Should Christians Hunt?

[Katydid]

Thank you Farquad, you explained that much better than I did.

 

[Beastt]

As much as I do appreciate and understand what is being said. There are no inaccuracies. That simply is what is being spent. In order to attempt to provide some kind of representation on a per-person basis, an average is needed. Certainly everyone knows that an average doesn't mean that each and every person spends that. But the point is, hunters who claim that hunting is more cost effective are missing the big picture. Most hunters don't hunt because they're trying to cut costs. They hunt because they enjoy killing and all of the skills and equipment that can go with it.

On a general basis, produce is less expensive than meat and it's certainly less expensive to produce from both a consumer's perspective and an ecological perspective. Whe live in a world where only 3% of the water is fresh and two-thirds of that are frozen. But rather than utilizing, (and again these are averages), 25-gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, we choose to use 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of beef. Of course that doesn't mean we dont' grow wheat. We do grow it but we feed it to cattle instead of eating it ourselves. And it will take 16-pounds of wheat to produce a single pound of beef. Some calculations were performed a few years ago to determine the cost of beef if water used by ranchers weren't subsidized by the government, (tax money) and the estimate for hamburger was $35 per pound. From an ecological standpoint, raising cattle is a terrible waste of natural resources. Which is why the rain forests are being cut down and burned to produce cheap, temporary pasture land.

 

[Katydid]

But can you condenm ALL hunters based on the ones who don't do it for that reason? Can you honestly say that it isn't cost effective for ANYONE, therefore NOONE should hunt?

 

[Beastt]

But can you condenm ALL hunters based on the ones who don't do it for that reason? Can you honestly say that it isn't cost effective for ANYONE, therefore NOONE should hunt?

I'm not condeming anyone for what they spend on hunting. (Aside from the fact that hunting is a practice of unnecessary cruelty.) I'm just saying that to state that hunting is an economically driven activity is, on the collective scale, not an accurate claim.

If the concern is economic, don't consume meat and you'll save far more than you do by hunting. You'll save first on your grocery bill and secondly on your medical bills. But few consider that to be an option.

 

[immersedingrace]

On a general basis, produce is less expensive than meat and it's certainly less expensive to produce from both a consumer's perspective and an ecological perspective. Whe live in a world where only 3% of the water is fresh and two-thirds of that are frozen. But rather than utilizing, (and again these are averages), 25-gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, we choose to use 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of beef. Of course that doesn't mean we dont' grow wheat. We do grow it but we feed it to cattle instead of eating it ourselves. And it will take 16-pounds of wheat to produce a single pound of beef. Some calculations were performed a few years ago to determine the cost of beef if water used by ranchers weren't subsidized by the government, (tax money) and the estimate for hamburger was $35 per pound. From an ecological standpoint, raising cattle is a terrible waste of natural resources. Which is why the rain forests are being cut down and burned to produce cheap, temporary pasture land.

And the people who are allergic to wheat? And I thought this was about HUNTING, not about vegetarianism?

 

[Beastt]

And the people who are allergic to wheat? And I thought this was about HUNTING, not about vegetarianism?

Uhm... I'm tempted to point out that wheat isn't the only non-meat alternative, but you already know that.

You are correct, though, it's about hunting and not about any sort of diet. But when hunting becomes an economic practice, then is it so wrong to point out that if one is in search of an economic way of obtaining food, hunting falls well down the list?

 

[immersedingrace]

Uhm... I'm tempted to point out that wheat isn't the only non-meat alternative, but you already know that.

Yep, I'm aware...thanks

You are correct, though, it's about hunting and not about any sort of diet. But when hunting becomes an economic practice, then is it so wrong to point out that if one is in search of an economic way of obtaining food, hunting falls well down the list?

Economics doesn't have to be the ONLY reason to hunt, but you seem to think that NO ONE uses it as the PRIMARY reason for hunting. What someone else eats really shouldn't concern you, or me, or anyone else. Some people are allergic to fruits and vegetables, and as already mentioned, wheat. I've yet to meet anyone who's allergic to meat. Not saying they don't exist, I've just never heard of it. Aside from food allergies, some people PREFER meat over vegetables and fruits. So, yea, there are OTHER reasons why some people hunt. But the point is...the question was...is it a sin, (yes I know the exact wording was "should Christians hunt" but I believe the implication was that "is it a sin?")! If one doesn't believe in God, I wonder how they can POSSIBLY believe in sin. And if one doesn't believe in sin, the bottom line is, hunting can't POSSIBLY be a sin.

blessings

 

[Beastt]

Economics doesn't have to be the ONLY reason to hunt, but you seem to think that NO ONE uses it as the PRIMARY reason for hunting.

I'm not sure where you got an idea like that. I only pointed out that on an average, hunters spend far more to obtain the meat they kill than people do who buy meat at the store. And additionally, that if economics is the primary goal, a non-meat diet is less expensive still.

