Should Christians Hunt?

[Heiroglyph]

Hunting is necessary to keep animal populations in check and ensure that species survive. If not for hunting deer for example deer would continuously expand their population until there was not enough food for them to survive.
At the point huge numbers of them would die in addition to the huge suffering most of the animals would go through. Hunting keeps the population in check and keeps the population healthy. The hunter is doing the anumals a favor and the anti hunters are doing the animals a disservice. If you love animals as much as you say you will you will either hunt or support hunting.
Also one comment I need to add is someone in the last page said that they do not see certain animals in the wold in their area. For an animal like bear that is normal. You should never see a bear in the wild if their population level is healthy. Bears stay the heck away from people normally. If they are driven out into human areas because of lack of food then you might see some. If you are seeing alot of bear then that could indicate there are an overpopulation of them and they need to be thinned out. The wildlife managers use hunting to control the population. Generaly most hunting licenses do not result in an animal being killed so they need to give more licenses than the number of animals they want killed. It is man's responsibility to manage animals in this way.

 

[Beastt]

Hunting is necessary to keep animal populations in check and ensure that species survive. If not for hunting deer for example deer would continuously expand their population until there was not enough food for them to survive.
At the point huge numbers of them would die in addition to the huge suffering most of the animals would go through. Hunting keeps the population in check and keeps the population healthy. The hunter is doing the anumals a favor and the anti hunters are doing the animals a disservice. If you love animals as much as you say you will you will either hunt or support hunting.
Also one comment I need to add is someone in the last page said that they do not see certain animals in the wold in their area. For an animal like bear that is normal. You should never see a bear in the wild if their population level is healthy. Bears stay the heck away from people normally. If they are driven out into human areas because of lack of food then you might see some. If you are seeing alot of bear then that could indicate there are an overpopulation of them and they need to be thinned out. The wildlife managers use hunting to control the population. Generaly most hunting licenses do not result in an animal being killed so they need to give more licenses than the number of animals they want killed. It is man's responsibility to manage animals in this way.

We hear this over and over but it has no basis in fact. If you look at the world as a whole, people occupy only a small portion of it. Animals occupy a much greater area, though we do continue to encroach on areas which were once soley occupied by the animals. In areas where man doesn't live and rarely, if ever hunts, the animal populations don't have any problems whatsoever. Nature has it's own balance. When a non-predatory species decides to take on predatory habits, the balance is lost. This balance is not restored by more hunting.

As for seeing bear in the wild, it's true that visual encounters should be few but that depends largely on how much time one spends in the wilderness areas. In growing up I spent a great deal of time hiking. I could head out beyond my parent's back yard and have miles of wilderness to roam. We grew to know many square miles of the country quite well and often ventured out for a large part of the day. We saw rabbits, coyotes, quail, javalina, lizards, snakes, jack rabbits and roadrunners on a regular basis. Moving into the foothills and the mountains sightings of deer weren't terribly infrequent. But never did we see a bear. Yet with four-wheel drive vehicles, binoculars, scopes and rifles hunters take bear from the area every year. Biologists and wildlife experts know quite well that man is not part of a natural predation system. All man's hunting can ever do is interrupt the natural balance. It can never restore it.

 

[ChrisWins]

^ like the Energizer bunny... keeps going and going and going.............

 

[fallen^sparrow]

^ like the Energizer bunny... keeps going and going and going.............

He's cute though... somebody just needs to take away his drum for awhile.

