Animals / Hunting / Michael Vick

[melensdad]

in the 10 comandments it states though shalt not kill! To me that means anything that is of flesh and blood

If you are a Catholic, then you should probably consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the actual meanings of the the 10 Commandments rather than to make up your own interpretation of the Commandments, which may or may not be in communion with the Church teaching. I don’t claim to be an expert, but the CCC refers to the unjust murder of people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course animals feel pain. They have nervous systems just like us, but do they experience the pain in the same way of suffering that we do? Both humans and animals have brains, but animals are unable to use their brains to rationalize.

We were destined to experience pain and suffering as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Would got make animals receive that punishment also for our sin?

As for the hunting, I think people who participate should ask themselves whether they are hunting for enjoyment or the food.

Where does that come in?

I once saw a cartoon of a neanderthal woman wearing a t-shirt that said, “Gather til you drop.”

Now the joke is that if you watch Sa’an women (among the last true hunter-gather cultures in the world) as they stroll through the Kalahari, their behavior is very similar to a modern woman shopping. They stop, they look at this and that, they find something they like, they find something they don’t like and so on.

And they enjoy it!

And their menfolk enjoy hunting. It’s wired into men just as gathering/shopping is wired into women.

Jesus had to eat meat because people of that time and in the part of the earth would not have survived without meat.

Did He ever complain about having to eat meat?

My notion is whether or not, in a wealthy country, people have an obligation to reduce consumption of meat as port of our obligation to care for God’s creatures, as long as they can still stay healthy. Obviously, using meat to feed the poor is a wonderful thing, and some hunting is needed to prevent overpopulation.

In Virginia, I was part of a study group – the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was concerned we weren’t killing enough deer. They were afraid of the diseases that overpopulation would bring. This study produced three findings, and three solutions:

1. Hunters are very reluctant to kill more than they and their families can eat. The solution here was to set up “Hunters for the Hungry” so excess meat could be donated to the hungry.
2. In the eastern swamps, where the overpopulation was worst, afternoon hunts with dogs were not fruitful – those hunters who killed a deer in the morning hunt could not participate. The solution was to change the limit to “two deer a day.”
3. Some hunters would like to hunt more, but the four tags with the license were soon used up. The solution was to sell additional deer tags, 2 for $12.00

Lastly, most of you responded that we have the right to eat animals. That would be for our own pleasure and convenience, since it is possible to survive without eating meat. However, many many responded negatively to hunting animals purely for enjoyment. What is the different in eating for pleasure and hunting for pleasure? We eat food to survive. We eat a variety of to stay healthy, but also for our own enjoyment and pleasure. How is that pleasure different from the pleasure received from those who hunt as a sport?

You draw a false distinction. Hunters hunt for and eat the meat – but it is a pleasure to do it. You don’t suppose hunters have to be whipped all the way out to the deer stand, do you?

 

[britfun67]

If you are a Catholic, then you should probably consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the actual meanings of the the 10 Commandments rather than to make up your own interpretation of the Commandments, which may or may not be in communion with the Church teaching. I don’t claim to be an expert, but the CCC refers to the unjust murder of people.

Regardless of whether God means Humans and humans alone to me murder is murder. I do not in anyway agree with hunting, i find it dispicable and barbaric. OK granted I am a vegetarian and there were many of us back then too otherwise it would not have been mentioned in Romans. The way animals are slaughtered is inhumane and not acceptable. Even if God does gibe permission for us to use them I am sure he is not happy about the way we treat them.

 

[Brendan]

But the bible does say that you should not look down on those who chose NOT to eat meat. Plus in the 10 comandments it states though shalt not kill! To me that means anything that is of flesh and blood

Then you believe that God broke His own commandment when He commanded the Passover Sacrifice?

Or that Jesus sinned when He commanded Peter to cast his nets on the other side of his boat, where upon Peter caught a huge amount of fish.

