bottom line is, we won't know until we get there. But in the mean time, I think it's mean to tell people their pet who has loved them unconditionally is not going to be in heaven. Especially since there is no scripture specficially saying that.

There is absolutely no scripture that says animals have souls and go to heaven. And, it's not merely a matter of what one believes. If that were the case, we could all believe that the easter bunny is real, because the Bible does not specifically say that there is no easter bunny. We are to search scripture to find if these things are true or not.

Let's not allow emotional outcries and flimsy ideas to be the driving force, replacing diligent, thorough and prayerful study of God's Word.

Christians are being sarcastic towards other Christians, implying their version of the Bible is at worst geared towards children or at best implying it's not a correct version. To me that does not exhibit the love of God.

Let's clarify this. If you do a Goggle search for "NIrV" or "New International Reader's Version", you will see that 99% of your search results are children's Bibles. You will also find that the NIrV is not a translation from the original manuscript, (unlike the KJV and other versions which are translations from the original manuscripts ). Instead, Zondervan published a "simplified version of the Bible, based on the NIV".

Zondervan further states - "Readability studies have verified that the NIrV was translated at a third-grade reading level, making it the ideal choice for children and adults who are learning to read, adults who are unacquainted with the Bible, and readers for whom English is a second language."

Also, when in these discussions, and especially when discussing the Word of God, the accuracy of translations, what versions are more accurate in content and meaning, I take this very seriously. Love, hate, humor or any other emotional entanglement play no part in this. My remarks about the NIrV were matter of fact statements, (and 100% correct), focused on that version, not any lack of love, or any sarcasm towards two feathers or anyone else.

A) 2 + 2 = 4

B) The NIrV is a rewording of a translation, geared towards children.


Both A and B carry the same emotional weight....None. No love, no hatred, no sarcasm - simply, matter-of-fact statements. See?

The only possible explanation I can come up with is the majority of people who post in this forum are not Christian and don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Well, you will find a mixed bag of Christians and non-Christians in these open forums. You will also find that different Christians are not all in lock-step with every doctrine that other Christians believe, even in the Christians Only forums. That's what makes this site so great! We get to learn from each other, or at least get an understanding of why others believe what they do.

 

[TCapp]

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)

 

[Woodsy]

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)

 

[TheBear]

Your argument is weak. Whether it's the NIrV, the NIV, the KJV...it doesn't matter. They all say the same thing: God will hold animals accountable for their actions, animals have the ability to praise God, all creation is awaiting the Lord, etc, etc...

I am just stating the facts. Read my reply to judifedway. The burden of proof is on you to privide scriptures that back your claim that animals have souls. Not the other way around. And my assesment of the NIrV is agreed to by most Biblical scholars.

I've yet to see any scriptures that would lead me to the conclusion that animals are without souls.

And, I've yet to see any scripture that states that there is no easter bunny. The burden of proof is on you.

If you have a Biblical basis behind your belief, then present it.

Even though the ball is in your court to prove your claim, I'll give you something to contemplate.

Genesis 1:26 -

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

What does that mean? What likeness? What did God create in man that He did not create in animals? We are physical beings....so are animals. We have brains....so do animals. So, what is it that God created in man, that He did not create in animals, which made us 'like' Him?

 

[Laura]

So, it would be better in your opinion (better, but not good) to hunt and kill the animal and let it rot under a tree?

It would be BETTER not to kill the animal in the first place. I think anyone who kills another living being for FUN has problems.

 

[Woodsy]

It would be BETTER not to kill the animal in the first place. I think anyone who kills another living being for FUN has problems.

It's not killing for fun; it's hunting for challenge and food.
Hunting is not like shooting fish in a barrel.

Not every hunt results in a kill. Every kill results in a meal or ten.

 

[Laura]

It's not killing for fun; it's hunting for challenge and food.
Hunting is not like shooting fish in a barrel.

Not every hunt results in a kill. Every kill results in a meal or ten.

Hm...I notice you have an NRA icon in your profile.

So there is not fun at all in hunting? I don't understand why anyone would do it. It's disgusting. You're proud of yourself when you can haul home a dead animal? Sickening.

 

[TCapp]

There is a family of 6 that attend my church. The mom stays home to raise the family. The cost of living up here is very high. Produce is especially expensive. If they are going to survive, they survive by hunting.

 

[Woodsy]

Hm...I notice you have an NRA icon in your profile.

Hm... you're right. Your point?

So there is not fun at all in hunting? I don't understand why anyone would do it. It's disgusting. You're proud of yourself when you can haul home a dead animal? Sickening.

The same reason I go target shooting. I don't shoot a target and giggle 'cause it's so fun.

I'm proud of myself when I haul home a coupla pounds of lean ground beef, too. I know a full belly's coming.

Besides, without hunting I'd never have tasted rabbit or venison. Them's good eats. Well the venison is; the rabbit's fair to good.

 

[Laura]

There is a family of 6 that attend my church. The mom stays home to raise the family. The cost of living up here is very high. Produce is especially expensive. If they are going to survive, they survive by hunting.

Sport hunting is not the same as hunting out of neccesity.