Hunting for food has little or no affect on animal populations as we are PART of the natural balance of predator/prey relationship that continues to develope in the world. Things change, animals behaviour continue to adapt to changes in environment and we are included in that. There isn't an "endpoint" utopia that happened at some point in the past by which all subsequent behaviours by varies species are judged. If we are talking distructive forces affect wild specie populations the world over its habitat deterioration/destruction. Brown bears populations aren't crashing due to hunting, its habitat destruction, gene pool isolation and subsequent deterioration resulting from the elimination of natural migration routes eliminated by human development. I believe on paper the extinction of the N.A. wild Brown Bear is now a mathematic certainty unless their are drastic and certainly highly unpopular changes (what? ... no more 4/8 lane 12 ft fenced super highways crossing nation fueling our hunger for big/cheaper/better/MORE of everything!). Hunters in my opinion are among the few people in the general public who actually have the faintest sniff of a clue of whats actually healthy for a species health. Without hunter driven Ducks Unlimited where would our duck populations be today. The average "joe" American couldn't care less about ducks or any wild animal save the photo of an elk on the cover of their annual L.L.Bean urban yupee addition. Sure their's a few vocal biologist/naturalists and wildlife groups doing quality work to preserve our wildlife... but when it comes right down to the crunch its the people actually out in the backcountry and who know and can see what is potentially being lost that are going to save our wildlife and wildspaces, and at least up until now hunters have made up a significant part of that group.

fallen^sparrow

 

[Breetai]

It is not a definition which I provide. It is a definition which is provided by one of the most respected Hebrew/English translators alive today; Reuben Alcalay. Is it not obvious that the original translators chose the word "kill" for a reason? To suggest that the intention is "murder" passes the license to man to make any form of killing acceptable to God. Murder is and always has been a legal term. It means one thing in one area and a different thing in other areas. Even in travelling across the U.S. murder can be defined in several different ways. What you suggest proclaims that God wrote a commandment which is so general in scope that man is allowed to alter the crux of its meaning.

If that man has only provided that one, short, definition of 'kill', then his personnal bias is shown though. The definition that I've provided is from the work of a number of different scholars, thereby eliminating any personnal bias of words.

If you would like to meet me on a thread specifically designated for the topic of diet, I will be happy to continue on this course. Man has learned to make the tools he needs to hunt but had he relied on hunting to survive from his earliest appearance, he would have died out before he had a chance to multiply. If you really believe that man digests meat well, then meet me on an appropriate thread and we'll continue the diet side of this conversation. If you don't know of an appropriate thread, I'll be happy to offer you your choice of several.

I'm interested in reading those threads and what you might have to say in them, but I will decline to participate. My knowledge of diet comes from Biblical knowledge, personnal experience and from studying healthy eating along with my weight training. Meat is a regular part of my diet and I find that I am very healthy. I do understand that one can get a fully healthy diet from being a strict vegaterian. I respect that fact and have no desire to try and 'convert' those people into a meat-eating diet.
I'm glad to see that you're a vegan, or I'd be very puzzled as to why you argue against the killing of animals so much! I'd suggest that you will have a very difficult time trying to convince any Christian, who is very knowledgable about the Bible, that killing animals(for the purposes of eating and clothing) is wrong. I'd suggest that any futher arguments that you use against eating meat do not involve arguments from the Bible, as they are without any solid foundation.

Also one comment I need to add is someone in the last page said that they do not see certain animals in the wold in their area. For an animal like bear that is normal. You should never see a bear in the wild if their population level is healthy. Bears stay the heck away from people normally. If they are driven out into human areas because of lack of food then you might see some. If you are seeing alot of bear then that could indicate there are an overpopulation of them and they need to be thinned out. The wildlife managers use hunting to control the population. Generaly most hunting licenses do not result in an animal being killed so they need to give more licenses than the number of animals they want killed. It is man's responsibility to manage animals in this way.

I've seen a HUGE amount of bear in my area. A few years ago, the spring bear hunt was taken away from us by the provincial government(in Toronto). I'm in remote Ontario, an area that Toronto doesn't take into much consideration. Taking away any bear hunting may have made sense in the greatly populated Southern Ontario, but it is a stupid idea where I am. Bears frequently roam into town and are both a pest and a danger. Many have HAD to be shot to keep them away from breaking into people's houses, which has happened. Many bears have been killed by regular civilians, which is illigal. The authority here knows about that and turns a blind eye. Why? Because they recongize the problem of having no bear hunt and would've had to shoot those same bears themselves.

This is where I leave this discussion, as I think that I've said everything that I need to.

Cheers!