There is also the opinion of the Council of Trent too

On the Fifth Commandment

Exceptions: The Killing Of Animals

With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, “Thou shalt not kill,” we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirt guides Eccumencial Councils and that they cannot teach error in Faith or Morals.

So I would personally trust a Council on determining if animals are ‘covered’ by the 5th Commandment or not over any personal interpretation.

 

[mtr01]

The Hebrew wphrase used is actually best translated as “Thou shalt not murder.”

Murder, then as now, was defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.

In fact, if you read farther, you can see where God commanded the Israelites to kill their human enemies, as well as animals.

I can’t help but think how bizarre temple worship must have been if the priests had to break the a commandment in order to offer God the sacrifices that he also commanded…

 

[melensdad]

Regardless of whether God means Humans and humans alone to me murder is murder.

Clearly you are in contradiction with the teaching of the church and simply making up your own version of murder. The Church view is clearly different than yours.

I do not in anyway agree with hunting, i find it dispicable and barbaric.

OK it is noted that you are an anti-hunter with strong feelings (based on a misinterpretation of the Commandments)

The way animals are slaughtered is inhumane and not acceptable.

In some processing plants you are correct, in others you are clearly wrong. England and France are pretty barbaric in some of their animal treatment. I’ve been to Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and there are many free range animals there. In the US we have a mixture of factory production and free range, and some stuff that qualifies in between those two. Many would disagree that any of it is barbaric, inhumane or unacceptable.

Even if God does gibe permission for us to use them I am sure he is not happy about the way we treat them.

Hmmm. I suppose this goes back to your mistaken interpretation of the 5th Commandment? A deer hunter goes in the woods. One shot, an animal falls before he hears the sound of the gun. A pheasant or quail hunter is in a field and flushes a bird, again, the bird is dead before hearing the shot because bullets/shot travel faster than the speed of sound. I don’t see the inhumanity you are speaking of. People are hungry, they hunt to eat. It is true even in western societies. There is also nothing wrong with enjoying what they eat.

But I stand on my prior post and suggest that we are obligated to hunt to control the species. Afterall we killed the predators when we settled the land. That allowed the non-predatory species to overpopulate, get ill, starve, etc. If we are mistreating the animals it is because we have screwed up their ecosystem, killed off the natural controls (predator species) and allowed the system to run amok.

 

[PeteZaHut]

A deer hunter goes in the woods. One shot, an animal falls before he hears the sound of the gun. A pheasant or quail hunter is in a field and flushes a bird, again, the bird is dead before hearing the shot because bullets/shot travel faster than the speed of sound. I don’t see the inhumanity you are speaking of.

What about hunters that use a bow and arrow? I don’t know if that is to make it more of a challenge, or to make it fairer for the animal, but it is certainly not an instant death. I have seen hunting shows on TV where a deer continues running after being hit with an arrow, then finally falls, where it may still be barely alive.

 

[maria29]

What about hunters that use a bow and arrow? I don’t know if that is to make it more of a challenge, or to make it fairer for the animal, but it is certainly not an instant death. I have seen hunting shows on TV where a deer continues running after being hit with an arrow, then finally falls, where it may still be barely alive.

These are hunters who may be taking a bad shot at a deer from too many yards away. If you are a proficient bowhunter, you should be able to do a clean ethical kill.

Even to what your talking about where the deer gets shot, and runs off, and expires off in the bushes it shouldn’t be more than 30 seconds (give or take a few)

BTW I am curious if you are against hunting, is it more humane to let the deers starve to death because of an overpopulation of them and not enough food?

 

[rlg94086]

What about hunters that use a bow and arrow? I don’t know if that is to make it more of a challenge, or to make it fairer for the animal, but it is certainly not an instant death. I have seen hunting shows on TV where a deer continues running after being hit with an arrow, then finally falls, where it may still be barely alive.

Good question. I will ask my priest. He is going bow-hunting at the end of the month.

 

[Kathrin]

1. If meat was removed from the diet of the world, there would mass starvation because there is insufficient land to grow crops. Livestock is the most energy efficient means to get protein into the food supply.