What someone else eats really shouldn't concern you, or me, or anyone else.

Oh? Too bad people weren't so tolerant when Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested. It's such a shame that his personal hunting techniques weren't simply dismissed as his unique way to obtain what he wanted to eat.

Yes, yes, I can pretty well guess what your reaction is to that. But the point is this; Dahmer was killing living, sentient beings because he had a desire to do so. Hunters kill living, sentient beings because they have a desire to do so. Dahmer's choice of beings didn't fit within society's ideas of morality and unfortunately, a large portion of society doesn't have any trouble when the victim is an animal. Before you ask; no, I don't see the killing of an animal as equal to the killing of a person. But obviously, the difference I see is smaller than what you see. But regardless of how you interpret it or how I interpret it, killing an animal just because you like the taste of its flesh is purely wrong. It's needless cruelty and the practice of needless cruelty isn't considered moral by any accepted measure that I know. That's why pro-hunters prefer to call it "humane" instead of "cruel". Odd that we don't offer that same distinction to people who kill other people's pets or treat their own pets badly. When you kill a wild animal, you deprive the rest of the world of its beauty. That means you deprive me, the guy across the street and the bus driver who splashed your car last time it rained - everybody. It certainly is my business if people take it upon themselves to rob the rest of us of the awe and beauty of wildlife.

Some of us aren't able to so cleanly separate ourselves from the suffering of an injured animal, from the fear we know it feels and the desire it has to live. Just as you would feel a deep emotional response to seeing a child subjected to such things, others can feel the same for an animal, (though slightly less intensely). In short, it hurts to see an animal be subjected to cruelty. Some have installed a psychological switch on their emotions and can easily switch it off, content in the idea that the suffering of a game animal somehow isn't real. Others care not to damage their capacity for compassion in such a manner.

As for sin, Answers.com defines a sin as; A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. I think deliberate cruelty, (taking a creatures life is cruel even if they were dead before they knew anything had happened), is pretty clearly the transgression of a moral law. So apparently it does fit as a sin. If you can recognize an action as being disfavorable should it be done to you, then it isn't hard to recognized that it is likely inappropriate for you to do it to another. (...)

I've yet to meet anyone who's allergic to meat.
(...snip...)
blessings

Allergic, no. But it's not good for anyone and virtually everyone who eats it will suffer from a health perspective. If you'd like more information about that, just ask. Ask yourself why it is that a carnivore can casually go about chewing on a carcass that has been dead and unrefrigerated for days and not worry about getting sick. Then ask yourself why humans have to be so concerned about cleaning kitchen surfaces which have had contact with meat. We really don't need to worry about any of the other foods we eat, just animal-products.

 

[Katydid]

I'm not sure where you got an idea like that. I only pointed out that on an average, hunters spend far more to obtain the meat they kill than people do who buy meat at the store. And additionally, that if economics is the primary goal, a non-meat diet is less expensive still.

You know that's funny. I mean, my husband and I had decided one month to eat healthier, we looked for the fresh vegetables, and I even looked into Boca burgers and the such. It was so much MORE expensive for me to buy healthier.

Then ask yourself why humans have to be so concerned about cleaning kitchen surfaces which have had contact with meat. We really don't need to worry about any of the other foods we eat, just animal-products.

Because for centuries we haven't eaten raw meat, so our bodies aren't capable of digesting it anymore. If you take a dog, who has been fed bagged dog food for it's entire life and then feed it raw chicken, the dog will get terribly ill. Why? Because if a dog has eaten raw meat it's entire life, it has enzymes built up in it's stomach that aid in the digestion of it, but one who hasn't eaten raw meat, does not have those same enzymes(I think that is what they are called). It works the same regardless of what animal, their bodies have to have a constant exposure to be able to handle it.

By the way, you give me an alternate protein source, that costs less than $1.00 a pound that my kids, husband, and I can eat and I will look into it. I crave protein, to the point that I get sick if I don't get enough of it. I know, you will probably blow this off as being exaggeration or lack of education, but it is true. I just don't see where my eating what my body tells me I need is wrong.

 

[immersedingrace]

First, I'd like to mention that the comparison with Jeffrey Dahmer is just plain SICK! So I suppose that you compare your ancestors, some of which I'm SURE ate meat, with a murdering cannibal? I bet granny would be THRILLED with that comparison! (notice the sarcasm).

I'm not sure where you got an idea like that. I only pointed out that on an average, hunters spend far more to obtain the meat they kill than people do who buy meat at the store. And additionally, that if economics is the primary goal, a non-meat diet is less expensive still.