 

[PACKY]

very simple: most people can go to the store and get meat.. therfore one would assume that to hunt you are enjoying the kill as that is the end result to KILL..... many hunters will use th excuse that they just like being out in nature and enjoying the time in gods creation which lends a very pious aire about it..However, if you truly just liked being out in nature then take picture,,,, if you must feed your mindset that you ae the KIng of the forest and top of the food yell " i got you!!!" to the animal when they come within range ( humor intended).. the point being Hunting is simply the act of killing a part of gods creation It is the one and only end result to hunting it is the intent of hunting. Animal overpopulation lack of preadators and incursion into wildlife areas are problems vreated by MAN and should be fixed by man , rather than doing teh right thing which is also the harder option we opt to kill the animal and call that a solution, in closing My one question i would like to pose is simply..
"do you think that Jesus our christ would partake in hunting?"

 

[Breetai]

"do you think that Jesus our christ would partake in hunting?"

Absolutely. He partook in fishing!

 

[PACKY]

This is where I leave this discussion, as I think that I've said everything that I need to.

Cheers!



Last edited by Breetai : Today at 03:22 PM.



?

 

[Beastt]

If that man has only provided that one, short, definition of 'kill', then his personnal bias is shown though. The definition that I've provided is from the work of a number of different scholars, thereby eliminating any personnal bias of words.

Yet his definition is in line with the first definition you provided as well as being in agreement with the wording that appears in the Bible -- a book you claim to believe. So I have three which are in agreement; one of which you believe to be God's word, one you provided and one I provided. Since you change what it says in the Bible because you don't care for what it says, who is showing the personal bias here?

I'm interested in reading those threads and what you might have to say in them, but I will decline to participate. My knowledge of diet comes from Biblical knowledge, personnal experience and from studying healthy eating along with my weight training. Meat is a regular part of my diet and I find that I am very healthy. I do understand that one can get a fully healthy diet from being a strict vegaterian. I respect that fact and have no desire to try and 'convert' those people into a meat-eating diet.
I'm glad to see that you're a vegan, or I'd be very puzzled as to why you argue against the killing of animals so much!

I must point out that while you feel very healthy, chances are you already have the beginning of atherosclerotic build-up in your arteries. (Often found in meat-eating children as young as 4-5 years during surgeries.) Since you're young, you will likely have a number of good years ahead of you before it becomes a medical issue. But when you consider that what you're defending here is a major contributing factor in the four diseases which together account for over 77% of the deaths in the U.S. for the past few years, it is unlikely that you will continue to feel healthy. It is also unlikely that you will recognize your future medical difficulties as being related to your diet. Unless you are among the great minority, the process has already begun.
I'm sorry that you prefer not to participate but I'll supply a few threads for you as places to start. Perhaps you will change your mind as you read them and jump in with challenges, questions or additional information. After having done a fair amount of research into diet, I would caution you against using the Bible as a dietary guide. Aside from early Genesis and the much discussed, fifth commandment, most of what it offers lies contrary to what nutritionists, doctors and researchers have found in quantities of data that leave little room for argument.
Most weight-lifters receive the "protein, protein, protein" speech. I hope for your sake that the advice you have received was more well-rounded.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1141530-being-vegetariana-sin.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t152886-vegetarianism.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1167425-is-your-stomach-a-graveyard.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1162977-the-pro-vegetarianism-thread.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1160939-dont-drink-milk-its-bad-for-you.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1169173-test.html
(The last is only a formatting exersize at present. I intend to use it in a future post but it offers a good anatomical and physiological comparison.)

I'd suggest that you will have a very difficult time trying to convince any Christian, who is very knowledgable about the Bible, that killing animals(for the purposes of eating and clothing) is wrong. I'd suggest that any futher arguments that you use against eating meat do not involve arguments from the Bible, as they are without any solid foundation.

I appreciate the advice but I must decline to follow it. You suggest that my biblical arguments are unfounded yet I have read what it says, while you assert what you want it to say. To my way of thinking, what the Bible says offers a much more solid foundation to those who believe in the Bible than anything one may wish it to say.

 

[fallen^sparrow]

very simple: most people can go to the store and get meat.. therfore one would assume that to hunt you are enjoying the kill as that is the end result to KILL.

