L
LongingSoul
Guest
You’re a very hostile person for a theology professor. I was actually agreeing with you.
- Status
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Good points. I am not ashamed to admit when I am wrong, and on this point, I have been.
No, Bubba, I don’t have a soft spot for mosquitoes and ticks and rats and bats. I like to see rabbits and squirrels from my window, but wouldn’t want them in my house. I can’t stand crickets because they are the only thing that keeps me up when I want to sleep. As long as they stay outside, okay, but I admit to having killed those that got into the house.
Time has allowed me to distance myself from emotionalism over Cecil’s death. Palmer never would have made the news had he not killed an iconic and protected lion. (And I’m not saying he knew Cecil was protected.)
BTW, I thought he should be extradited if he committed a crime, and only if. I never wanted to see an innocent man in prison or tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and I certainly never wanted to see him harmed! I am not one of those persons who demonstrates or puts rude signs in windows, etc. like people were doing to Palmer. From the news reports I’ve heard, he won’t be extradited. Also, it seems more and more it was the fault of the agency that issued the license and/or the guides working for him.
Still not a fan of hunting, but that’s okay. None of us are fans of everything in the world. I do see the necessity of thinning the herd, primarily from your posts. Thank you for your civility and instruction. I learned something new, about thinning the herd and about myself. You are a credit to this forum.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Actually, I’m not a hostile person at all, but I’ve discovered there are very hostile people on theology boards. Please note, I am not referring to anyone in particular and not to you at all.
I apologize if I took your post the wrong way. I suppose that is because, so far, no one has agreed with me (and the Bible). So if you did, you did it with no explanation. I’m not trying to blame you for that, just trying to let you know where I’m coming from. It’s like everyone wants to crucify me for graduating from college and getting a teaching position. I mean one person actually took the time to Google my name and look up information about me and then post some that’s about me and some that’s not. Who does that? I would never think of doing such a thing.
I am genuinely sorry I took your post the wrong way, and I sincerely apologize.
Some of the theology professors I had were kind of hostile. I provokes strong opinions, so I guess that’s where the hostility comes from. I deal with hostile students every day because some are non-believers who are just taking the course because it’s required.
S
SilverLight
Guest
I’m sorry to say that because my family and I had to let my dog of many years pass on not but a few months ago. That I do believe she is in a better place right now and that I will one day see her again. I feel this in both my heart and soul there is nothing that could change my mind right now regarding this.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I believe that too. Take care.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I was actually addressing sarah j’s post that implied that Christ had died for the redemption of man alone when the ‘us men and our salvation’ verse was directing our understanding to the fate of man.
Christ redeemed the whole world by His life, death and resurrection including all things put in the world for mans use. We’re reminded of our duty to all this other things by the Catechism…
*Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
**2417 **God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
**2418 *It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
Trophy hunting is not a right of man. Today mans relationship with the environment/ecology and particularly the animals is heightened by knowledge and the advances in science. It’s natural that we question the practice of killing for pleasure. It’s natural that it is a more sensitive subject with moral implications to our more civilised natures. It’s not just radical PETA extremists who feel concern for the welfare of animals… it’s the average person even farmers and commercial slaughterers who kill animals for food. Practices and attitudes are much more humane today than even 50 years ago.
A
adrift
Guest
It remains an opinion since none of this can be verified and is at odds with your other postings.
The moderator asked for a Church document not your interpretation of scripture. My post was deleted that stated that you have a secular definition of creation and not a theological one.
Obviously this refers to the communion of saints.
Romans 8 does not support it either.
It was directed at the one claiming to state doctrine to support it with a link to such a doctrine. It applies directly to you since you are the one who makes the claim. Avoiding such questions as how did the animals make a covenant or sin?
I am disagreeing with your interpretation of the word of God. You are the one who brought it up. Can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.
No graduation but upon graduation???
Personnel questions should not be asked. But you do invite them.
Bubba, I do believe that Palmer broke the law in Zimbabwe, but if they find that only the guides and the licensing agency were to blame, I think people should lay off Palmer. If he truly didn’t know he was killing a protected animal, then I don’t see how he can be guilty.
Upon what do you base this belief? For that matter what law do you believe he broke. What you have mentioned before did not apply.
Again you make this unfounded statement. He was not a protected animal. The lion lived on a game reserve which did not allow hunting. He was lured off of it which was not against the law.
