Should Christians Hunt?

[immersedingrace]

(Should you decide to actually do this, I wouldn't recommend that you allow Child Protective Services to know of your actions. Chances are they don't understand the Bible as you do and will interpret this as emotionally and psychologically harmful to the children, as would any psychologist.)

Well, speaking as a trained Social Worker who spent 3 1/2 years working in Child Protective Services, I can tell you that this WOULD NOT be considered "emotionally and psychologically harmful" to the child unless, perhaps, the child actually ate it (which is highly unlikely, as kids generally don't like "strange" things to include raw meat &/or entrails). Except in that unlikely occurance, Child Protective Services (CPS) would be highly unlikely to do more than a cursory investigation into the circumstances. I'd be willing to bet that MOST CPS agencies wouldn't even do a cursory investigation into the matter if reported EXACTLY as described in your post (again, unless the kid ate it, which you're example doesn't say). I've often offered raw poultry, or meat, or entrails to kids when we've been cooking together, knowing full-well that they would not even think twice before saying "no thanks" or "EWW" or whatever. It's called humor in the kitchen. If there were other circumstances OR a history of reports on said family, there would most likely be an investigation, but even then, I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't meet the guidelines set by the US government, ANY of the 50 states OR the many counties around the country. Have you ever looked at the CPS laws in this country? Asking because you brought up the topic of CPS.
Blessings

 

[Illuminatus]

Parents have dominion over their children. Is this a provision for using a 12 guage with 00-buck as a disciplinary tool?

Only if they plan to eat them afterwards.

 

[pgp_protector]

I think God put animals on this earth for us to enjoy, not for us to eat. Although we need to survive, there are alternatives to eating animals. Nice question!!

But I Enjoy Eating, is'nt that enjoying them ?

 

[armyman_83]

Well in some places, like where I live[Alabama] we have an over population of deer and we can't kill enough of them. If hunting is wrong then does that mean that Esau was a bad dude since he hunted? Hunting just to kill and leave the body there is wrong but in Alabama we need to kill the dear so I know that hunting is not bad.

 

[armyman_83]

But I Enjoy Eating, is'nt that enjoying them ?

Here here!!!!

 

[Beastt]

Well in some places, like where I live[Alabama] we have an over population of deer and we can't kill enough of them. If hunting is wrong then does that mean that Esau was a bad dude since he hunted? Hunting just to kill and leave the body there is wrong but in Alabama we need to kill the dear so I know that hunting is not bad.

The overpopulation was more than likely caused by hunters killing the natural predators. Hunting is the problem, not the solution.

 

[Hardcase]

I think God wanted us to hunt. We have a responsiblity to take care of the Earth that includes the animals on it.

 

[Beastt]

I think God wanted us to hunt. We have a responsiblity to take care of the Earth that includes the animals on it.

This is a rather twisted view of what it means to "take care" of something. Is this how you "take care" of family members?

 

[armyman_83]

We do have to cut down on the deer population whether or not we killed all the natural predators. Besides don't aniamls hunt and kill things and "take care" of the earth. Without predators we would be over run with animals. And did not God put us above animals?( and no we shouldn't just go kill them for fun thats not what I am saying!)

 

[Beastt]

We do have to cut down on the deer population whether or not we killed all the natural predators. Besides don't aniamls hunt and kill things and "take care" of the earth. Without predators we would be over run with animals. And did not God put us above animals?( and no we shouldn't just go kill them for fun thats not what I am saying!)

Unfortunately, few people like to read through a whole thread or even the last few pages before they post. I understand that and I'm probably just as guilty as anyone else. But, it does lead to posting the same responses to the same replies repeatedly.

Nature has a balance system, armyman. If we disrupt that balance by killing the predators then the scales will tip and overpopulation of the prey species will result. But all it does when hunters continue to keep the predator populations down and step in to cull game populations themselves, is to maintain and promote this imbalance. And, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, nature is not a see-saw. You can't kill off the predators and restore balance by hunting the prey animals. Predation doesn't work the way hunters do. Firstly, hunters in many areas protest whenever natural predator populations begin to increase. They often respond swiftly to again destroy the predator populations because they claim this presents competition. We can survive without killing animals. Predators cannot. If we care about nature, about natural balance and about animals, the only thing we can do is to allow the natural predator population to return. Once nature has regained its balance, man has to stay out and take on his natural role which excludes predation.

