Oh but you are incorrect.

Kill means the EXACT same thing as murder.
Thou shalt not, thou mayest not, thou should not is also the EXACT same thing. No argument there. If ANY argument comes up about this, would be coming from one's pride. But none the less, doesn't matter if it says thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder, it's the EXACT same thing.

Not.

If I hunt a man with the intent of killing him and I do so I will have commited murder.

If a man come at me with the intent of killing me or my children and I defend myself or my children so that he dies...

I have killed.

Thou shalt not commit murder is righteous (murder is done in anger or revenge).

but to kill in defense of ones children or family is self defense (defense of ones family is done because it must be).

Thou shalt not kill.


But you have the beasts and the fruits of the forest....just don't eat my apples!


So, do we gnaw on the beasts as long as they don't die?...or do we wait for them to die first?


Why has man become so arrogant to assume it is killing of an animal...other than man....and some heinous crime to kill a human...namely murder?

Seriously... the guidelines in the whole collective of grim fairytales called bible are the most contradictory conundrum ever created!


There is no sane reasoning that can rationalise it....

THAT'S the 2000 odd year mystery...that people, partially rational, accept it as truth.

Truly ignorance is bliss.

Some animals were put onto this earth for the sole purpose of being eaten. That's what they are here for.

In the beginning, what your saying would be true. Because there was no sin. With sin comes death. Before that no animal ate another, everything ate from the plants. (Fruit)

Afterwards however sin came and with it death. Animals became carnivorous as did people.

Believe what you want, but don't make yourself look stupid by talking about it

Yesterday I held a new born chick in the palm of my hand. It looked at me with trust as if it thought I were its parent. It cuddled in the palm of my hand and went to sleep.

I think of that and wonder if I will see that next time I try to eat a chicken sandwich.

There's some kind of egg you can boil and then bury for like a day? Then you eat the chick inside!

It's a delicacy!

My feelings exactly.

If we equate stupidity to ignorance then your ignorance is showing. What happens when animals become extinct or are moved from one area to a far distant area? What happens when the plankton in the sea dies becaue our polution has destroyed their natural habitat?

There is a balance that exists in the environment, we were never meant to manipulate and protect the mass production of farm animals only to kill them for their meat. Many humans are glutton for meat and not only are humans paying a price in health and longevity, but the environment is becomming so poluted from these farming efforts that we all pay a high price with our health.

Your bible is not a tool of science, and it obviously was not a tool for seeing into the future or it might have privided greater scientific understanding. It is apparently only an instrument of someone's idea of morality and judging its quality by the many millions of people who cannot even agree on what that morality is, I would say it is not very good instrumental.

I'm not really sure what stupid means - it's a word that was used among children when I grew up and it had a negative connotation that could stick with you - as an adult I prefer the word ignorance because it does not have to be a negative label, it offers room for change. So don't be stupid, accept that you are ignorant of geology and environmentalism and seek the information that will change your ignorance to knowledge.

Just a suggestion.

Ignorance is curable;
however,
You can't fix "stupid."

The reason this is an eat or be eaten world is because energy exchanges are more difficult here.

Be sure to thank your food.

What?

So you're saying that mankind's fall from grace (i.e. his sin) is what caused animals to start eating each other and before they they were all vegetarians and there was no death in the world?

We know better than that. Scientific knowledge has shown us that animals lived, died, and clearly ate each other long before mankind ever showed up on the planet.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that we should renounce everything we have actually discovered about our world and instead believe in some mythological tales?

If we're going to ignore knowledge and just believe in mythological tales, then why believe in the tales of the ancient Hebrews?

There are many mythological tales to choose from. If we're going to toss out the knowledge that we actually have about the real world we may as well believe anything, including Greek Mythology, or any of the countless other mythological tales.

The idea that mankind's "sin" would have caused animals to start eating each other makes no sense.

In fact, if you study biology you'll learn that animals that are indeed purely vegetarian could not even eat meat if they wanted to because they don't have the proper enzymes in their stomachs to deal with breaking down meat.

Moreover, if mankind's fall from grace was the reason that animals started eating each other then why aren't ALL animals carnivorous? Why do there still exist some animals that are indeed purely vegetarian like deer, etc.

Someone once said, "Believe what you want, but don't make yourself look stupid by talking about it"

Maybe they should take their own advice.

Before, or after, you kill it?