That would be a very wrong assumption that people enjoy the kill. No one I've ever hunted with enjoys the moment of the kill, but however it is part of life and the experience. Being intimately and respectfully involved in the taking of anothers creatures life makes one place more value on the gift of life, not less. Trying to ignore the fact of how truely feeble we really are and how immediate life really is by attempting to eliminate all presence of death and suffering in our lives isn't a step forward.

However, if you truly just liked being out in nature then take picture,,,, if you must feed your mindset that you ae the KIng of the forest and top of the food yell " i got you!!!" to the animal when they come within range ( humor intended).. the point being Hunting is simply the act of killing a part of gods creation It is the one and only end result to hunting it is the intent of hunting.

People hunt to be a part of nature... not a mere observer. "King" of the Forest? No... "part" of the forest. Eating is an integral part of existing in our wildspaces... and I've yet to see a hunter who won't stoop down to grasp a handful of wild strawberries or blueberries while traveling the gametrails so it isn't merely limited to meat. It's a whole mindset so much more then the "kill" which you can't see beyond unfortunately. Hunting isn't simply the killing of Gods creation, it's for a brief time returning to the way we all once lived in the not too distant past... in a direct one to one relationship with the natural world, give and take.

Animal overpopulation lack of preadators and incursion into wildlife areas are problems vreated by MAN and should be fixed by man

Man is part of the environment, we aren't separate from it. The only animal overpopulation created by man is that of our own species... and there you have the real problem. "Natural" animal overpopulation happens and is a cycle all species go through if they are given the chance.

"do you think that Jesus our christ would partake in hunting?"

In an ideal world no He probably wouldn't... but if He were living here on earth with us now I have no doubt that He would today, just as He lived, fished and ate with those around Him several thousand years ago. Jesus knew what really mattered in a mans life, and what didn't. Making a religion out of what provides energy and the building blocks of our physical bodies which are merely here for a time... and then are blown away as dust just isn't where our priorities should be placed.

fallen^sparrow

 

[sculpturegirl]

So is it ok for farmers to raise meat for the sole purpose of slaughtering it? How is that better than hunting?

Shall we also forbid lions from eating zebras and cats from mice? There is a food chain and like it or not we are up towards the top.

When we were kids, we live on a farm and hunted for meat. We understood where meat came from and gave thanks to God and to the animal because of its death, we were able to eat. I say be a vegetarian, unless you are willing to face a cow and look into his eyes. I have thanked those animals whose life has been taken so that mine can be sustained.

 

[Beastt]

So is it ok for farmers to raise meat for the sole purpose of slaughtering it? How is that better than hunting?

Within the context of this thread, it is immaterial because it is not hunting. Perhaps that sounds like a cop-out to you. I would hope not because it is only an attempt to stay within the topic defined by the OP. Several have attempted to branch the thread out to include diet and it was asked that we remain strictly on the topic of hunting.

Shall we also forbid lions from eating zebras and cats from mice? There is a food chain and like it or not we are up towards the top.

All creatures should seek to follow, rather than violate their nature. Man's nature is not that of a hunter. There exists a reliable collection of anatomical data as well as psychological evidence to support this.

When we were kids, we live on a farm and hunted for meat. We understood where meat came from and gave thanks to God and to the animal because of its death, we were able to eat. I say be a vegetarian, unless you are willing to face a cow and look into his eyes. I have thanked those animals whose life has been taken so that mine can be sustained.

Perhaps you would be interested in some of the same threads I offered to Breetai only a few posts back. If so, I'd be quite happy to further address the issues you present on any one of them.

 

[immersedingrace]

very simple: most people can go to the store and get meat..

Yes, they can, but WHY should they IF they can provide their own meat? WHY should we pay a farmer or others to provide what we can, and ENJOY providing for ourselves? Just to keep the Economy afloat? I would argue that hunting isn't/hasn't upset our economy, so therefore I say let those who enjoy hunting hunt. Let those who enjoy wild game, continue to enjoy it.

