Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Way to run with it though!Beastt said:
Oh, I have no problem with a little contact with proven intelligence. I understand that important institutions like our government draw from philosophers of the past. But when it comes to moral relevance, I'll take the Bible as my book of "philosophy." I wouldn't ever claim to be smarter than da Vinci, but I do claim to have different priorities.Beastt said:
Before approaching anything else you've said, let me take a moment to let you know that what you've said here humbles me. How rarely it is that we find anyone who simply says, "maybe I don't know enough about this". I have to admit with some embarrassment that I've probably not said it myself. If I have, it has been too infrequent. I don't think I can properly relate to you how much you've impressed me with that statement.Farquad_38 said:
I know what you're stating is intended to branch out from the hunting issue and further explore a point integral to that issue from the Christian perspective. But you've said something here I think is very important. You speak of God's nature and point out that to overlook an injustice would be God betraying his nature. Perhaps it's possible for him to do so, perhaps it isn't. But it is obvious that something is clearly understood about the nature of beings, whether they be gods or mortals. This links to the anatomy of man. The anatomy of any flesh and blood creature tells us something about it's nature. Perhaps this anatomy is the design of God or perhaps it is the design of evolution. But either way, it is the design bestowed upon man and it provides indications about his true nature. That nature is shown to be non-predatory. Perhaps it is as much against man's nature to act as a predator as is it against God's nature to allow a wrong to go unrepented.Farquad_38 said:
The sense of justice you speak of is clearly worth much exploration and ties directly to much that I do not understand about Christian logic. I agree that man seems to have a desire to see justice when a wrong has been perpetrated. I cannot create an argument to suggest that this is not part of man's nature. Though I do not believe in God, if God does exist and if he created man in his image, then perhaps it is not inappropriate to suppose that his is God's nature which he has passed on to man.Farquad_38 said:
Herein lies the contradiction I see in Christian justice as portrayed in the Bible. Lets say for a moment that the forum moderators, being men and being Christians, also feel this innate desire to see justice. So I write a post and in that post, I violate many of the forum rules which generates a complaint. The moderator who receives the complaint agrees that rules have been broken, feelings have been needlessly hurt and something should be done in an attempt to set things right. So, the moderator looks to the Bible and to God to determine what he should do. After some time of religious contemplation, the moderator permanently bans you from the forum. He doesn't ban me, even though I have commited the rule violations, he bans you! Do you feel that would be just? We can approach this from another angle. Suppose the moderator contacts me and tells me that I am found to be in violation of the rules and as punishment, I must offer the forum a sacrifice -- I must name someone whom I consider to be a friend and that friend will be permanently banned. So I name you, and you are banned. Is that justice? What if instead of you, the moderator steps down from his position of anthority and requests that he be permanently banned from the forum? Is this justice? Does this appease the affinity you feel to see justice done? I ask this because this is the kind of "justice" we see when we speak of animal sacrifices. It is not the perpetrator which pays for his acts, but an innocent who has done nothing wrong. I don't know about you, but I just can't see this as justice. But... I can perceive of men who might think that an offering to their God would be giving up something that they value. Something such as an animal which may represent food or wealth. But the animal has done nothing wrong and the animal receives far greater punishment than the man who has lost but one animal in his herd. Is this justice? I just can't perceive of a divine being -- any divine being -- having such a warped sense of justice.Farquad_38 said:
Do you and I feel that killing an innocent provides equilibrium for the crimes of the perpetrator? I can tell you that it only compounds the wrong in my mind.Farquad_38 said:
I simply must say that I can find no symmetry in punishing the innocent for the deeds of the guilty. I think most people today would strongly object if a court ruled the accused as guilty and passed sentence on one of the jurors to atone for the crime. If God is as wise and all-knowing as he is suggested to be, surely his wisdom does not miss this point.Farquad_38 said:
Actually, this fine point has been touched on before and discussed. While it doesn't focus directly on the topic, I think it is one of the many points which must be studied when examining the topic in depth.Farquad_38 said:
Katydid said:
What you've seen here, Ouch, is an example of the ignorance of the medical field when it comes to nutrition. Most doctors in America eat a fairly standard American diet. As such, they believe that consuming animal products is the norm for humans. Because this is their starting point, whenever a vegetarian comes in with a non-specific complaint, the first thing the average medical doctor will do is assume they're malnourished in some manner and suggest they resume what they consider to be a "normal" diet. Of course these same doctors see hoards of patients suffering from the normal diet but don't link their suffering to the diet. People often get caught up in what's normal and mistake normal for automatically meaning correct. A survey was done of U.S. medical schools in the mid 80s. Of the 125 medical schools which existed at that time, only 30 had any required courses in nutrition. When all of the numbers were in, it was found that the average medical student receives less than 4-hours of nutrition training for each 4-years of medical school. And that's if you average it out. Many of them have no required courses in nutrition whatsoever. But where do people go for advice about diets? They go to their family doctor. And the doctor will give them roughly the same advice that a grade school child receives during nutrition study.Ouch said:
If you're seriously interested in the relative costs there were several posts which addressed this topic on page 22 of this thread. I'll reproduce a small portion from one of my posts here as it addresses the actual amount spent by hunters.Katydid said:
Why do you suppose the first one was a shock? Was it a shock the first time you peeled an apple? Children are very trusting of their parents. You did what they assured you was okay to do. But even then, you had a reaction to it because you possess the emotional traits of a non-predator. When you were faced with following predatory practices, it presented your emotional perceptions with a conflict. Of course, as can be expected, your trust in your parents won out.Katydid said:
Beastt said:
Well Farquad_38 and I have been all through this but I do understand your confusion. There is a lot of confusing information out there and much of it rests with inaccurate depictions of early man as being nearly 100% carnivorous. But this is largely based on faulty archaeological evidence. The archeologist digs up ancient human dwellings and finds a significant quantity of what is later found to be animal bone. Many of these pieces show marks from crude cutting tools which accurately leads the archeologist to assume that early man ate meat, (early man, not earliest man). But they rarely find the remnants of early man's plant-based meals because these things decay far more rapidly than bones and therefore, are far less likely to leave fossil evidence behind. So the early conclusion was that early man ate a great deal of meat. But more recent studies have centered around the practicality of hunting verses gathering. Surely you've run across posts which talk about the fact that humans do not possess the anatomical traits or skills of a true predator. So before we created advanced hunting tools, hunting was far more dangerous and far more prone to failure than gathering. A simple bite or scratch which would require no more than 10 minutes treatment in a doctor's office now, could easily become infected and lead to loss of a limb or death. And the caloric investment in obtaining food musn't exceed the caloric return from the food once it is obtained. Since man possesses neither the skills nor the anatomy of a predator, it is highly unlikely that most hunts were successful. Little by little man developed the skills and weapons to tip the advantage in his direction but this wasn't until many generations and likely a century or two had passed. Of course we end up getting into creationism verses evolution at this point and I'd prefer to leave that topic to other threads. But I believe it is more than fair to say that early man was a much better gatherer than a hunter. And yet, he survived quite well. Well enough even to overcome the disadvantages he had as a hunter and become the most successful hunter the planet has ever known. So it's becoming obvious that he must have had a nutritionally adequate diet before hunting became any substantial portion of his food gathering technique.Ouch said:
Katydid said:
Beastt said:
