Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Animals Sinful?
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 38 (197189)
04-06-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by joshua221
04-06-2005 12:18 AM


I posted that earlier because I was leaving for work and wanted to get that into the conversation before 5 pages had past.
comedy has the unique power to say what people are thinking without caring who it offends, and at the same time point out obvious fallacies in what was previously untouchable doctrine.
the ten commandments are one such doctrine, and now that George has opened the door to criticize them I’m going to do just that.
lets look at 3 commandments from the catholic bible
Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Ninth Commandment
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
Tenth Commandment
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
If you look at it something about that ninth one may not seem right. To me it seems like it could have been left out completely even without adding the words or wife onto # 10, there is a reason for this
the Ninth Commandment
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
ONLY EXISTS AS A STANDALONE COMMANDMENT IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE!(and Lutheren as they did not realize the discrepany untill several decades after leaving the RC church)
The Hebrew version of the Tenth Commandment
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass(I think there’s your proof that god says no gay marriage right there ), nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
BAM! the Hebrew version, and also the protestant version, does combine them, the reasons the catholics separated it into two because they needed to keep 10 commandments and they DELETED one..
the Hebrew version of the Second Commandment.
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
(Absorbed into the catholic 1st commandment)
Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) this commandment was done away with was that hurt the profitability of Catholicism as it did not allow the worship and adoration of saints, or the sale of any holy relics such as the crucifix, which only became known in the late 6th centaury. The abolishment of the second commandment is one of the reasons the Catholic Church was the strongest economic and political power in Europe throughout the middle ages, and they gained this power by altering and interpreting the bible as they saw fit, and by preventing the populous from reading and interpreting the bible for themselves.
Historically, Religion has been a tool of the powerful to control the weak, even if Christianity did start out with the purest of intentions every aspect of it has been led by the powerful to control the minds of its followers, for when the mind is controlled the body will follow.
Man controls the definition of sin, and it changes to suit the desires of those who have the power to define it in the name of god you can object to this as much as you want by saying the bible is the direct word of god, but being that it was written by the hands of man, copied by the hands of man, and controlled by man, you should realize that you are reading an edited, if not made up version.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joshua221, posted 04-06-2005 12:18 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by joshua221, posted 04-08-2005 8:26 PM StormWolfx2x has not replied

StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 38 (197193)
04-06-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by joshua221
04-06-2005 12:14 AM


Re: HI THERE :-)
Just a minor correction you’re mixing up George Carlin and I’m assuming Charlie Chaplin by saying George Caplan.
Here’s something else that I find funny
lets take the whole of you msg 13 and change a few words.
Who's Jesus? (is he the public speaker that everyone i know tells me is "the answer"?)
Why should his opinion matter?
Why does it matter more than what you think? And where are your thoughts on moral responsibility(? Or do you completely agree with him, because... He's "Jesus."
I also would like some real evidence linking the Jesus to God. As you, or Jesus says, by the end of the post I was't sure.
(Your post was meant to be discrediting, and it was... sort of, but it's just ignorance and the attempt to get answers from some less than well thought out commentary on
EVERYTHING.}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by joshua221, posted 04-06-2005 12:14 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by joshua221, posted 04-08-2005 8:22 PM StormWolfx2x has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 18 of 38 (197199)
04-06-2005 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
04-04-2005 7:49 PM


Can a duck get arrested for possession of quack?
Mick writes:
I want to start by describing the social behavior of the alpine marmot, Marmota marmota.
The marmot is a highly social and intelligent rodent that lives in a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their offspring. The marmot is therefore socially monogamous (i.e. a long-term pair bond between a specific male and female). Young are playful and all members of the family protect each other by taking turns to keep watch for predators, by grooming each other, and through the practice of parents and older siblings cuddling up to the young ones to keep them warm during hibernation. DNA paternity analysis reveals that around 20% of young within a family are not related to their mother's partner. This is because adult males who are not able to found a territory of their own adopt a "satellite" strategy, in which they hover around the edge of an existing territory and attempt to mate with the female of that territory when the male is absent. Males eject satellite males from their territory very vigorously, sometimes resulting in death of the intruder.
The humble marmot breaks at least three of the ten commandments: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass [I'm paraphrasing].
This leads me to my main point: Given that it breaks nearly one third of the ten commandments, is the behavior of the alpine marmot sinful?
I want to preempt the argument that only human beings are judged because only they have knowledge of right and wrong. Some primatologists (I don't know how many) believe that a number of primates show some form of ethics. Franz de Waal would be a prime example. He believes that higher primates show guilt, reciprocity, empathy, obligations and rules, and that they therefore have a sense of what behavior is acceptable and what is not (i.e. they have a sense of right and wrong).
I also want to preempt the argument that only human beings are judged, because only human beings indulged in original sin. If you believe that this is the case, then animals must still be living in a state of grace as part of God's creation, and adultery and murder must be considered natural and acceptable, and a part of the state of grace. If, on the other hand, you believe that temptation into committing adultery or murder is the work of the devil, why does he waste his time in tempting animals which do not have immortal souls?
As a scientist I view our ideas of sin as a human construction, so I don't have to worry about whether what looks like rape in ducks, for example, is "sinful" or not. I know that it isn't sinful, and I know that it is incorrect to characterize the behavior of ducks in emotive human terms. But what do you think if you believe that morality is God-given and universal?
Well...my bird makes a lot of noise and I suppose that she does things that are sinful by human standards but she can't understand the concept of religion. I just figure that she knows God instinctively. She is neither devilbird nor angelbird. She is just a plain old bird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 7:49 PM mick has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 19 of 38 (197245)
04-06-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by joshua221
04-06-2005 12:10 AM