"do you think that Jesus our christ would partake in hunting?"

Yea, actually, I DO believe he would partake in hunting. I think for Him it would be a great, relaxing way to be with men who enjoy this activity. I believe that Christ would indeed find many of the ways we occupy our time as quite enjoyable. Those activities which aren't illegal, immoral, unethical AND unbiblical. I think He would try to find ways to reach us all.

Blessings

 

[Beastt]

Yes, they can, but WHY should they IF they can provide their own meat? WHY should we pay a farmer or others to provide what we can, and ENJOY providing for ourselves? Just to keep the Economy afloat? I would argue that hunting isn't/hasn't upset our economy, so therefore I say let those who enjoy hunting hunt. Let those who enjoy wild game, continue to enjoy it.

For the honesty you show here, you receive my respect. Because enjoyment is what it's really about. People hunt because they enjoy it. Not because they're worried about overpopulation of the animals, not because they're hungry and have no other way to feed themselves, it's about recreation. While others have proclaimed that hunting is necessary and submit to a belief that until man came along, nature couldn't provide a population balance between predator and prey or insist that because hunters have already messed things up so badly that more hunting is the only possible solution, you quietly step up and tell it like it is. Thank you.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/cbio/global.html

Records kept by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also indicate that of the world's 15 main fishing regions, four are depleted and nine are declining. This global fisheries crisis is primarily a result of overharvesting. The world's marine catch has increased more than four times in the past 40 years -- from 18.5 million tons in 1952 to 89 million tons in 1989, but that growth is at great cost to the environment, and ultimately, perhaps to world food security.​

http://www.idausa.org/facts/deercontrol.html

Left alone by humans, the ratio of does to bucks would be approximately equal. In Defense of Animals believes that sport hunting is not only an ineffective wildlife management tool, but a cruel and unnecessary practice. Sport hunting should be banned, allowing deer populations to regulate themselves naturally.​

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/learn_the_facts_about_hunting.html

Hunters who claim they prevent animals from suffering starvation are simply trying to divert attention from an analysis of the propriety of killing wildlife for fun.

If hunters claim that they hunt to prevent overpopulation, then they should be prepared to forgo hunting except when it really is necessary to manage overpopulated species. This would mean no hunting of doves, ducks, geese, raccoons, bears, cougars, turkeys, quail, chuckar, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, and many other species.

...hunters are usually the first to protest when wolves, coyotes, and other predators move into an area and begin to take over the job of controlling game populations. The State of Alaska, for example, has instituted wolf-control (trapping and shooting) on the grounds that wolf predation may bring caribou populations down to a level that would limit the sport-hunting of caribou.

Wildlife, to a large degree, will naturally regulate its own populations if permitted, eliminating any need for hunting as a means of population control.​

Certainly anyone can do a quick web search and find dozens of sites which claim that hunting is the best method of population control. The vast majority of these sites will be funded by organizations which receive money from licensing, tags and other revenues generated by hunting. Others may be sites owned and operated by avid hunters who want to spread the word, despite the fact that this word is old, tired and obviously without basis in fact.

One question worth asking is, how much money is to be made by spreading misinformation against hunting? Where is the money to be made in that? Surely a few organizations are funded by those who wish to see the unnecessary suffering of animals stopped, but ask yourself; which is the most lucrative? People hate being told that they shouldn't do what they want to do. People love being told that it's okay to do the things they enjoy. They'll gladly pay to be supported in doing what they wish to do, even if it does involve cruelty, suffering and unnecessary death.

Using hunting as a means to control the population of any species serves to weaken that species. Whereas natural predators will take what they can get, meaning the weak, sick and injured; hunters take the biggest and the best, thereby removing the better genes and leaving the poorer ones. Few hunters want to take weak, scrawny or diseased animals but these are the very animals most often taken by nature's population control species.

Over and over the same tired myths continue to pop up. There is no need for hunting to control populations if hunting of the natural predators doesn't occur. Hunting creates the problem, then pretends to be the answer for the problem.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

-- Albert Einstein​

​

 

[Ryder]

What reference is "murder"? It doesn't say "murder". It clearly says, "kill". This is but another of the many tweaks people perform to the word of the Bible in order to make it more to their liking. In fact, this is possibly the most popular example of editorial license used by people in order to try to make the book say other than what it says.