Could it be the fact that you blow off personal examples by repeating averages? let's take 6 people, 2 spend 5,000/ year to hunt, 1 spends 2000/year, and the other three spend 100/year. The "average" spent is 2050. How is that even a FAIR comparison? Yea, I know, I'm pulling numbers out of a hat and the "experts" have "accurate" figures, but you get my point I'm sure. Someone mentioned that averages aren't always representative of the whole. I'm sure some of us might remember the grading curve in school! Sometimes I was happy to be graded on "the curve", but most of the time, it just pulled my GPA DOWN. There are limits to what averages can "prove".

A "non-meat" diet is not always less expensive. I, like others, LIKE meat! And just because we want to SAVE money, doesn't mean we want to not SPEND money (although, that WOULD be ideal). Not eating at all would be even more cost effective. Why not go naked? We'd save on clothes. Let's just not brush our teeth or take baths we'd save on toothpaste, soap, shampoo and toothbrushes. Let's not buy toilet paper! See how ridiculous that is, the only thing listed above that's 100% neccessary to our lives is the food (unless like me you think nudity is a sin), the rest is simply "icing". Being frugal, doesn't mean that we have to eat only ONE variety of food. Btw, I can buy SIX packs of Ramen Noodles for $1.00. However, I'd NEVER argue that they are the healthiest form of food out there.

Oh? Too bad people weren't so tolerant when Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested. It's such a shame that his personal hunting techniques weren't simply dismissed as his unique way to obtain what he wanted to eat.
Yes, yes, I can pretty well guess what your reaction is to that. But the point is this; Dahmer was killing living, sentient beings because he had a desire to do so. Hunters kill living, sentient beings because they have a desire to do so. Dahmer's choice of beings didn't fit within society's ideas of morality and unfortunately, a large portion of society doesn't have any trouble when the victim is an animal. Before you ask; no, I don't see the killing of an animal as equal to the killing of a person. But obviously, the difference I see is smaller than what you see.

Glad to see you see a difference there.

But regardless of how you interpret it or how I interpret it, killing an animal just because you like the taste of its flesh is purely wrong. It's needless cruelty and the practice of needless cruelty isn't considered moral by any accepted measure that I know.

Again, simply the opinion of some men! Yes, other's may SHARE that opinion, but it is by NO MEANS a fact! Argue with that all you want, but it STILL remains an OPINION that it's cruel, or needless.

As for sin, Answers.com defines a sin as; A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

I'm not really concerned with how answers.com defines sin, or any other human entity, however, I'll accept that definition in part. I'm MORE concerned with how GOD defines sin.

I think deliberate cruelty, (taking a creatures life is cruel even if they were dead before they knew anything had happened), is pretty clearly the transgression of a moral law.

In YOUR mind, not mine.

Where do people get the idea that if someone doesn't believe in God, they have no concept of right or wrong?

One can have a sense or right and wrong, but that doesn't mean one understands sin. One can refuse to have anything to do with the bible, but it doesn't change what it says. The bible DOES NOT indicate that eating meat, hunting, or fishing are wrong, no matter how it's twisted. The bible is clear that God gave us animals, and plants, and fish for food. There are SOME that, at least at one point, were forbidden, but we won't even go there because that's a different debate altogether, one that I myself struggle with.

God didn't define those traits, man did. And it's very easy to do.

I agree with you on this. However, GOD defines sin, not man. Right and wrong doesn't necessarily mean sin and no-sin. There are many things that MAN considers right (homosexuality, pre-marital sex, pornography, abortion) that God calls wrong. And there are things that MAN calls wrong (praying in school, I'm sure there are others I just can't think of them right now) that God calls right (or good).

Pretty simple and it doesn't involve God, getting up early on Sunday so we can all compare clothing or learning any outdated, depressing songs.

Off topic, but I have to respond. It's clear you have NO idea what Christianity is all about. Yes, there are some so called Christians who go to church to "keep up with the Jones", I've met quite a few. TRUE Christianity, however, is about love. No one's perfect, and there are hypocritical Christians out there. Some who live a lifestyle of hypocrisy, but then again, I'm not sure I'd define those as TRUE Christians, but that's not up to me. Then there are those who say or do things that are hypocritical or may APPEAR hypocritical simply because they've made a mistake or two. Christians ARE NOT perfect! We're human. We make mistakes. It's sad that a single mistake made by a Christian which is witnessed by an unbeliever turns that unbelieve off to ALL Christians and Christianity, but I know it happens. But I wonder how many of those same unbelievers have never made a mistake, or who have given another unbeliever a second chance? Just a thought...a rhetorical question.

As for the songs being outdated, most I sing at my church were written within the last 10 -20 years, many in the last 5-10. Depressing? I guess if you consider love depressing, then, yea, they'd be depressing.

I think this debate is outdated. It's turned into one man's personal crusade to convince other's to give up meat and become vegetarians despite claims that it ISN'T about that at all!

Blessings

 

[Ouch]

I'm wondering which moral law it is that states that animals have a right to life? Granted, in our society we would find it rude to throw somebody's dog or cat on the grill, but that is just our opinion. There are asian cultures that do not find a problem with this. But it only seems hunting would be wrong if animals all deserved to live out their entire lives.