The lives of "animals" are trivial
Interesting. Maybe this is why some religious folks have such a downer on evolution? Because you can't understand evolution if you just
Focus on humanity
If one views animals as trivial, then perhaps evolution seems trivial as well. I guess that's the difference between a religious anti-evolutionist and a religious evolutionist. Jar, for example, would be the latter, in that he criticises the "human-centric" point of view. Whereas you are promoting a human-centric point of view?
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joshua221, posted 04-06-2005 12:10 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 04-06-2005 12:18 PM mick has not replied
 Message 31 by joshua221, posted 04-08-2005 8:15 PM mick has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 38 (197249)
04-06-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mick
04-06-2005 11:54 AM


Gotta step in to clarify something.
Jar, for example, would be the latter, in that he criticises the "human-centric" point of view.
I don't think I'd characterize my position as criticising the human-centric point of view as much as simply acknowledging it. While I much prefer living in a house, were I a beaver my choice would be otherwise.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mick, posted 04-06-2005 11:54 AM mick has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 21 of 38 (197255)
04-06-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by joshua221
04-06-2005 12:18 AM


Check out one of George's commandments, thou shall not kill I suppose. If this is of God, as Moses believed, and as do I, then it seems to contradict your view on God's love of murder.
Sure, as long as you ignore the Bible itself.
After God gives His Ten Commandments, He orders humans to enact genocide on His behalf.
Haven't you at least scanned the Old Testament?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joshua221, posted 04-06-2005 12:18 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by joshua221, posted 04-08-2005 8:18 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 22 of 38 (197298)
04-06-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
04-04-2005 7:49 PM


You're dadgum right Marmots are sinful! I've been in the mountains before and the marmots tried to steal my hiking pole, food, my friend's cap, socks, and shoes. ...So in my eyes they are evil mischievous little critters.
If sin is defined as that which is against the Lord's good and pleasing will, then I would say animals can be sinful. However, one animal committing "adultery" with another is not violating a trust or a love, and is likely not harming the spouse, so it is likely not immoral for the marmot. Furthermore; the 10 commandments were not given to marmots.
So some actions in animals that bear resemblance to sinful actions in humans may not be sinful, while some may be.
However, to be responsible for sin one has to understand it. A young child is not responsible for his sin, but rather his parents are responsible. Similarly, if a man raises pitbulls to attack people, the pitbulls are not responsible for their sin, but the man who is fully conscious of the nature of the act is responsible.
Animals under the care of good masters are a piece of the paradise that we believe God intends. In nature, cats and dogs fight all the time, yet my family used to own a cat and dog who, under the relative paradise provided by our care, would cuddle together.
According to Genesis, it is God's will for the earth to be a paradise free of suffering, and according to the Prophets and Revelation, it eventually will be: the lion will lay down with the lamb.
If humans really did evolve from animals, then perhaps the story of adam and eve eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is an accurate description of humans becoming conscious enough of right and wrong to bear full responsibility for their actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 7:49 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by LinearAq, posted 04-07-2005 4:33 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 36 by Trae, posted 04-08-2005 9:55 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 38 (197305)
04-06-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by joshua221
04-06-2005 12:18 AM


