So I recently got into a discussion about Kentucky Fried Chicken's abuse of animals and just animal cruelty in general.
As always, this quote was brought up to justify animal cruelty: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
The person who brought it up basically said as far as they're concerned, we can do whatever we want to animals because of this excerpt.
So basically I'm looking for someone with experience in this subject to define the meaning of this excerpt and explain how it is completely wrong to use it as justification for animal cruelty.
To me, it seems overly hypocritical to claim your amazing, loving, caring, gentle god gladly gives humans the right to break a live animals leg/wing and watch it squirm to get away, or kick a live animal as hard as possible for absolutely zero reason...etc.
Maybe that's not the full excerpt so the quote is taken out of context? I just find it laughable somebody would use this as an excuse to torture animals.
The Bible does not give answers to everything, and, in fact, often leaves very important issues completely untouched. If you want to get technical, the Bible (both the Jewish Tanakh and the New Testament) does not ever, anywhere say "slavery is wrong", although it seems to allow for slavery in dozens of places. But modern Christians interpret verses like "love thy neighbour" as meaning "no slaves"... which is wrong, but it works for them.
i've never done any deep reading on animal rights in the Bible (i'm more concerned with human rights), but if i recall there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits cruelty toward animals (and the Bible has many cases of animals being treated cruelly while God smiles cheerfully on, such as with sacrifices). Even the New Testament has cases of animals being treated like garbage by Jesus - recall that when he ousted the "Legion", he put the demons into pigs (and then let the pigs die). What did the pigs do to deserve that?
Of course, as with "love thy neighbour", there are verses that people interpret as being opposed to animal cruelty. There's a Proverbs verse about how "righteous" men take care of their animals. It's just one of those things - the Bible does not actually say "yes" or "no", so whoever wants "yes" will interpret the Bible to find "yes" and whoever wants "no" will interpret the Bible to say "no". Even vegetarians will quote Bible verses at meat-eaters to condemn them, and vice versa.
Here is my 2 cents on the issue...
God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill" could be interpreted to mean thou shalt not kill animals. Exceptions to this commandment needed to be made, thus God allowed man to be masters over the animals - allowing for hunting and consumption of said animals.
I suppose it's about intentions.
Hunting for sport = bad
Hunting for food = good
We are allowed to rule over animals according to the bible.
However rule over and be cruel to are two complete different things. Presidents are "the bosses" of their country's, however that doen't mean that they are alowed to make humans suffer for no reason at all.
I would in no way consider myself "experienced" in any religious text/study/etc, however I wouldn't consider ownership of or "dominion over" a living creature to mean that you are allowed to inflict pain on them.
All the excerpt says is that we as humans have power/priority over other animals, it doesn't stipulate that we can abuse that position of power.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Here is my 2 cents on the issue...
God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill" could be interpreted to mean thou shalt not kill animals. Exceptions to this commandment needed to be made, thus God allowed man to be masters over the animals - allowing for hunting and consumption of said animals.
I suppose it's about intentions.
Hunting for sport = bad
Hunting for food = good |
Sure, there is a commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill". But God kills a lot... and he also tells his people to kill persons on a lot of different places throughout the Old Testament (often for very poor reasons). So there seems to be thousands of exceptions to the commandment, not only hunting and consumption.Are you only looking for the Christian view on the subject?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Soulfire wrote:
Here is my 2 cents on the issue...
God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill" could be interpreted to mean thou shalt not kill animals. Exceptions to this commandment needed to be made, thus God allowed man to be masters over the animals - allowing for hunting and consumption of said animals.
I suppose it's about intentions.
Hunting for sport = bad
Hunting for food = good |
Sure, there is a commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill". But God kills a lot... and he also tells his people to kill persons on a lot of different places throughout the Old Testament (often for very poor reasons). So there seems to be thousands of exceptions to the commandment, not only hunting and consumption. |
My understanding of that verse is that it refers to murder, not killing of animals, warfare, or judgement.
My opinion on the matter of killing and consuming animals is that the infliction of unnecessary pain is wrong; I see nothing right with the sadistic torture of animals.
