Originally posted by NemesioBut I didn't misspeak. Anyone with a brain knows that if something ios happening before your eyes, it MUST occupy tour attention, at least for the moment. I acknowledged that. After aiding the afflicted vermin, I would return to more important contemplative exploits.
Because like a lot of other Christians on this forum, they don't write what they mean and, for
whatever reason, seem disinclined to say something like 'I misspoke,' or 'I was being hasty when
I said that,' or 'Gee, you're right. That's a lousy world view.'
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAfter this showing of your ignorance AND your rudeness, I'll have no more to say to you; you don't deserve a response. Earlier, you seemed relatively polite--we even agreed that people tend to exaggerate their beliefs in their posts. Apparently, you have changed. And I don't like the "smart arse" version.
And you, the font of all knowledge, gets to decide this?
What? I never claimed to be the "font" of all knowledge. Is that helvetica? Or did you mean fount? No, I didn't claim to be that either.
I didn't decide anything, I just expressed my opinion.
[i]Sue. Now, if you were to say that I'm too sensitive IN YOUR OPINION, then that might GOD FORBID you have to actually answer a question.
Yes, this is MY OPINION.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI haven't really changed and I don't think you have either. I have my good and bad days too.
After this showing of your ignorance AND your rudeness, I'll have no more to say to you; you don't deserve a response. Earlier, you seemed relatively polite--we even agreed that people tend to exaggerate their beliefs in their posts. Apparently, you have changed. And I don't like the "smart arse" version.
You reacted pretty rudely to a simple question and I admit that I responded in kind. I also apologized in a following post that I directly responded to Nemesio to - which you can take for whatever you care to.
I expressed my opinion and you went after me simply because I didn't point out that it was my opinion.
I won't claim to have been showing my best face here, but you shouldn't pretend to have been the most polite either.
You don't have to respond to my posts. I won't stop responding to yours that I feel the desire to. I'll even continue to ask you respectful questions about the evidence you have to back your beliefs. You don't have to respond of course, but I'm sure when you don't I'll know the real answer.
All the best.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydDidn't Jesus say something about what's in your heart as a reflection of your actions? If you
I don't hurt or torture animals. The fact that I don't afford them any "rights" does not effectively make me evil at all. As long as I don't harm 'em, I don't think Jesus will hold my disdain for them against me. For me that's what it boils down to: acts are what matters; my "feelings" toward anything is irrelevant.
look at another woman in lust, if you have anger towards your brother, &c? Jesus seems to
acknowledge that sin in the heart (feelings) have a certain weight even if you don't.
Do you think that if I hate black people, there's evil in my heart even if I don't engage in active
discrimination or lynching? Wouldn't you say that I would have a Christian duty to come to love
my black brothers?
Why do you feel that this duty is somehow absent for you with animals? I'm not talking animal
activism here, I'm talking the basic extension of some rights.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioJesus was trying to make a point--I personally don't believe he equated the act of adultery with looking at a woman's backside. But that's another subject.
Didn't Jesus say something about what's in your heart as a reflection of your actions? If you
look at another woman in lust, if you have anger towards your brother, &c? Jesus seems to
acknowledge that sin in the heart (feelings) have a certain weight even if you don't.
Do you think that if I hate black people, there's evil in my heart even if I don't ...[text shortened]... imal
activism here, I'm talking the basic extension of some rights.
Nemesio
It's very simple. I don't see it as sinful that I don't extend the same (or even some of the same) rights to animals as I do people. God wants us to concentrate on loving each other (fellow humans), and while I'm sure he doesn't condone pulling wings off of houseflies or hummingbirds (neither do I), His book is really addressed to the most advanced life form here----us. He didn't write it to the penguins, whales, or domesticated pets.
So once again--I don't begrudge anyone's right to love the little tirddroppers. Keep 100 dogs (or cats or whatever) in your home. I only ask that you keep 'em away from me.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI hope one of God's creatures takes a big dump on your lawn this very day.
Jesus was trying to make a point--I personally don't believe he equated the act of adultery with looking at a woman's backside. But that's another subject.
It's very simple. I don't see it as sinful that I don't extend the same (or even some of the same) rights to animals as I do people. God wants us to concentrate on loving each other (fellow humans ...[text shortened]... dogs (or cats or whatever) in your home. I only ask that you keep 'em away from me.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Jesus was trying to make a point--I personally don't believe he equated the act of adultery with looking at a woman's backside. But that's another subject.
Let's be clear. Jesus was unequivocal about this: 'But I say to you, everyone who looks at a
woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' (St Matthew 5:28)
I see no reason to extend this (as Jesus did) to any other realm of sinfulness. If something is
wrong, the presence of that wrongness in your heart is sin. Thus, it is worthy of repentance and
should be avoided in the future (if X causes you to sin, then cut it out of your life).
It's very simple. I don't see it as sinful that I don't extend the same (or even some of the same) rights to animals as I do people. God wants us to concentrate on loving each other (fellow humans), and while I'm sure he doesn't condone pulling wings off of houseflies or hummingbirds (neither do I), His book is really addressed to the most advanced life form here----us. He didn't write it to the penguins, whales, or domesticated pets.