"More people have been killed for the sake of other men then of claims to be of God, and to have him at your back."
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that, but I'm guessing your saying the imperfections of man is the reasons for most killing, not religion. But George Carlin was not saying man is perfect what he is saying is that religion is used as a tool and excuse for one group of people to kill another group of people. Lets look at some events in which this is true, If you want specific details on any of these ask and I'll back them up, but doing so for all of them would just be impractical.
first the 5 GC listed
Northern Ireland
Cashmire
the Inquisition
the Crusades
the World Trade Center
and now for some more
Operation Iraqi freedom
the war in Afghanistan
WW2
The hundred years war
the French civil war
Waco Texas
Columbine
the school shootings at red lake
The Oklahoma city bombing
The torture and burning of William Tyndale(first person to translate the bible to English)
Salem witch trails (anyone convicted of being a witch for that matter)
The conquer and following rape of Latin America.
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1992-1995
Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979
Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918
Most crimes committed by the KKK
Any war fought by the Romans
Any war fought by the Greeks
Any war fought by the Egyptians
Any war fought against the American Indians
Any war, any genocide, and any murder committed by a religious person, has at some level been verified, and even encouraged by religion. So as George Carlin was saying
The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joshua221, posted 04-06-2005 12:18 AM joshua221 has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 24 of 38 (197324)
04-06-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
04-04-2005 7:49 PM


the ten commandments are not rules made for animals. they aren't even rules made for all people. read the book. it says 'i am god who brought you out of egypt. thus, you should obey me.' i'm not a jew; he didn't bring my people out of egypt, so i don't have to follow them for that stipulated reason. they are good guidlines for all people, but they most certainly do not apply to animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 7:49 PM mick has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 25 of 38 (197512)
04-07-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hangdawg13
04-06-2005 4:35 PM


Responsibility
Hangdawg13 writes:
However, to be responsible for sin one has to understand it
Interesting. You have Biblical confirmation of that? It would seem to allow all people into heaven and we really don't need Jesus then. As long as I don't understand that Jesus is needed to get to heaven then I'm ok.
Hangdawg13 also writes:
A young child is not responsible for his sin, but rather his parents are responsible.
Again....in scripture somewhere? How does this stack up with "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" and Jesus' words "No one comes to the Father except by me". It seems that "all" and "no one" are fairly inclusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-06-2005 4:35 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-08-2005 3:40 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 28 by jar, posted 04-08-2005 4:34 PM LinearAq has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 38 (197520)
04-07-2005 4:57 PM


Bad marmot! NO Bisquit!!

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 27 of 38 (197702)
04-08-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by LinearAq
04-07-2005 4:33 PM


Re: Responsibility
However, to be responsible for sin one has to understand it
You have Biblical confirmation of that?
John 9:41 Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
It would seem to allow all people into heaven and we really don't need Jesus then.
Incorrect.
As long as I don't understand that Jesus is needed to get to heaven then I'm ok.
In the end you may go to heaven, you may not... I cannot say, but the end is now. And right now you definately need Jesus to have life and live it to the fullest. If you never had the opportunity to hear of Jesus, God may have grace on you in the afterlife, but this life is just as important as the next.
A young child is not responsible for his sin, but rather his parents are responsible.
Again....in scripture somewhere?
Mat 18:6 "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea.
Mat 18:7 How terrible it will be for the world because it causes people to sin! Temptations to sin are bound to happen, but how terrible it will be for that person who causes someone to sin!
How does this stack up with "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" and Jesus' words "No one comes to the Father except by me".
How does it not? Jesus died once for the sins of ALL. Jesus has the power to forgive sins. If anyone comes to the father it is because Jesus forgives them and Jesus has unlimited power to forgive.
There is sufficient reason from scripture (David's kid that died, and Jesus saying, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these," etc.) to believe that God has mercy on children who have not had the opportunity to believe.
We are all sinful. None of us can deserve life. But God wants to give us all life. The way I understand it, the only people that will assuredly not recieve it are those who always reject the Giver of Life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by LinearAq, posted 04-07-2005 4:33 PM LinearAq has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 38 (197714)
04-08-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by LinearAq
04-07-2005 4:33 PM


Re: Responsibility
Interesting. You have Biblical confirmation of that?
There's lot's of Biblical confirmation of that.
It would seem to allow all people into heaven and we really don't need Jesus then. As long as I don't understand that Jesus is needed to get to heaven then I'm ok.
Are you a Christian? If not, then you don't need Jesus to get to heaven. If you are a Christian, belief in Jesus is one of the bylaws. You need to know the secret handshake and have a decoder ring as well.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by LinearAq, posted 04-07-2005 4:33 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-08-2005 5:16 PM jar has replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 29 of 38 (197718)
04-08-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
04-08-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Responsibility
Are you a Christian? If not, then you don't need Jesus to get to heaven.
I know this is getting off topic, but I want to make a distinction here. You still need Jesus to get to heaven. If you've never heard of Jesus and you end up in heaven, Jesus is still the one that put you there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 04-08-2005 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 04-08-2005 5:25 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 38 (197722)
04-08-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hangdawg13
04-08-2005 5:16 PM


I think that's an important issue.
But it may well need a different thread. I will say though that I don't believe that is correct and that's speaking as a Christian.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-08-2005 5:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024