 

[Beastt]

You know that's funny. I mean, my husband and I had decided one month to eat healthier, we looked for the fresh vegetables, and I even looked into Boca burgers and the such. It was so much MORE expensive for me to buy healthier.

Granted the artificial meats aren't cheap. But those also aren't necessary. Those are optional. And fresh produce is more expensive than canned or frozen, but it is healthier. My point is that fresh produce is less expensive than buying meat. If all you're concerned about is the cost, then it's cheaper to buy produce than it is to buy meat. And it never hurts to remember that your tax dollars are being used to buy water for ranchers to raise cattle for beef so you're paying more, substantially more, than the money you hand over at the grocery store.

Because for centuries we haven't eaten raw meat, so our bodies aren't capable of digesting it anymore. If you take a dog, who has been fed bagged dog food for it's entire life and then feed it raw chicken, the dog will get terribly ill. Why? Because if a dog has eaten raw meat it's entire life, it has enzymes built up in it's stomach that aid in the digestion of it, but one who hasn't eaten raw meat, does not have those same enzymes(I think that is what they are called). It works the same regardless of what animal, their bodies have to have a constant exposure to be able to handle it.

Do you really think things work that way? I think you'll have a very difficult time finding a biologist or physiologist who agrees with you.

The reason carnivores and omnivores can consume meat that would kill us is because their bodies are designed to consume meat. Ours aren't. The stomach acid in a carnivore's stomach is 20-times stronger than that in a human stomach. It's strong enough to kill the bacteria, (E.Coli, Botulinum, ect.) which can and does quickly kill people. Biologically, we are herbivores.
Comparative Anatomy (Second Post)

By the way, you give me an alternate protein source, that costs less than $1.00 a pound that my kids, husband, and I can eat and I will look into it. I crave protein, to the point that I get sick if I don't get enough of it. I know, you will probably blow this off as being exaggeration or lack of education, but it is true. I just don't see where my eating what my body tells me I need is wrong.

Do you crave protein or do you crave something else that you're getting with those things you associate with protein? Have you ever been tested? Because if your body needs more than 10% of its calories from protein, you're the only one on this whole planet. It's just amazing how far this protein myth has gone. For a little history, it all started in 1914 when a couple of researches by the names Mendel and Osborne decided to do some tests to determine the best protein, (amino acid mix and ratio). Their test subjects were rats. Eventually they found their answer based on what caused baby rats to grow most quickly. Today we know that rapid growth isn't necessarily synonymous with healthiest. We also know that the protein requirements of rats are clearly quite different than those of humans. As an indicator, you can simply look at the breast milk of the different species. Human breast milk derives 5% of its calories from protein(1). Rat milk is 49% protein(2), calorically. But this didn't stop the industries selling protein laden foods from latching on to this study and proclaiming their products to be healthy and necessary. We live in a society obsessed with getting enough protein. Everywhere you look, there are stickers and packaging proclaiming, "A good source of protein". So it's not so surprising that everyone is sure they aren't getting enough.
(1, 2) Williams and Watkins, "Textbook of Physiology and Biochemistry; Fourth Edition," Balentine Press

But what happens if you don't get enough protein? You develop symptoms of protein deficiency. You can end up with a disease called kwashiokor. Ever hear of kwashiokor before? Ever known anyone who had it? It has reached the point where one part of the country is afraid their consuming too many fats, the other part is afraid they're consuming too many carbohydrates and no one is the least bit concerned about consuming too much protein. People actually seem to believe that protein is the one and only nutrient of which you simply can't get too much. Well, that's not the case. Though nutritionists have found a wide range when it comes to protein needs, this range is much lower than advertising and most people would have you think. The range is as little as 2½% up to as much as 10%. But those needing 10% of their calories from protein are fairly rare. There are a number of respected organizations who track this research, perform this research and offer the information to the government, to the people and to anyone who wants to know the facts.

The World Health Organization has established a minimum daily requirement of 32 grams per day for a 160 pound man. Since there are 4 calories in a gram of protein, this amounts to a caloric intake of only 4½%.

The Food and Nutrition Board recommends that we consume .231 grams of protein per pound of body weight. This again translates to 4½% of our food calories as protein. Then The Food and Nutrition Board adds what they call a 30% safety margin which gives them a figure just under 6%.

The National Research Council also utilizes a substantial safety margin, producing a figure of 8%. They stress that this is not a minimum daily requirement but a recommended daily allowance.

In addition to this, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has published studies which show that humans need only 2½% of their calories from protein. They add that, "Many populations have, in fact, lived in excellent health on this amount."