The Bible is obviously addressed to the people to whom it is written. Penguins, whales and
cats can't read. That doesn't mean they aren't entitled to moral consideration. And, I see no
reason why concentrating on loving fellow humans excludes concentrating on affording a
certain (if not equal) moral status to non-humans. I mean, it's not like rubbing your stomach
and patting your head. What concerns me is not that you don't treat animals equally, but by
your own admission that you afford them 0% of your effort for moral consideration.
So once again--I don't begrudge anyone's right to love the little tirddroppers. Keep 100 dogs (or cats or whatever) in your home. I only ask that you keep 'em away from me.
This statement is irrelevant. No one talking about forcing you to steward animals. My beef
(and I suspect this lines up with the concerns of the other posters) is that you give them no
moral consideration and feel morally justified in such a stance, even while you concede that
Jesus would disagree with you.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThen let's just agree to disagree, okay? It REALLY ain't that big of a deal.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
[b]Jesus was trying to make a point--I personally don't believe he equated the act of adultery with looking at a woman's backside. But that's another subject.
Let's be clear. Jesus was unequivocal about this: 'But I say to you, everyone who looks at a
woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in ...[text shortened]... ance, even while you concede that
Jesus would disagree with you.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by PinkFloydI think anytime a person claims to embrace the teachings of Jesus and then acknowledges that
Then let's just agree to disagree, okay? It REALLY ain't that big of a deal.
they are knowingly following a path that they believe Jesus does not advocate is a big deal.
You can disagree with that if you want.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioJesus advocates not being cruel. I am not cruel. I am indifferent. I don't categorize that as being anti-Christian. If you do, God love ya. We shall just disagree. Which, again, two intelligent, respectful, civilized people can, and should, do.
I think anytime a person claims to embrace the teachings of Jesus and then acknowledges that
they are knowingly following a path that they believe Jesus does not advocate is a big deal.
You can disagree with that if you want.
Nemesio
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am indifferent.
Jesus advocates not being cruel. I am not cruel. I am indifferent. I don't categorize that as being anti-Christian. If you do, God love ya. We shall just disagree. Which, again, two intelligent, respectful, civilized people can, and should, do.
That's your problem. In a normative community there are reasonable expectations that should be met. Part of that is being responsive to the interests and suffering of moral patients. Note that the prescription is, in part, being appropriately responsive -- not indifferent. It's sad to me how speciesist and anthropocentric your religious commitments are (at least the ones you have briefly touched on here).
I don't categorize that as being anti-Christian.
Part of the spiritual journey is in the cultivation of the virtues, like compassion. Generally, do you think compassionate persons are indifferent to the suffering of other beings?
Anyway, you have been inconsistent. You say you're indifferent and that your deliberations are unresponsive to the suffering of animals; yet your responses to hypothetical situations indicated otherwise.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd1) Jesus advocates not being cruel;
Jesus advocates not being cruel. I am not cruel. I am indifferent. I don't categorize that as being anti-Christian. If you do, God love ya. We shall just disagree. Which, again, two intelligent, respectful, civilized people can, and should, do.
2) I am not cruel; therefore
3) I am following Jesus.
That seems to be your model. I find it to be woefully incomplete. Why? Let's take the next
sentence and apply the syllogism:
1) Jesus advocates being indifferent;
2) I am indifferent; therefore
3) I am following Jesus.
I'm sure you don't accept this second syllogism as a reflection of Christian lifestyle.
While you are not being wantonly cruel, your indifference to the existence of cruelty is a tacit
acceptance of other people's cruelty. If you believe that cruelty to animals is truly a moral
wrong, then you wouldn't be indifferent. If you believe that Jesus opposes cruelty to animals,
then indifference is incongruent with a truly Christian framework.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioExcept that I said I would intervene if I saw a child torturing a dog in my presence. That eliminates me from the indifferent crowd. I should have found a better word to describe my feelings towards animals. How about "racitly concerned about cruelty to animals, but placing it VERY low on the barometer of important concerns in our society"? That's a better description.
1) Jesus advocates not being cruel;
2) I am not cruel; therefore
3) I am following Jesus.
That seems to be your model. I find it to be woefully incomplete. Why? Let's take the next
sentence and apply the syllogism:
1) Jesus advocates being indifferent;
2) I am indifferent; therefore
3) I am following Jesus.
I'm sure you don't accept this sec ...[text shortened]... to animals,
then indifference is incongruent with a truly Christian framework.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LemonJelloYour opinion of the requirements of living in a "normative community" is your opinion only--I do not share it and find it arrogant that you would express it as factual.
[b]I am indifferent.
That's your problem. In a normative community there are reasonable expectations that should be met. Part of that is being responsive to the interests and suffering of moral patients. Note that the prescription is, in part, being appropriately responsive -- not indifferent. It's sad to me how speciesist and anthropoce ...[text shortened]... the suffering of animals; yet your responses to hypothetical situations indicated otherwise.[/b]
I've already recognized that my terminology (indifferent) wasn't the best choice of words. Let it go already. To repeat: I oppose cruelty to animals, and I WOULD place concern about said cruelty quite far down on the list of things society needs to be concerned about--IF I were arrogant enough to try and speak for an entire society.
I am not on some new age "spiritual journey". My belief system has been pretty much set in stone since I was 4 years old.