• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

P. E. T. A.

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by TheBear, Jul 25, 2003.

  1. EvolvEarth

    EvolvEarth Active Member

    845
    +20
    Buddhist
    Knight, right now, I don't care if people bow down to my opinion, but rather understand why other people hold this opinion that animals are worthy enough not to be murdered for the sake of taste.
     
  2. Knight

    Knight Knight of the Cross

    +111
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I understand your opinion.

    I simply disagree with it.
     
  3. breanna

    breanna New Member

    93
    +1
    Christian
    Personally, I think that it's outrageous to try and equate eating meat with the suffering and death that occured during the holocaust. Although one of the reasons that I am a vegetarian is because of how I feel about the way animals are treated when being raised for slaughter, I think it is a disgrace to compare these two instances. Even though I didn't have a family member die in the holocaust, I am still offended by this campaign. Rather than invoking true compassion for animals who suffer, it merely dehumanizes the victims of the holocaust, and downplays the suffering and abuse that they endured.
     
  4. Woodsy

    Woodsy Returned From Afar. Supporter

    +265
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    So, for all the people who merely hate "factory farming" methods, would you eat free range chickens and beef?
    When I gave up meat a while back (for 4 months earlier this year), I didn't rule out eating meat that was from animals which had been given the opportunity to have a life outdoors in the fresh air.

    See, I'm suspecting that the people who object to the conditions in which mass-raised meat animals are raised still wouldn't eat free range animals. Because the way the animals are treated isn't the main thing.
     
  5. two feathers

    two feathers of the wilderness

    +28
    Christian
    Married
    Nice cop out.
     
  6. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,668
    Atheist
    Private
    You bet! :)

    Are you equating the love of Christ with agreeing with any old teaching that comes down the road? If someone is not in lock-step with every one of your beliefs, are you saying that they are not Christians? If they don't agree with you on this or that, do they somehow lack the love of Christ?

    I go by what scripture says. Not by trying to be popular, nor trying to be part of the 'in' crowd, nor politically correct. I take scripture very seriously...precept upon precept, line upon line.

    That's a nice story, but it's not Biblically sound.

    Yes indeed...100%. The salvation of that 80 year old's soul is by far, much more important than a false sense of comfort about a "doggie heaven".

    First, let's take a look at what Genesis 9:5 actually says, and not pseudo quote it.

    Genesis 9:5
    "Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man."

    Now, let's also look at the entire passage in context.

    Genesis 9:1-11
    "1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.* 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it." 8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 "And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. 11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

    Acountability does not equate to having a soul. This passage clearly states that if a beast takes the life of a man, God will take the life of the beast. And if a man kills another man, God will take his life.

    You cut off the full verses and skipped over verse 20.

    Let's look at those passages in context.

    Ecclesiastes 3:16-22

    "16 Moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there. 17 I said in my heart, "God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work." 18 I said in my heart, "As for the sons of men, God tests them, so that they may see that they themselves are like animals. 19 For that which happens to the sons of men happens to animals. Even one thing happens to them. As the one dies, so the other dies. Yes, they have all one breath; and man has no advantage over the animals: for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, whether it goes downward to the earth?" 22 Therefore I saw that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his works; for that is his portion: for who can bring him to see what will be after him?"

    Both man and animals have one physical life. Both man and animals will physically die. Both man and animals will physically return to dust. In this regard, man has no advantage over animals.

    The word, "Ruwach", translated from "xwr" in the Hebrew Lexicon, means, among other things, 'breath of air', and is the root word for both 'spirit' and 'breath' in this passage, and would be completely consistent in the interpretation of physical life, and how man has no atvantage over animals in this regard. All will physically die, man and animals...no exceptions.


    So by that logic, *all* things would mean that rocks, plants, fire, minerals, stars, chemicals, mountains and everything else would also have souls and need saving? :scratch:

    But, I digress. Let's take a look at that passage in context.

    Colossians 1:18-23
    "18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight-- 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister."

    There is nothing in here that even remotely says that animals have souls. Further, are animals required to continue in the faith? Are animals required to be steadfast and grounded in the hope of the Gospel? Do animals require being saved? Are we to preach the Gospel to animals, to save their souls? Was Paul a minister to animals as well as men?

    Let's see that in context. :)

    Psalms 36
    "1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David the servant of the Lord. An oracle within my heart concerning the transgression of the wicked: There is no fear of God before his eyes. 2 For he flatters himself in his own eyes, When he finds out his iniquity and when he hates. 3 The words of his mouth are wickedness and deceit; He has ceased to be wise and to do good. 4 He devises wickedness on his bed; He sets himself in a way that is not good; He does not abhor evil. 5 Your mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; Your faithfulness reaches to the clouds. 6 Your righteousness is like the great mountains; Your judgments are a great deep; O Lord, You preserve man and beast. 7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Your wings. 8 They are abundantly satisfied with the fullness of Your house, And You give them drink from the river of Your pleasures. 9 For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light. 10 Oh, continue Your lovingkindness to those who know You, And Your righteousness to the upright in heart. 11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, And let not the hand of the wicked drive me away. 12 There the workers of iniquity have fallen; They have been cast down and are not able to rise."