So what happens if we eat too much protein? Well, again we're drifting from the original topic of the pro/con of hunting, but it seems that no comprehensive discussion of the topic will ever avoid the nutrition side of the issue. Your body uses protein to build and repair tissues. That's it; it's not used to produce energy. If you consume more protein than your body can use, the extra is either stored as fat or excreted in urine. Most of the excess most Americans eat daily lands in the toilet. But this isn't a harmless way to pass protein through your system. If, on occassion you eat more than you need, your body can readily cope with it and suffer no ill effects. But that's not what is happening in the U.S. or other developed countries. The over-consumption of protein occurs, for most people, every day of their lives. And as such the coping mechanisms of the body become overwhelmed.

Everything you eat that can be broken down into nutrients and enter into the blood stream will have some effect on normal pH of the blood. They body attempts to maintain a slightly alkaline balance of 7.35 to 7.45. Protein happens to swing the blood toward the acidic side of the scale. But, since the body does need some protein, it's fully equipped to handle this and has little trouble calling upon stores of alkalines to balance the pH of the blood. The primary source of alkaline is calcium stored in the skeletal system. It is drawn from the bones into the bloodstream. The body has a very limited ability to absorb calcium. Certainly it can absorb all your body needs, but the safety buffer is fairly low. So as you over-comsume proteins day after day, you continue to lose stored calcium from your skeletal system. And all of this extra calcium and most of the excess protein floating around in your bloodstream ends up being filtered out by the kidneys. The kidneys are a rather robust organ. The filtering tissues are called lumen. And the average person can maintain healthy urinary output with as little as 25% of the lumen they should have. But with all of the protein and calcium being filtered from the bodies of people on high-protein diets, much of the lumen ends up clogged and non-functional. Some of the excess calcium will begin to bond with other minerals and materials in the kidney and begin the formation of kidney stones. But, for the most part, the danger doesn't involve the kidneys. The danger is in osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a loss of skeletal mass. The texture of the bones from advanced osteoporosis patients is very sponge-like and the bone tissue remaining becomes very brittle. Though the disease is gaining in recognition, many are still unaware that it has hit levels in the U.S. which qualify it as a true epidemic. And most people who have it don't realize that they have it. Everyday you hear about aged people who fall and break their hip. But quite often, that isn't the accurate sequence of events. All to often, the hip has broken because it can no longer support the body weight and the fracture causes the fall. People have broken ribs by coughing and even broken their spines from the force of sneezing. The entire skeletal structure becomes so weak that the person can no longer stand up straight. All of us have seen this in the bodies of the elderly who, throughout their lives, consumed an excess of protein on nearly a daily basis. Doctors will tell these patients to consume extra calcium. Doctors who have done a bit more research will tell them to consume magnesium along with calcium to increase the absorption rate. But doctors who have taken a true interest in the disease, along with nutritionists will tell these patients to limit their protein intake and to continue to suppliment their calcium intake.

The following studies have all compared the effects of calcium balance both with and without calcium supplimentation and on both low-protein and high-protein diets. For their purposes, "low-protein" refers to a diet which contains adequate protein but not excess and a "high-protein" diet may be defined as one similar to the standard American diet.

Study No. 1 Anad, C., "Effect of Protein on Calcium Balance of Young Men Given 500mg Calcium Daily," Journal of Nutrition, 104:595, 1974

Study No. 2 Hegsted, M., "Urinary Calcium and Calcium Balance in Young Men as Affected by Level of Protein and Phosphorus Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 111:53, 1981

Study No. 3 Walker, R., "Calcium Retention In the Adult Human Male As Affected by Protein Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 102:1297, 1972

Study No. 4 Johnson, N., "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium and Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males," Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425, 1970

Study No. 5 Linkswiler, H., "Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males as Affected by Level of Protein and Calcium Intake," Trans New York Academy of Science, 36:333, 1974

In each and every case, the groups receiving the high-protein diet suffered a negative calcium balance, even when taking 1400mg of supplimental calcium daily, while the groups on the low-protein diets maintained a positive calcium balance even when taking zero supplimental calcium. I have the exact numbers if anyone wants them.

In summary; protein deficiency is all but unheard of in the U.S. or other developed countries. Protein excess is prevalent in all developed countries which have adopted the protein-rich western diets and the medical conditions resulting from excess protein are reaching epidemic proportions. In addition, when animal-produces are sought as sources for protein, it somes at the cost of saturated fats and cholesterol. People hear so much about those two things that most hardly listen to it anymore. But saturated fats and cholesterol are the primary materials from which arterial occlussions are formed. And arterial occlussions lead to heart attack and stroke which kill nearly half of the people who die in the U.S. each year. This is why vegans and vegetarians suffer so few heart attacks while the risk of heart attack in those who consume a standard meat diet is greater than 1 in 2.