From the section of Scripture mentioned at the start of this thread, yes, one could take it out of context and say that God giving mankind dominion over the Earth and its contents includes the right to torture animals mercilessly. However, God wasn't just giving mankind dominion over the world, He was also giving them the responsibility of caring for the planet. Because mankind has free will, however, that means that they have the choice as to whether to try to emulate God's characteristics in ruling over the world or going their own way. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Are you only looking for the Christian view on the subject? |
Not particularly. Anything that shows the incredible stupidity in using that quote or any quote from any holy book to justify and defend torturing animals.I don't know if we support that quote in Islam or not, but Muslims are supposed to respect animals like humans, and give them their rights. Hunting for sport is definitely not allowed, only when in need of food. Pigs are not allowed to be eaten and we generally stay away from them anyway. By having 'dominion' over animals, it means that we are superior to them (which humans are) and that it is our responsibility to make the best of them and treat them with their rights.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| I don't know if we support that quote in Islam or not, but Muslims are supposed to respect animals like humans, and give them their rights. Hunting for sport is definitely not allowed, only when in need of food. Pigs are not allowed to be eaten and we generally stay away from them anyway. By having 'dominion' over animals, it means that we are superior to them (which humans are) and that it is our responsibility to make the best of them and treat them with their rights. |
I know muslims aren't supposed to eat pigs but why is it so?Simply because we consider them filthy animals; they eat and roll around in their own feces and mud all day.
| MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | Soulfire wrote:
Here is my 2 cents on the issue...
God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill" could be interpreted to mean thou shalt not kill animals. Exceptions to this commandment needed to be made, thus God allowed man to be masters over the animals - allowing for hunting and consumption of said animals.
I suppose it's about intentions.
Hunting for sport = bad
Hunting for food = good |
Sure, there is a commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill". But God kills a lot... and he also tells his people to kill persons on a lot of different places throughout the Old Testament (often for very poor reasons). So there seems to be thousands of exceptions to the commandment, not only hunting and consumption. |
My understanding of that verse is that it refers to murder, not killing of animals, warfare, or judgement. |
Actually, it's even more complicated than that.
The actual word used in the Hebrew text has no exact match in English - it means, roughly, "to kill in anger" (and at the moment, i cannot recall if it means only to kill humans or not, and i'm too lazy to look it up again). Now, the closest word we have in modern English is "murder", but that's not an exact match, because a serial killer or spree killer getting their jollies off killing by the dozen is technically not "killing in anger". They had no concept of psychopathy back in those days, so they simply couldn't grasp a reason killing other people without justification other than out of anger, and it shows in the language.
Now, it's clearly safe to assume that - linguistic quirks aside - the spirit of the verse is meant to be "thou shalt not kill wrongly or without a good (in the eyes of God) reason" and not just "thou shalt not kill in anger", otherwise people who enjoy killing, and those who kill for profit, get off scot-free... which is silly. It's a pretty safe bet that "killing without a good reason in God's eyes" is what the original Hebrew scribes meant, even if their word is not an exact literal match. That's why modern translations use "murder", as in "thou shalt not murder", because our modern usage of "murder" is as close to the spirit of the original Hebrew as we can get without writing a paragraph - even if it is still not quite exact.
The Bible gives dozens of reasons where it is good (in the eyes of God) to kill (including killing of animals for food, warfare, and executions, to name a few), and obviously, unless God is really confused, "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to those. "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to killing that does not have a good reason in the eyes of God (and it may only apply to humans).
Now, killing for sport or amusement would not (even though it's not killing in anger) be a good reason in the eyes of God. In a couple of the Proverbs or Psalms (if i recall), he says you should never enjoy other people's suffering (of course, that's contradicted in other places that says take glee in the suffering of non-believers (which would be Jews or Christians depending on the book), but oh well). Thus, "thou shalt not kill" could be legitimately applied to, say, ******-fighting... making ******-fighting wrong (and, by extension, all unnecessary cruelty to animals).
But that is only if the "kill" in "thou shalt not kill" applies to non-humans (which i cannot remember if it does). Otherwise, "thou shalt not kill" can do nothing to prevent animal cruelty.besides lol no one ever heard god say a thing... he used messengers! :p
| Poetsunited wrote: |
| besides lol no one ever heard god say a thing... he used messengers! :p |
=/ It's a quote from the Bible... | liljp617 wrote: |
| Poetsunited wrote: | | besides lol no one ever heard god say a thing... he used messengers! :p |
=/ It's a quote from the Bible... |
(And, technically, there are people in the Bible who did hear God say things. ^_^ Three that i can think of.)The answer is obvious, The question is actually “where’s the proof?” Your friend is not asking, “do I have to be nice to animals?”
Well, the proof is in your heart, but if you can’t hear your heart, or you’re not sure that it is your heart that you are hearing, then there is proof.
The Jews had the hardest time of anyone understanding the love of Christ because they were so calloused in their law that they could not hear their hearts either. There was a big to do about what to eat. The answer was, eat what you want, as long as it doesn’t cause you guilt AND it doesn’t distress your brother. Here is the scripture:
Romans 14:14,15 - "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat then you are no longer acting in love. Do not, by your eating, destroy your brother for whom Christ died."