Actually, as far as I have often heard, it’s the other way around. Because to FEED all those animals, much more plant food (crops) is needed than if we were to eat the plant foods directly. To produce one pund of meet, I don’t remember how much exactly but a LOT of wheat or other crops is needed.

 

[maria29]

Actually, as far as I have often heard, it’s the other way around. Because to FEED all those animals, much more plant food (crops) is needed than if we were to eat the plant foods directly. To produce one pund of meet, I don’t remember how much exactly but a LOT of wheat or other crops is needed.

This is why I only buy grass fed beed…

 

[Orionthehunter]

From PetzaHut: As for the hunting, I think people who participate should ask themselves whether they are hunting for enjoyment or the food.

I hunt because I enjoy all aspects of hunting. The preparation, the comraderie with friends and family, the exercise, the challenge, the preparation of the meal, and the eating. I am totally comfortable with all moral aspects of the entire process. My son and two of my daughters are hunters. My wife and other daughter don’t like it (but they don’t like the taste of game either). My former Bishop is an avid hunter. I have a Priest friend who comes hunting w/ me annually.

From PetzaHut: Lastly, most of you responded that we have the right to eat animals. That would be for our own pleasure and convenience, since it is possible to survive without eating meat. However, many many responded negatively to hunting animals purely for enjoyment. What is the different in eating for pleasure and hunting for pleasure? We eat food to survive. We eat a variety of to stay healthy, but also for our own enjoyment and pleasure. How is that pleasure different from the pleasure received from those who hunt as a sport?

I assume bolded this because you think it is either a powerful argument or one you want to make sure you get a response.

I said earlier I enjoy the entire process. It connects me with nature in a way that confirms the stewardship with which God has placed me over his non-human creation. This enjoyment is not concupiscence (perversion of a good into an evil) like you imply. You may disagree and you are free to disagree. However, I know what I am doing is consistent with my stewardship. It may not be consistent with yours.

From Britfu67: I do not in anyway agree with hunting, i find it dispicable and barbaric. The way animals are slaughtered is inhumane and not acceptable. Even if God does gibe permission for us to use them I am sure he is not happy about the way we treat them.

I respect that you don’t agree with hunting and eating meat and I applaud you for following your convictions. I have a different perception. I hope you will give me the same respect and not accuse me of being “inhumane, barbaric, despicable,” and displeasing God. I don’t think you are omniscient and I don’t think you think you are.

Kathrin: Actually, as far as I have often heard, it’s the other way around. Because to FEED all those animals, much more plant food (crops) is needed than if we were to eat the plant foods directly. To produce one pund of meet, I don’t remember how much exactly but a LOT of wheat or other crops is needed.

I live in farm country and ranch country. When you consider that a cow raised for slaughter spends 75% of its life eating naturally grown grass (for which their would be no other way this land would contribute to human food consumption), 10% eating a combination of grass and feed on the range, and less than 15% eating in the feedlot (where the food is heavier grain vs. hay), the energy component of beef is miniscule as compared to corn or other grains. More importantly, if you removed range grass (not condusive to crops) contribution from the food supply (via livestock), you would significantly decrease the food supply. All land that can be used for crops is basically been done as that is more profitable per acre. Additionally, if famers weren’t able to rotate their crops (some used for feed and some for food), they would have to use significantly use more fertilizer (high energy use) to get the same yeilds. In short, meat consumption contritutes to the food supply and subsidizes non-meat food.

Final comment, nearly 100% of meat consumed is such that the animal is killed instantly prior to butchering and 100% of fish is killed by oxygen starvation. If pain is the measure, I see meat as the more humane.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, as far as I have often heard, it’s the other way around. Because to FEED all those animals, much more plant food (crops) is needed than if we were to eat the plant foods directly. To produce one pund of meet, I don’t remember how much exactly but a LOT of wheat or other crops is needed.