If you still think you need all of that protein, here are a few plant sources, many of which are cheaper than meat and contain less fat, almost no saturated fat and zero cholesterol. It's important to note that all of the cholesterol in your diet comes from animal sources. Plants are incapable of producing cholesterol and, like other herbivores, your body produces all of the cholesterol it needs. Any dietary cholesterol is excess.
Soy Bean Curd 43% Wheat Germ 31% Broccoli 45% Soy Beans 35% Rye 20% Mushrooms 38% Lentils 29% Wild Rice 16% Green peas 30% Cauliflower 40% Navy Beans 26% Pumpkin Seeds 21% Lemons 16%
[USDA, "Nutritive Value of American Food in Common Units," Handbook #465]

Even the lowly potato with 11% protein provides adequate protein for human needs. And, according to noted nutritionist, Dr. John McDougall, all of the tests in the last 50-years have shown plant proteins to be superior for human needs to animal proteins.

 

[Beastt]

I'm wondering which moral law it is that states that animals have a right to life? Granted, in our society we would find it rude to throw somebody's dog or cat on the grill, but that is just our opinion. There are asian cultures that do not find a problem with this. But it only seems hunting would be wrong if animals all deserved to live out their entire lives.

Though I find it difficult to grasp that anyone can seriously ask such a question, I will attempt to provide an answer. How does morality arise? Since we know that even those who do not believe in God or the Bible do have moral standards, we can conclude that moral values do not come exclusively from the Bible. So how do we know right from wrong? I think we clearly understand when something is done to us which we find harmful or objectionable. Certainly, from there, it is not difficult to assume that others may also find such action objectionable. And "others" need not be excluded to mean only humans. Animals are rarely shy about indicating when they are in disfavor with any particular action. They make their objections clearly known. So it is not difficult to see that animals do not wish to be killed. It is also easy to see that they do not wish to suffer. And this is clearly understood by people or we wouldn't have laws prohibiting cruelty to animals. The practice of cruelty, whether it be toward humans or any other sentient being is seen as immoral and unfavorable. But unfortunately, societies have a way of ignoring moral issues when it serves their wants. Hence, we have laws prohibiting cruelty to animals we consider to be pets but exclude animals raised for food from these laws so that we are not prohibited from obtaining what we want on a majority scale.
In order to conclude that it is not morally improper to kill an animal, one must either conclude that animals are unworthy of being spared cruelty or that they do not perceive the effects of cruel acts.
What could possibly lead anyone to conclude that animals do not have the right to live out their entire lives? Certainly the animal shows a desire to do so, and if we take the time to relate to the animal, most of us will share the desire to allow it to live it's natural lifespan without undue cruelty. It is only when we utilize denial as a psychological shield against emotion that we can reduce animals to the level of mere objects and suggest that they may not have a right to life.

 

[Beastt]

First, I'd like to mention that the comparison with Jeffrey Dahmer is just plain SICK! So I suppose that you compare your ancestors, some of which I'm SURE ate meat, with a murdering cannibal? I bet granny would be THRILLED with that comparison! (notice the sarcasm).

Yes, my grandmother ate meat. And it was just as wrong for her to do so as for anyone else. I don't make any excuses for people just because I'm related to them.

And as far as the Jeffrey Dahmer example goes, Dahmer took the lives of sentient beings, against their will, often forcing them to endure great fear and suffering in the process, and then consumed parts of their bodies. Hunters take the lives of sentient beings, against their will, often forcing them to endure great fear and suffering and consume parts of their bodies. I've already established that there are differences. Can you honestly tell me that you don't see the parallels?

Could it be the fact that you blow off personal examples by repeating averages? let's take 6 people, 2 spend 5,000/ year to hunt, 1 spends 2000/year, and the other three spend 100/year. The "average" spent is 2050. How is that even a FAIR comparison? Yea, I know, I'm pulling numbers out of a hat and the "experts" have "accurate" figures, but you get my point I'm sure. Someone mentioned that averages aren't always representative of the whole. I'm sure some of us might remember the grading curve in school! Sometimes I was happy to be graded on "the curve", but most of the time, it just pulled my GPA DOWN. There are limits to what averages can "prove".

I have blown off nothing. I openly stated that the figures I provided were averages and went so far as to state that some certainly do seek more economical avenues. However, to proclaim that hunting is done primarily to save money is successfully refuted, speaking in general terms, by the figures I presented.

A "non-meat" diet is not always less expensive.

Just as hunting is not always less expensive than purchasing meat. But when I point that out you proclaim that I'm blowing off personal examples.

I, like others, LIKE meat! And just because we want to SAVE money, doesn't mean we want to not SPEND money (although, that WOULD be ideal).

When it comes to issues of morality, it's not about what one likes. One may like nonconsensual sexual contact with people who feel dominated and fearful. This doesn't make the practice of sexual assault acceptable. Sure you like meat, that has never been in question. If we were always excused the wrongs done to others because we liked the outcome, what kind of world would this be?