Man is not a natural predator. There isn't one scientific bit of evidence to indicate otherwise. Yet, whether people wish to believe it or not, man is part of nature. When we act outside of our natural role, we disrupt the balance in nature. Your contention is that we continue to act outside of our natural role which only leads to maintaining an imbalance in nature. The predator species become endangered and the prey species become weakened as a whole. Man doesn't take the sick, young, weak or injured like a predator does. Man takes the best of the best, leaving the weaker genes to continue the species. There is just no justification for hunting. It is only a practice of cruelty and suffering which leads to disruption of natural balances.

 

[armyman_83]

So Esau was bad since he was a hunter? So David was evil because he helped sheep live and grow fat so they could eat them? Oh and David must be a killer since he killed a bear and a lion as well?

Oh by the way, can I ask if you are even a Christian?

 

[Yawehdog137]

Christians should only hunt if they are starving and need food

 

[Beastt]

So Esau was bad since he was a hunter?

I wouldn't care to classify any individual as "good" or "bad" based on a single act or practice. Surely hunting was an excursion beyond his nature as a human which is contrary to sound ecological practices as well as damaging to natural human understanding.

So David was evil because he helped sheep live and grow fat so they could eat them?

I have a bit of a problem with the word "evil". Sometimes people do things they shouldn't because they don't understand that they shouldn't. I wouldn't call such people "evil". But surely they are violating their very nature. Man has a natural compassion toward other animals that must be violated and suppressed in order to act as a predator. When interviewed and asked about the suppression of natural compassion, John Douglas, (profiler of the serial killers for the FBI, upon which the Silence of the Lambs FBI character was based), he had this to say;

"Arson and cruelty to animals are two of three childhood warning signs regarding the potential to be a serial killer. To no longer objectify living beings by ceasing hunting and fishing takes one, one step further away from the murder of humans."​

This idea is shared by many other notable individuals.

Until he extends the circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."​

-- Albert Schweitzer​

"If you have men who will exclude any of god's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."​

-- St. Francis of Assisi​

""Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.""​

-- Albert Einstein​

""As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."
"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty.""​

-- Leo Tolstoy​

Oh and David must be a killer since he killed a bear and a lion as well?

Does one define "killer" as "one who kills"?

Oh by the way, can I ask if you are even a Christian?

Certainly you may ask. I am not a Christian. Christians, like the rest of us, are members of the human race. Humans are not natural predators but they are very prolific. There are currently about 6.4 billion people on the planet. Consider the impact on the ecology of having that many non-predatory creatures, acting as predatory creatures. True predators, especially those the size of a man or larger, are always found in smaller numbers than the prey animals they feed upon. Clear classifications can be made through anatomical and physiological traits. Once these traits are examined, there is no doubt as to where man falls among these classifications. This classification is independent of religious preference.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1169173-test.html

 

[Wolflily]

As Christians, we have a different understanding of our role on earth from those who do not know Jesus. This is addressed to Christians:

I don't believe Christians should hunt for sport. I believe it's unethical to take animals' lives for pleasure - imagine standing before God and explaining why you killed His beautiful and wondrous creatures 'for the fun of it'?

Hunting for food is a necessity, and God provides. It would be equally foolish to turn down His provision based on an unwillingness to kill an animal if you and your family were hungry and He provided a means to feed yourselves. As much as I love animals and nature, I do believe the Bible is clear that humans rank higher in priority over all other forms of creation in God's eyes.

Hunting to maintain balance in nature because we humans have historically done our best to annhilate every predator that God created to keep that balance is also necessary. I don't support hunters who use that excuse while going out and taking the best and strongest of the species - that's lame. If you insist on hunting, you ought to be removing your ego from the equation and hunting like God's specially designed predators do: culling the old, sick, and weak from the herds. Not trying to win your big trophy rack or a head to mount on the wall.