The original Hebrew uses the term, "lo tirtzack". The word "lo" translates to "do not" or "thou shalt not". The book, Complete Hebrew English Dictionary, by Dr. Reuben Alcalay, states that, especially in classical Hebrew usage, the word "tirtzack" refers to "any kind of killing".

Surely, there is a difference between murdering a human and an animal. But the distinction is not as far separated as some would have us believe and clearly the commandment suggests that both are prohibited.

Well, that's the syntax. But now what about the context?

Sure, we have,

Exodus 20:13 KJV
Thou shalt not kill.

But look only a little bit further and we find,

Exodus 29:11 KJV
And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And,

Leviticus 20:16 KJV
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Has God contradicted Himself? Well, either that, or perhaps the context of the rest of the Bible is telling us a little more about the meaning of Exodus 20:13. And what about this,

Genesis 9:2-3 KJV
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Is God contradicting Himself again? Or maybe, just maybe, a Hebrew word for killing has been further refined by the context in which it is laid.

Now, forgive me for prying at such a strange question, but why are you concerned about what the Bible has to say about this?

 

[Beastt]

Well, that's the syntax. But now what about the context?

Sure, we have,

Exodus 20:13 KJV
Thou shalt not kill.

But look only a little bit further and we find,

Exodus 29:11 KJV
And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And,

Leviticus 20:16 KJV
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Has God contradicted Himself? Well, either that, or perhaps the context of the rest of the Bible is telling us a little more about the meaning of Exodus 20:13. And what about this,

Genesis 9:2-3 KJV
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Is God contradicting Himself again? Or maybe, just maybe, a Hebrew word for killing has been further refined by the context in which it is laid.

Now, forgive me for prying at such a strange question, but why are you concerned about what the Bible has to say about this?

There is no need to ask forgiveness for such a question. When you consider my beliefs concerning the Bible, it's a perfectly fine question. My answer is this; if you won't listen to what biology has to say, what physiology has to say or what medical science has to say because you find the Bible to be a better guide, then it is my hope that you will listen to what the Bible actually says. When the Bible offers contradiction, which it clearly does, then it's time to put our faith and our reason behind ecology, physiology, history, medical science and statistics which all suggest that we are not natural predators. If you must go back to the Bible for guidance, then does it not make sense to choose the side of the contradiction which supports what ecology, physiology, history, medical science and statistics tell us, or is it better to flip a coin?

Obviously God is contradicting himself. The word "murder" was there for his choosing, but it wasn't chosen. Instead he chose "kill". So does it better serve reason to simply pick and choose what we wish to believe or to determine that contradicting instructions are unworthy of our trust?

Do you believe in capital punishment, (only for women, of course), for the crime of beastiality? Do you believe that the animal too has "sinned" and should be put to death? Do Christians follow this commandment from God?

 

[Ryder]

There is no need to ask forgiveness for such a question. When you consider my beliefs concerning the Bible, it's a perfectly fine question. My answer is this; if you won't listen to what biology has to say, what physiology has to say or what medical science has to say because you find the Bible to be a better guide, then it is my hope that you will listen to what the Bible actually says. When the Bible offers contradiction, which it clearly does, then it's time to put our faith and our reason behind ecology, physiology, history, medical science and statistics which all suggest that we are not natural predators. If you must go back to the Bible for guidance, then does it not make sense to choose the side of the contradiction which supports what ecology, physiology, history, medical science and statistics tell us, or is it better to flip a coin?

Obviously God is contradicting himself. The word "murder" was there for his choosing, but it wasn't chosen. Instead he chose "kill". So does it better serve reason to simply pick and choose what we wish to believe or to determine that contradicting instructions are unworthy of our trust?

Do you believe in capital punishment, (only for women, of course), for the crime of bestiality? Do you believe that the animal too has "sinned" and should be put to death? Do Christians follow this commandment from God?