That’s a fallacy spread by organizations like PETA. The facts are:

1. There is more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. We have starvation because of how the food is distributed. In many parts of the world, brutal dictators and tribal enemies use starvation as a weapon and block food convoys.
2. Land used for grazing is usually unsuitable for crops. I defy you to raise corn on my pasture!
3. We produce so much food that certain foods actually cost more to grow than they sell for on the open market – rice is a good example. So the government subsidizes these crops.
4. We have so much crop land there is actually a government program to pay farmers not to farm it – the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP.)

 

[Kathrin]

Thanks for the facts, that was really interesting to read.
It’s always good to see both sides.

 

[Image_of_God]

No problem. No harn, no foul.

But what do you think of this.

In verse 2, the earth is there. In verse 3, there is light (from where?) By verse 4 we have day and night. By verse 12, the Earth is pretty much finished – but the sun and moon aren’t created until verses 14-16!!

I understand. And I can see why the Church says it is a danger to take this literally. The light in verse 3 is actually the light of hope. It has to be read in context with what the Jews were feeling at the moment the passages were written. When Ezra wrote this he was talking about the light that was shining in spite of the chaos and darkness (symbolic for the destruction of the 1st Temple). The light stands for the love that God had for them. The reason for the statement “it was good” after the creation of certain things is to counter the Babylonian belief that everything was bad. The Babylonians believe that humans and plants and animals were evil, but Ezra, Nehemiah, and the other scribes were trying to show that they believed that everything was created good. Am I right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I understand. And I can see why the Church says it is a danger to take this literally. The light in verse 3 is actually the light of hope.

Where does it say that?

And since neither man nor animals have yet been created, just who is it that has this hope?

It has to be read in context with what the Jews were feeling at the moment the passages were written.

The passages were not written – Genesis is a pre-literary composition, a collection of stories told around the campfire, and redacted much later.

When Ezra wrote this he was talking about the light that was shining in spite of the chaos and darkness (symbolic for the destruction of the 1st Temple). The light stands for the love that God had for them.

That’s certainly one interpretation – but much of the complexity of Genesis is due to it’s oral origins – the redactors conflated or paralleled many stories. That’s why there are two creation stories, two flood stories, three stories of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister (the third one makes it Isaac who makes that mistake) and so on.

And that’s why it’s impossible to make a logical timeline from Genesis – because different stories are cut-and-pasted together.

The reason for the statement “it was good” after the creation of certain things is to counter the Babylonian belief that everything was bad. The Babylonians believe that humans and plants and animals were evil, but Ezra, Nehemiah, and the other scribes were trying to show that they believed that everything was created good. Am I right?

Saint Irenaus would certainly agree – it was one of his key themes in “Against the Heretics.”

 

[Image_of_God]

Where does it say that?

And since neither man nor animals have yet been created, just who is it that has this hope?

The passages were not written – Genesis is a pre-literary composition, a collection of stories told around the campfire, and redacted much later.

That’s certainly one interpretation – but much of the complexity of Genesis is due to it’s oral origins – the redactors conflated or paralleled many stories. That’s why there are two creation stories, two flood stories, three stories of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister (the third one makes it Isaac who makes that mistake) and so on.

And that’s why it’s impossible to make a logical timeline from Genesis – because different stories are cut-and-pasted together.

Saint Irenaus would certainly agree – it was one of his key themes in “Against the Heretics.”

Now I see that my thinking is filled with errors. I am glad you told me.

 

[Kathrin]

Does anybody know - did St. Francis eat meat??

Kathrin

 

[vern_humphrey]

Now I see that my thinking is filled with errors. I am glad you told me.

No one said your thinking was full of errors.

It is possible, you know, for adults to discuss the Bible without rancor.

 

[Image_of_God]

No one said your thinking was full of errors.

It is possible, you know, for adults to discuss the Bible without rancor.

I hope you don’t think I’m spiteful towards you. That is not the case, I am actually glad you told me so that now I understand.