    Again, no talk of animals having souls.

    Again, you cut off the rest of that passage.

    Genesis 9:12-17
    "12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."

    A promise from God that He would cause no more floods that would destroy all flesh. There is nothing that says animals have souls.

    There is a lot of imagery in John's visions in the Book of Revelations. He never says that horses have souls.

    Was that really called for? Is that an example of the love of Christ you mentioned earlier? I am discussing what I believe, based on scripture. There is no annonosity on my part. No sarcasm, no hatred, no lack of the love of Christ.

    The easter bunny exists by the same logic that animals have souls. Since you are using the logic that the Bible does not specifically state that animals do not have souls, therefore animals do have souls, logic would follow that since the Bible does not specifically state that the easter bunny does not exist, therefore the easter bunny does exist.


    I am truly sorry you feel that way. When discussing doctrine, scripture and other things in these forums, all are not in lock-step with each other. You will find different interpretations, different beliefs and different ways Christians look at the same things. Else, this would be nothing more than a 'preaching to the choir' website, with nothing to discuss....just a bunch of zombies aping the same rhetoric, again and again. And, just because someone disagrees with me on these non-salvic issues, does not mean I automatically question their salvation or their love of Christ.

    In a nutshell, if you are going to be participating in these discussions, be prepared for non-Christians, as well as other Christians, to be in disagreement with you on different issues, from time to time. :)
     
  7. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,668
    Atheist
    Private
    BTW, I have a beautiful dog which I rescued. I have been housing him, feeding him, grooming him, taking care of him and playing with him for over 3 years. He's a great pet. :)
     
  8. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,668
    Atheist
    Private
    Deuteronomy 14:4-6
    "4 These are the animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the mountain goat, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. 6 And you may eat every animal with cloven hooves, having the hoof split into two parts, and that chews the cud, among the animals."
     
  9. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,668
    Atheist
    Private

    Well said. :)
     
  10. EvolvEarth

    EvolvEarth Active Member

    845
    +20
    Buddhist
    I consider a human life and any other animal life as equal and of high value, so to me, I wouldn't find it outrageous at all because I think all animal life have equally high value. To me, just because someone is human doesn't make them more valuable than any other animal. I think that is absolutely outrageous to judge an animal because of what species they are.
     
  11. Knight

    Knight Knight of the Cross

    +111
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Would you defend the life of an animal with force?
     
  12. EvolvEarth

    EvolvEarth Active Member

    845
    +20
    Buddhist
    Knight, depends on the circumstance. I won't use force yet because a lot of minds can be persuaded to respect an animal's life without people using force on me. Now, if someone forced me to keep my mouth shut on the issue, then I would use force, but since no one is threatening me to stop spreading peace and harmony among humans and other animals, then I don't see it necessary to use force.
     
  13. Knight

    Knight Knight of the Cross

    +111
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Just wondered.

    No one is trying to shut you up. This is still a free society. You are free to hold your opinions and I am free to disagree with them.
     
  14. EvolvEarth

    EvolvEarth Active Member

    845
    +20
    Buddhist
    Knight, I know no one is trying to shut me up. I also know that not everyone is going to agree with me. I just hope that this war between man and beast will end someday.
     
  15. Woodsy

    Woodsy Returned From Afar. Supporter

    +265
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Holocaust victim = beef cow?
     
  16. EvolvEarth

    EvolvEarth Active Member

    845
    +20
    Buddhist
    Mistreated holocaust victim = tragedy
    Murdered holocaust victim = tragedy
    Animals murdered for food = tragedy
    Mistreated animals = tragedy

    Therefore, all four instances are equally tragedies.
     
  17. Woodsy

    Woodsy Returned From Afar. Supporter

    +265
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    So, Holocaust victim = beef cow?
     
  18. EvolvEarth

    EvolvEarth Active Member

    845
    +20
    Buddhist
    Tribe, are you trying to make this seem as ridiculous as possible so you can mock me for thinking that a holocaust victim is just as horrible as a beef cow?
     
  19. Woodsy

    Woodsy Returned From Afar. Supporter

    +265
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    This was ridiculous before I even came along. :)

    The equation I present (Holocaust victim, rape victim, etc. = beef cow, chicken, rat, pig, etc.) is a natural and logical conclusion to draw from the equation you presented -
    if
    a = x and
    b = x and
    c = x and
    d = x,
    then b = c


    And...
     
  20. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    Two scenarios:

    1. Say that you saw a guy in a slaughterhouse about to kill a cow. Would you kill that man*, if you had it within your means, to save the life of the cow?

    2. Now, say that you saw a guy about to gut a small child out on the street. Would you kill that man*, if you had it within your means, to save the life of the child?

    * Killing the man is the only way to save the life of the cow or child.
     
Loading...