God delights in His creation - He made it all and called it ALL good. I would certainly recommend that praying earnestly for His will for you in all things will help you discern whether you should hunt or not, or whether you should even eat meat or not. With the methods used in slaughterhouses, abstaining from meat would be an ethical decision. If you choose to buy meat from animals raised and killed in humane facilities, that may also be an ethical decision. God will take care of you one way or another - trust Him to help you discern the best path to take in these matters.

Peace and blessings...
Wolf

 

[armyman_83]

Certainly you may ask. I am not a Christian.

Then I will say unto you why I will not believe in your thoughts.

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornfull.
Psalm 1:1

 

[Beastt]

Though I am not a Christian, I wish to thank you for your comments, Wolflily. I think you see much about the natural world that many others miss. Certainly I do not agree with you on each and every point but perhaps that we do agree on some points is more worthy of our primary focus.

However, I will add comments, once again, for those areas which I consider to be erroneous.

Hunting for food is a necessity, and God provides.

Man's anatomy, physiology and natural compassion place him in a category which does not require hunting for food. More and more, science is showing that man is healthier when he abstains from such practices. So, yes, man is provided for whether you believe that provision to be from God or from any other source. But he is provided with adequate food without killing animals. Therefore, if man decides to kill animals for food, he has made a choice of pain, cruelty and suffering simply to fulfill his wants and not his needs.

Hunting to maintain balance in nature because we humans have historically done our best to annhilate every predator that God created to keep that balance is also necessary.

Hunting does not maintain a balance. It maintains the imbalance created by hunting. If the natural predators are reduced in population to the point that prey animals may overpopulate; an "imbalance" has been created. Seeking to use hunting as a method of reducing the population of the prey animals only continues this imbalance. Balance can only be restored by allowing nature's (or God's) chosen levels of predators to return, thereby promoting a population balance between the species.

Then I will say unto you why I will not believe in your thoughts.

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornfull.
Psalm 1:1

You didn't believe in my thoughts before you were aware of my religious preference. So I find it highly unlikely that this is a reason. It would seem rather likely that it is an excuse. You are unable to refute my stance, so you turn instead to Biblical scripture.

But... so be it. But also be aware that you have chosen your name for this forum with great carelessness. Many of the founding fathers were not Christians and a few were atheists. Would it be presumptuous to think that perhaps you are a member of the U.S. military? If so, do they not still take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Assuming I'm correct in this, (and it is far more than an assumption), you have sworn to uphold a document and the rights outlined therein, which were drawn up by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. To uphold documents such as The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you would be lending your service to their personal and political doctrines, (ideas). None of the three held themselves to any religion, let alone Christianity.

You might also wish to exclude yourself from any viewing of Star Trek as it's creator, Gene Roddenberry, proclaims, "Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."

Certainly you must also extract yourself from the treasures offered the world by Leo Tolstoy, Freidrich Nietzsche and Francois Marie Arouet, ("Voltaire") as none of them were Christian or even believed in God.

Avoid the sections of the library containing books written by Douglas Adams, Michael Crichton, Robert Frost or Samuel Clemons. Avoid movies tainted by the name "Disney". Make sure also that you have no light bulbs in your house as they were first made to last for practical lengths of time through the ideas of Thomas Edison, another non-Christian and atheist.

Perhaps you should pursue reviving trade in human slaves as the Bible of Christianity shows obvious support for this practice and it was only given up after much effort from President Abraham Lincoln who also held no belief in religion. Look also to the inventions brought about through the ideas of Albert Einstein and cleanse yourself of any connection with them, for he too, declined the belief in a sentient god.

 

[Wolflily]

Man's anatomy, physiology and natural compassion place him in a category which does not require hunting for food. More and more, science is showing that man is healthier when he abstains from such practices. So, yes, man is provided for whether you believe that provision to be from God or from any other source. But he is provided with adequate food without killing animals. Therefore, if man decides to kill animals for food, he has made a choice of pain, cruelty and suffering simply to fulfill his wants and not his needs.

I don't particularly believe it is absolutely necessary. I should have clarified that - but there are areas of this world where people can't just pop into the deli to get their meat - they, if they choose to eat meat, would have to hunt for it.
I'm not fully convinced that all of our adequate protein sources are fully met on a vegetarian/vegan diet lifestyle. I don't eat most meats for a lot of reason, but I do notice a change in my energy level when I'm at a low in eating meat EVEN with other wholesome sources of protein in my diet.