Not eating at all would be even more cost effective. Why not go naked? We'd save on clothes. Let's just not brush our teeth or take baths we'd save on toothpaste, soap, shampoo and toothbrushes. Let's not buy toilet paper!

Not eating leads to death, (bad thing). Going naked leads to death from exposure or at least arrest and social rejection, (bad thing). Not brushing our teeth leads to halitosis, tooth decay and gum disease, (bad thing). Excluding ourselves from proper hygiene, promotes disease, offensive personal odor and social rejection, (bad thing). With your kind permission, I'll refrain from commenting regarding the need for toilet paper other than to state that it's certainly not a good idea.. Abstaining from meat promotes better health, less harm to the ecology and human compassion, (good thing).

See how ridiculous that is, the only thing listed above that's 100% neccessary to our lives is the food (unless like me you think nudity is a sin), the rest is simply "icing". Being frugal, doesn't mean that we have to eat only ONE variety of food. Btw, I can buy SIX packs of Ramen Noodles for $1.00. However, I'd NEVER argue that they are the healthiest form of food out there.

I agree the comparisons you offered are ridiculous because you are comparing things which are harmful and lead to disease with something that is positive and promotes good health. And though some hygiene products do contain ingredients from animal sources, many brands are available which do not. Therefore, you may purchase all of the items you mentioned without promoting cruelty to animals. The same cannot be said of hunting or buying meat. So it's a rather inappropriate comparison. The Jeffrey Dahmer comparsion was intended as an extreme but it does present some parallels. Unlike Dahmer, many cannibalistic cultures did not see anything wrong with the practice of eating people and many held their own beliefs which might be considered religious in nature.

Again, simply the opinion of some men! Yes, other's may SHARE that opinion, but it is by NO MEANS a fact! Argue with that all you want, but it STILL remains an OPINION that it's cruel, or needless.

Causing pain without need is cruelty. There is no reasonable way to refute the idea that meat is not a necessary part of a human diet. (Every healthy vegetarian is proof and there are literally millions of them.) Therefore, we have needless cruelty which cannot be dismissed as merely opinion. It is fact. Certainly you don't care to see it that way because to do so would mean that consuming the body of an animal would present you with guilt. But avoidance of guilt through denial doesn't remove the cruelty nor does it remove your complicity in the cruelty.

I'm not really concerned with how answers.com defines sin, or any other human entity, however, I'll accept that definition in part. I'm MORE concerned with how GOD defines sin.

I suppose it is fair to say that I'm most concerned with what I can clearly see as wrong for myself. To go further opens a debate which is best left for the General Apologetics section.

In YOUR mind, not mine.

Moral values require the understanding of the impact of immoral actions on others. The best measure we have is how such actions impact ourselves. We know that we do not wish to die against our will, to fear the act of murder as it is thrust upon us or the pain which may accompany the process of being killed. As such we can understand the immorality of such an act were we to perpetrate it against another. It isn't necessary to be human to feel the impact of fear, pain and a desire to live while having your life taken. As such, I find the suggestion that this is a matter of opinion to be insufficiently substantiated.

One can have a sense or right and wrong, but that doesn't mean one understands sin. One can refuse to have anything to do with the bible, but it doesn't change what it says. The bible DOES NOT indicate that eating meat, hunting, or fishing are wrong, no matter how it's twisted. The bible is clear that God gave us animals, and plants, and fish for food. There are SOME that, at least at one point, were forbidden, but we won't even go there because that's a different debate altogether, one that I myself struggle with.

Without getting into the pros/cons of the Bible, we know that the consumption of meat by humans leads to disease and premature death. Is it your contention that God wanted man to be sick and die prematurely?

Off topic, but I have to respond. It's clear you have NO idea what Christianity is all about. Yes, there are some so called Christians who go to church to "keep up with the Jones", I've met quite a few. TRUE Christianity, however, is about love. No one's perfect, and there are hypocritical Christians out there. Some who live a lifestyle of hypocrisy, but then again, I'm not sure I'd define those as TRUE Christians, but that's not up to me. Then there are those who say or do things that are hypocritical or may APPEAR hypocritical simply because they've made a mistake or two. Christians ARE NOT perfect! We're human. We make mistakes. It's sad that a single mistake made by a Christian which is witnessed by an unbeliever turns that unbelieve off to ALL Christians and Christianity, but I know it happens. But I wonder how many of those same unbelievers have never made a mistake, or who have given another unbeliever a second chance? Just a thought...a rhetorical question.

I owe you and all Christians an apology for my comments. It was an unnecessary and wrongful thing to say. When I see people who believe in what they proclaim to be a loving and just God, using that belief to support cruelty and killing, I sometimes forget my manners and make rude and even ignorant comments. It hurts me to see people who preach love and peace, practice killing and cruelty. Sometimes my reaction is anger which is my shortcoming and something I'm working to overcome. Obviously, I have a long way to go and I ask that you consider forgiving my thoughtless, rude and inappropriate comments.