I wonder where the concept that the biblical lessons on SIN applied to animals and plants comes from?

shrugs

I always thank my food just before I eat it.
After all, it died so that I could live.

balance is key
in biblical days food wasnt mass produced, it was EARNED

someone grew it or hunted it for their family or their village, it wasnt a globally managed commodity



so while killing animals is QUITE different from killing humans, the manner and balance involved is something to consider


animals KILL and eat each other, that is their natural end, to be eaten and to be killed, this MUST happen for the survival of animals


humans do not need to kill each other or eat each other for survival, it is much less their NATURAL end

We have been told to turn the other cheek though. So killing in "self defense" is still murder.

premeditated killing is murder

there are many instances, in self defense and accidents, where people die because someone is defending themself,,

Well the reason is rather straight-forward actually. This is what most Christian theologians that I have ever talked with believe.

You begin with a God that created the Earth and all of the animals and saw that it was "Good".

Well, it wouldn't be "Good" if the animals were eating each other. So the most logical assumption is that at that time the world was "perfect" and even the animals left each other alone and didn't steal their eggs, and each each other.

So the idea begins this way because the Bible says that God "Saw it was Good".

Thus the "not so good" world that we see around us today must necessarily be a result of the fall of mankind.

That's the line of thinking. Mankind is RESPONSIBLE for everything that is "not Good". You have God being responsible for anything that's "not Good".

I'm pretty sure also, that the Biblical stories actually say that 'thorns' also began to grow on plants as a result of mankind's fall from grace.

So if you can believe that the plants have changed in their nature, then it isn't much of a stretch to figure that animals were corrupted as well.

So, yes, as far as I'm aware it's a common conclusion that many clergy and theologians hold that mankind's "fall from grace" is responsible for everything in this world that is "not Good".

Because like I say, BEFORE mankind feel from Grace, the Biblical God looked at his creation and "Saw that it was Good".

So that's where that line of thinking comes from.

~~~~

By the way, I agree with that line of thinking. In other words if the biblical stories are going to be supported as making some sort of "sense" then this would indeed need to be the conclusion.

So I agree with the theologians that this is the correct conclusion to take away from the biblical story.

What I disagree with is that this conclusion makes any sense based on what we actually know about the real world?

In other words, just like with Greek Mythology, if there are no Gods living on Mt. Olympus we dismiss it as being myth, because the story is clearly false.

So in a similar way we should recognize that the biblical stories as just as false as Greek Mythology. They have mankind's "fall from grace" causing things that we now know have been occurring long before mankind ever appeared on the planet.

They also have the Earth being created in 6 days, etc. when we now know that it actually took billions of years to create the Sun and the Earth.

These biblical stories have no more truth in them than Greek mythology had in their stories. For some reason people just falling for them. Probably because they simply didn't know any better.

But today we do know better.

A lot of people can legitimately argue with that Cowboy.

You say, "We have been told". But who are "We"?

A lot of people argue that Jesus was speaking to believers, and thus referring only to the believers.

In other words, turn your other cheek to things that your "brothers" do, but not necessarily to what "heathens" do.

After all the God of Abraham commanded us to seek out and kill heathens. And Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, and that not one jot, nor one tittle shall pass from law.

So many can, (and often DO), argue that the things that Jesus taught simply don't apply to "heathens", they apply to our "brothers", and "heathens" are not considered to be our "brothers".

I'm not saying that I personally support this view.

But I am pointing out that you can't truly argue against it. Well, you can "argue" against it, but you're not going to get very far because for those people who prefer to interpret things as I've mentioned above they'll just tell you where you can shove your interpretations

See the problem is that these same scriptures can indeed be used to support just about any view that a person chooses to take.

Why should "Cowboy's View" hold any more merit than anyone else's view?

Who's "Cowboy"?

He just another mortal man with an opinion like everyone else.

There's no reason for anyone to cower down to "Cowboy's" views and interpretations.

And therein lies the problem!

Hitler could indeed use the Bible to support his views.

You can argue with Hitler until you are BLUE in the face. It doesn't change a thing. He has sufficient reasons to support his views. Jesus said, "Until Heaven and Earth pass not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law".

Well, it was "God's LAW" in the Old Testament that we are to seek out and kill heathens. So Jesus is supporting that we must continue to obey that law.

Hitler's view HOLDS, and your arguments fall off as nothing more than your own personal objections to HIS VIEWS.

You start screaming, "But the Old Testament is FINISHED, COMPLETED, and so on, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH"

But it doesn't help your case one iota.

Especially consider that ever YOU continue to hold out that God hates homosexuality as is told in the OLD TESTAMENT.

That's total hypocrisy on your part.

If you want to flush the Old Testament down the toilet as being FINISHED. Then do it.

Otherwise you preach with FORKED TONGUE.

Well, it wouldn't be "Good" if the animals were eating each other



says who? does any biblical scripture imply that the animals eating each other is not 'Good" ?


I am sure I am no exception to the rule but we tend to interject our modern ideas of 'good' and 'bad' into how the design was originated in biblical times,,,