Hunting does not maintain a balance. It maintains the imbalance created by hunting. If the natural predators are reduced in population to the point that prey animals may overpopulate; an "imbalance" has been created. Seeking to use hunting as a method of reducing the population of the prey animals only continues this imbalance. Balance can only be restored by allowing nature's (or God's) chosen levels of predators to return, thereby promoting a population balance between the species.

You ignored the rest of the post, here. So I'll repost it:

Hunting to maintain balance in nature because we humans have historically done our best to annhilate every predator that God created to keep that balance is also necessary. I don't support hunters who use that excuse while going out and taking the best and strongest of the species - that's lame. If you insist on hunting, you ought to be removing your ego from the equation and hunting like God's specially designed predators do: culling the old, sick, and weak from the herds. Not trying to win your big trophy rack or a head to mount on the wall.

Look also to the inventions brought about through the ideas of Albert Einstein and cleanse yourself of any connection with them, for he too, declined the belief in a sentient god.

Actually, Albert Einstein most certainly DID believe in a sentient God. You are quite wrong in this case.

 

[PACKY]

looks like its time to request this post be deleted.........

 

[Beastt]

I don't particularly believe it is absolutely necessary. I should have clarified that - but there are areas of this world where people can't just pop into the deli to get their meat - they, if they choose to eat meat, would have to hunt for it.
I'm not fully convinced that all of our adequate protein sources are fully met on a vegetarian/vegan diet lifestyle. I don't eat most meats for a lot of reason, but I do notice a change in my energy level when I'm at a low in eating meat EVEN with other wholesome sources of protein in my diet.

Perhaps you should look to the food pyramid which replaced the old Four Food Groups advertisements in schools. Then look to the recent modifications, (the first in 12-years) to the food pyramid. Odd that you seem to indicate that your energy level suffers for lack of meat. Most report exactly the opposite, though there are a few who believe that they must suppliment protein by increasing consumption of dairy which leads to an iron deficiency and thusly, a decrease in energy. Suffice that many prominent nutritionists, (Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Bernard, the late, Dr. Nathan Pritikin, etc.) are/were fully convinced not only of the lack of necessity of animal-based protein sources, but of the superiority of plant proteins for human nutrition. I'd be happy to discuss this with you at greater length on a thread which includes diet as part of the topic.

You ignored the rest of the post, here. So I'll repost it:

Hunting to maintain balance in nature because we humans have historically done our best to annhilate every predator that God created to keep that balance is also necessary. I don't support hunters who use that excuse while going out and taking the best and strongest of the species - that's lame. If you insist on hunting, you ought to be removing your ego from the equation and hunting like God's specially designed predators do: culling the old, sick, and weak from the herds. Not trying to win your big trophy rack or a head to mount on the wall.

It was not my intent to have you believe that what you stated was ignored. It was a portion of what I referred to when I indicated that we agreed on several points. It also echos something I have stated many times within this thread. One must recognize that there are very few hunters, (if any), who do not look to take, first and foremost, the strong and healthy animals. Meat of sickly animals, which would be consumed by nature's predators is seen as not fit for human consumption. And humans, having digestive systems not equipped as that of a true predator, would likely suffer for the consumption of flesh from such animals.

Actually, Albert Einstein most certainly DID believe in a sentient God. You are quite wrong in this case.

I would have to suggest that your confidence exceeds your knowledge in this area.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein (Albert Einstein: The Human Side)​

"I do not believe that the basic ideas of the theory of relativity can lay claim to a relationship with the religious sphere that is different from that of scientific knowledge in general. I see this connection in the fact that profound interrelationships in the objective world can be comprehended through simple logical concepts. To be sure, in the theory of relativity this is the case in particularly full measure. The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image - a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals."

-- Albert Einstein​

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."

-- Albert Einstein​

​

To Einstein, God was nothing more than the mystery of the universe. If you read enough of his writings and the writings of those who knew him closely and personally, this becomes sufficiently clear.

 

[armyman_83]

You didn't believe in my thoughts before you were aware of my religious preference.