Actually I think you may have partially missed my point. I believe that understanding "Thou shalt not Kill" primarily as we would use the English "Do not murder" is encouraged by the context of the rest of the Bible, with no contradictions. The contradictions only occur when you do not read "Thou shalt not kill" in context.

You'll also notice a wide array of Bible translations that have already translated it as such,

Exodus 20:13

NIV
"You shall not murder."

NASB
"You shall not murder."

MSG
"No murder."

AMP
"You shall not commit murder."

NLT
"Do not murder."

ESV
"You shall not murder."

CEV
"Do not murder."

NKJV
"You shall not murder."

YLT
"Thou dost not murder."

HCSB
"Do not murder."

NIRV
"Do not commit murder."

NIVUK
"You shall not murder."

That's twelve that I could find, and there are five that still use the word "kill",

KJV
"Thou shalt not kill."

KJ21
"Thou shalt not kill."

ASV
"Thou shalt not kill."

DARBY
"Thou shalt not kill."

NLV
"Do not kill other people."

And, oddly enough, one of those five goes out of the way to exclude animals. Now, some translations are better than others, and I make no claims that these are all good translations. Honestly I just thought it'd be neat to have a look at.

I still believe that the context of the Bible is perfectly sound for understanding the meaning of the word "kill" regardless of weather or not it has been narrowed down already to the word "murder". And I believe that meaning is murder. I've already posted some examples of context in a previous post, so I won't get into to that again.

Now, you imply lightly that we Christians are using the Bible instead of science in our decisions, presumably our decisions to eat meat, hunt, and so forth.

My answer is this; if you won't listen to what biology has to say, what physiology has to say or what medical science has to say because you find the Bible to be a better guide, then it is my hope that you will listen to what the Bible actually says.

My response is simple, I see no problems here. I have yet to see science prove that we do not have "the image of God" or that animals do. You assume that we reject science in favor of the Bible. That is not so. I love science, and the Bible. And quite frankly I haven't got a contradiction. There are some "theories" that disagree with some Biblical accounts, but science is not simply theories in and of themselves. Science is a process of investigation. And an investigation in progress or still unproven (a theory) is not absolutely the truth. Now, if you meant 'science' as understood within a completely materialistic framework, then we've got a problem. God is non-material. I believe in God with all my heart. Now, why would I accept a completely materialistic framework as a rational starting point for knowledge? Obviously I wouldn't. I get this out of the way because the word science often carries different meanings. I thought I'd put it in context there!

When the Bible offers contradiction, which it clearly does, then it's time to put our faith and our reason behind ecology, physiology, history, medical science and statistics which all suggest that we are not natural predators. If you must go back to the Bible for guidance, then does it not make sense to choose the side of the contradiction which supports what ecology, physiology, history, medical science and statistics tell us, or is it better to flip a coin?

I think there a too many presumptions here for us to even begin to debate the scientific evidence this far down the logic train. You, I would guess, believe that the theory of evolution is correct. I do not. I believe in God, I might guess that you do not, by your little CF religion sticker thingy. I think that you would need to establish far more basic things, like the theory of evolution itself, where matter comes from, and so on, or I would have to establish a lot of other things to you before this scientific debate at "the far end", as it were, with eating meat and whatnot could really go anywhere.

If you don't mind, without getting too scientific, why shouldn't we kill and eat animals? Why do you believe we shouldn't?

 

[lisarn]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you are hunting for food.

 

[Truth and Reconciliation]

With accord with some of the other people posting on this thread, I too think that hunting is a personal preference. Some people hunt for food (i.e. Americans in rural communities) but it's a sport for most Americans. The sport may be repulsive to some but invigorating for others.

I don't see a problem with hunting (Acts 10:13) provided that your game is consumed for food. Leaving carcasses to rot under the sun is irresponsibility to God's creation (Gn 2:15).

In Truth,

Vincent

 

[PACKY]

I just dont understand why Anyone would want to purposely go out and kill something?
And this is coming from a person who used to hunt..until i figured out that I do not enjoy being responsible for killing and destroying parts of god creation.