As for the songs being outdated, most I sing at my church were written within the last 10 -20 years, many in the last 5-10. Depressing? I guess if you consider love depressing, then, yea, they'd be depressing.

Again, a part of the comments I now wish I hadn't made. My apologies.

I think this debate is outdated. It's turned into one man's personal crusade to convince other's to give up meat and become vegetarians despite claims that it ISN'T about that at all!

Blessings

As far as it being one man's personal crusade, I point you to the fact that this is not my thread. I didn't start it and the one who did also suggested that hunting was wrong. Therefore, it cannot be one man's crusade. I'm not in this thread alone. I represent one side of the issue while almost everyone else has taken the other side. Does that mean I should discontinue presenting the evidence for my side? I'm not attempting to convince anyone to give up meat. I know that isn't going to happen. But since the information isn't widely known and no one is forced to read it, there should be no harm in providing it for any who care to expose themselves to it.

I have seen other threads where only one member was left to attempt to uphold one side of the issue and eventually left due to comments aimed more at their person than their views. In most of those cases, the entire thread dies shortly after they discontinue posting. However, perhaps it is still something I should contemplate.

(If you would prefer that I not respond to posts which you make here, I will honor that request. If you prefer, you make make the request in P.M.)

 

[BT]

Closed for moderator review. Will be reopened soon.

 

[BT]

This thread is now being reopend. Please let us keep in mind that this is not a debate forum, this is the Hobbies section.


1 Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

 

[Ouch]

Though I find it difficult to grasp that anyone can seriously ask such a question, I will attempt to provide an answer. How does morality arise? Since we know that even those who do not believe in God or the Bible do have moral standards, we can conclude that moral values do not come exclusively from the Bible. So how do we know right from wrong? I think we clearly understand when something is done to us which we find harmful or objectionable.

First, I understand that animals feel pain. And I myself have little intention of ever going around and inflicting pain on some animal (except the rare fishhook through the lip). But it seems to me that morality is always defined by the society. Society's morality is simply the point at which a majority of people begin to feel guilt. This is not religious morality, but it is popular morality. Other societies have (and in the past had) different standards, which meant different moral codes. In the 1950's it was considered immoralfor a couple to live together in a "long term relationship" without getting married, but today our society would not consider that immoral.

That being said, I assume (notice I'm not backing this up with numbers, I haven't researched any of this, yet) that if you polled the average american public, more than half would say that hunting was okay. Not that they were hunters, but that less people would say hunting was wrong. Do you think that is accurate?

In order to conclude that it is not morally improper to kill an animal, one must either conclude that animals are unworthy of being spared cruelty or that they do not perceive the effects of cruel acts.

As stated above, I dont' believe those are the only 2 options.

What could possibly lead anyone to conclude that animals do not have the right to live out their entire lives? Certainly the animal shows a desire to do so, and if we take the time to relate to the animal, most of us will share the desire to allow it to live it's natural lifespan without undue cruelty. It is only when we utilize denial as a psychological shield against emotion that we can reduce animals to the level of mere objects and suggest that they may not have a right to life.

Usually, extreme amounts of denial and guilt have psychological consequences. I've never met anyone deeply disturbed by their own hunting. I don't know a lot of hunters with psychological problems that stem from this denial. I'll look into case studies, but I dont know if I will be able to find any.

And as to your first question, what gives animals a right to live? Obviously I don't mean that we should slaughter them all, but why should I feel guilty about spearing a wild pig, per se?

 

[old06]

Hi ya'll the Lord put us as stewards of this his land and with it came all that we need to surive in, and in several places in the bible he tell's his people what to eat and what not to eat, just this evening I was reading Deuteronomy 14 and in verse 4 and 5 it states, "4 These are the beast which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat. 5 the hart the roebuck and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. I do not just go and kill for the "blood sport" but to take some of what my heavenly father has provided for me to eat. Thank You

 

[unknown1719]

This thread is old and I haven't read it all but I am an avid hunter.... *yes a GIRL*

I don't see anything wrong with hunting. In the Bible there were many killings of animals. I do not think it is wrong. I personally don't kill just to kill - - what I kill I eat. I think that if we didn't hunt then there would be an over population of animals and it would unhealthy for them and us. I mean come on - - A FLY!!! You wouldn't kill a fly if it landed on your burger?!?! I mean really..it has been on cow poo for all you know. haha Mosquitos.. .what about them? I slap the fire outta them when they bite me... doesn't seem to hurt the mosquito population if you ask me.
Just my 2 cents.....

 

[InnerPhyre]

Hunting for food is fine

Hunting for fun is a waste of God's precious gifts....and sort of sadistic in my opinion. When I see a deer, I think "wow....that's a beautiful animal." I don't think "Boy it would be fun to shoot that thing."