The main reason I didn't believe that your thoughts were corect were because I know what i believe is right. Then I noticed that you did not say what faith you was[on the icon thing](if any at all), and I cannot but feel that non-Christians on a Christian forum will only get everyone into a hissy fit. For we will never agree on somethings at all, yet you come one here and argue with those who do not and most likely will never believe what you say. So yes after believing you to be wrong as a Christian I saw that you believe in no god or at least not in my God, so then I knew that you were wrong.

So I find it highly unlikely that this is a reason. It would seem rather likely that it is an excuse. You are unable to refute my stance, so you turn instead to Biblical scripture..

Just as you believe that I am false in going to the Word of God, so do I believe that you are wrong to "go" without it.

But... so be it. But also be aware that you have chosen your name for this forum with great carelessness.

How having pride in the defence of one's home is bad I do not know.

Many of the founding fathers were not Christians and a few were atheists.

Would it be presumptuous to think that perhaps you are a member of the U.S. military?

This is indeed a fine question, and I will give a fine answer. I am not yet the Army of the United States for I am but 18(and yes the form says 19 but I goofed up in my profile and don’t think age matters in too much) and am still in high school, but I will enlist when i graduate. I am the son of a soldier and my sons will be soldiers and their sons will be soldiers. I join for it is my life’s purpose and my duty to my God and to my home.

If so, do they not still take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Assuming I'm correct in this, (and it is far more than an assumption), you have sworn to uphold a document and the rights outlined therein, which were drawn up by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. To uphold documents such as The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you would be lending your service to their personal and political doctrines, (ideas). None of the three held themselves to any religion, let alone Christianity.

I do not see how you found this country on 3 men’s doctrine, Indeed they did help but so did all the men who died fighting the English and others as well.

Many of the founding fathers were not Christians and a few were atheists.

But how many of the founding fathers were Christian? I would have to say that the 3 that do not believe in my God are what I have said-3. Out of how many signed the documents that freed and formed our country?

You might also wish to exclude yourself from any viewing of Star Trek as it's creator, Gene Roddenberry, proclaims, "Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."

And no I do not watch Star Trek.

Certainly you must also extract yourself from the treasures offered the world by Leo Tolstoy, Freidrich Nietzsche and Francois Marie Arouet, ("Voltaire") as none of them were Christian or even believed in God

I would not call the works of heathens treasures as you do, but no, I do not read their works for indeed they are “enlightened”. However their “enlightenment” is nothing but the attack on the Church and on all of Christendom.

Avoid the sections of the library containing books written by Douglas Adams, Michael Crichton, Robert Frost or Samuel Clemons. Avoid movies tainted by the name "Disney". Make sure also that you have no light bulbs in your house as they were first made to last for practical lengths of time through the ideas of Thomas Edison, another non-Christian and atheist.

I have am not familiar with the works by the men above, but how Disney is evil I do not know but I do abstain from there evil movies (said with sarcasm). God works through all men not just Christians, like Edison who allowed us to light up not only bars strip-joints and drug dens as evil doers have done, but not just evil has been lit but Churches, missions, chapels and other places [not including our homes where we also pry].

Perhaps you should pursue reviving trade in human slaves as the Bible of Christianity shows obvious support for this practice and it was only given up after much effort from President Abraham Lincoln who also held no belief in religion. Look also to the inventions brought about through the ideas of Albert Einstein and cleanse yourself of any connection with them, for he too, declined the belief in a sentient god.

Slaves are not needed anymore, and Abraham Lincoln was not the savoir of the slaves. He wished to transport all blacks to Haiti. Indeed if he was so up in arms about freeing the slaves why didn’t he start in his very own state, which was the very last one to free the slaves after the war, not before it. If Einstein was a Christian or not I do not know you have said he is not ,so I will take your word for it, but of my connections with him I can not say even unto my self, for I know of none with which I owe. What ever your views we may agree with some things and we may not, however do not ask a Christian to go against his beliefs for is that not just as bad as me asking you to go against yours? We will never agree on this view until we are both Christians ,and even then we may not.


May the LORD bless you and keep you, may he cause his face to shine upon you and grant you peace!