Here Paul is speaking of food, but it is clear that this goes for anything. To cause your brother distress is NOT a loving act, and we are to love one another. That IS a commandment. Gently tell your friend that these loop-holes will not fly with God on the day of judgment, and he/she will have to answer in truth, not legalistic semantics. It is also written that if you wish to live by law, then you cannot be saved by Spirit.
Galatians 5:4- “You who are trying to live by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Let us be loving always. Do what you think is right, and you'll be safe. Learn to listen to God. It is we who condemn ourselves.
All the blessings of the Lord be with you!
It's interesting how people take the parts of the Bible they like and ignore the parts they don't like. This is, of course, because many passages are contradictory (despite what some believe).
For example, on the issue of 'unclean' animals :
Leviticus 5:2 "Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty."
Leviticus 7:19 "Meat that touches anything ceremonially unclean must not be eaten; it must be burned up. As for other meat, anyone ceremonially clean may eat it."
Leviticus 11:4 "There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, [a] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."
Leviticus 11:10 "But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."
and so on....
Now, of course, God is speaking to his chosen people because this is the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible). There are also, probably, some practical reasons for these injunctions - to do with food hygiene. The problem is, however, that once you accept that some of the Bible is not to be taken literally then who decides which bits do and do not apply, and how is this reconciled with the Bible as the 'divine word of God'?
Leviticus is not in the form of parables or metaphors - it is very clear and very concretely phrased to mean exactly what it says.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| It's interesting how people take the parts of the Bible they like and ignore the parts they don't like. This is, of course, because many passages are contradictory (despite what some believe). |
The Old testament is the old covenant. Jesus came to free us from the laws of Moses. He brought us a new covenant, sealed in His blood. The Old covenants were torn down and the temple brought to the ground. The Bible does not contradict itself.
Jer 31:31 - "'The time is coming' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenat though I was a husband to them,' declares the Lord, 'This is the covenant I wil make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the Lord.
"'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will know me from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the Lord. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'"
The blood of Jesus is the new covenant (mk 14:24, Lk 22:20)
The Pharisees questioned Jesus, (Mt 15:2) "why do your desciples break the traditions of the elders? they don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus said, (mt 15:7-11) "'You hypocrites! Isaah was right when he prophisied about you! 'These people honor me with thier lips but thier hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'' Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
No contradictions, it's just that Jesus nullified the old covenant for those who believe in Him.
God bless you and keep you!
StacySo then why do Christians still retain the Old Testament in their version of the bible? Which parts of the OT did Jesus 'overthrow'? Leviticus? Why did he say the opposite several times?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Matthew 5;17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
No contradiction?
The old covenant was NOT torn down - Jesus simply added a new one.
PS - When Jesus was talking to the pharisees he was making the point that the OT does not specifically say that you must wash your hands before eating - he was correct, it doesn't. This was a tradition amongst the elders (Mark 7:3) but it was NOT scriptural law. Read the passage again;
"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread."
Jesus was simply pointing out that their 'tradition' was not the word of God, but of man. He then went on to quote from the OT..
"For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death"
In other words he was saying THE OPPOSITE of what you think he was saying....
a discussion wheter the bible has contradictions haha! Seriusly its FULL of it example:
It is stated in many occasions in the bible that god is omnipotent.
however...
in Judges 1:19
god cant defeat some people because..... they HAVE steel chariots.... 
WT*!
So al we need to do to protect ourselfes from the wrath of god, have a steel chariot, (gues in modern days that means cars). No wonder Hitler lasted that long! He had a car, well multiple so he was wel protected in case one broke down! It's all making sense now!
Of course it's the old testament... as for a whole lot of contrdictions in the bible just google search it, you'll get a ton of contradictions. I can't speak for all Christians, but I read the old testemant to know what I was saved from. To be aware of what Jesus did for me. To be thankful that I have within me the spirit of God and don't have to worry about a long list of laws. I read it to better understand the grace of God.
I refer you again to the prophicy of Jer 31:31. Jesus fulfilled.
please read, mark 7:18,19 and acts 10:9-16, no food is unclean.
God bless you, I hope you find buckets of peace somewhere!!!!
All my love, Stacy
If you were to use the Bible as your sole moral guidance then you'd be destined to spend most of your life in jail. It's not a justification for anything. It violates several international laws. It advocates genocide, the murder of children and "sexual deviants" and also slavery to name just a few things.
Ultimately it's how we treat animals, each other and the environment that shows who we truly are. To ignore the suffering of animals just because some obsolete text tells you it's okay just shows what a pathetic scrap of flesh you are.