If he is innocent? Again guilty until proven innocent mentality.
A
adrift
Guest
Follow your own advice
Per moderators request and yes it was to you too. Link with a document from the Church.
C
Caldera599
Guest
A typical American showing contempt for the law and morality and then trying to weasel his way out when confronted by blaming others. This country SICKENS me!
A
adrift
Guest
A typical ad hominem attack of bigotry
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Yes, this spat of publicized killings are all by US citizens. Is there something barbaric about us? They used to say that about the Germans. And I agree it is sickening. A sort of cultural glorification of violence. It’s hard to deny. I used to wonder about that when you look at how we handled the Native Americans so aggressively and degradingly vs. how the Canadians did it or even the British / French in their territories in the same time period. Fortunately we are not all like that. But I am not sure that suggestion is entirely just a myth or negative stereotype either.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You make it sound like the trophy hunters appreciate a noble goal ie. culling. Australia has recently banned the import of lion parts from Africa, used as trophies because of the prevalence of ‘canned’ hunting. That is where lions are being specifically raised in captivity to adulthood for trophy hunters to come in subsequently shoot them in controlled conditions for exorbitant amounts of money. Why would people be breeding lions if they were in need of culling? Seems like an ecological conflict. Could perhaps, just perhaps, it be because there is a fundamental sickness in trophy hunters that has nothing to do with a noble ecological motive? Could it be that they like killing Gods creatures just for the lustful ecstasy of the kill. Mans distorted concept of dominance over a lowly godless beast?
I’m sure many will still find a way to pay lip service to their ecological duty to cull in these conditions but I’m glad that the Aus. govt won’t let us profit from it anyway.
theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/13/australia-bans-hunting-trophies-from-lions-entering-or-leaving-the-country
S
SilverLight
Guest
Thank you and you do the same.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I appreciate your honest discussion of an emotionally charged topic.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I never said that the sole purpose of hunting was culling herds. I simply noted that it is required and that hunters happily pay for the privalege.
Canned hunting is a controversial subject in the hunting community but how is it different from a rancher raising cattle for slaughter? Does the pope wear leather shoes?
Man’s dominion over nature takes many forms. (Mosquitos and rats are God’s creatures too.)
Killing, is a part of hunting, of course, but there is much more to it than that. Reducing it to the “lustful ecstasy of the kill” is just ignorant emotionalism.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
No, it’s not ‘natural’ that we should question the practice of killing for pleasure. Science has contributed nothing new in this area. Some people imagine themselves to be more humane because they appoint themselves gaurdians of propriety but that does not make them so.
T
TK421
Guest
Spanish/French/British were only more civil towards native population in areas where they had minimal presence. There aren’t significant numbers of tribes in southeastern Canada, in areas around Rio de Janerio, etc., because they actually had cities there instead of using the land for fur & trapping. The United States had large populations of immigrants fleeing from starvation & war in Europe, on top of large numbers of slaves being imported, so the western U.S. became prime ground for aggressive colonization.
Not that I’m justifying the destruction of native tribes, but European colonization around the world never actually substantially inhabited their territories. There were severe manpower limitations that made that even possible at all, since for the most part any immigrants naturally went to the US and maybe Canada, not to exotic deserts or jungles where there were Muslims, Hindus, or shamanistic religions. The objective of African/Asian/Oceanic colonization was to subjugate/bribe local rulers and then generate wealth from ports around the world, and to ensure that trade was highly favorable towards Europe. Thus flowed the tea, sugar, rubber, coffee, oil, rare materials, etc. At various times when this source of wealth was threatened and subterfuge/bribery failed, the navy & military were sent it.
edit: it should be noted Spain has a (relatively speaking) noble history in its colonization of central & south America. There was a debate after the discovery of the Americas as to whether or not the indigenous were human beings or some variant of animals. The ruling came that the indigenous were in fact human, therefore they were primarily the domain of the Church (for Christinization) rather than the military. The idea of evangelizing within protestantism didn’t really pick up until the 19th century since Calvin & Luther believed that the Great Commission only applied to the original apostles. This is why you see so many historic Catholic mission churches spread across the Americas, but not historic mission churches from protestants. The American Puritans & other denominations just assumed that the natives were reprobates who God willed to be damned, and so they didn’t bother to evangelize them to any significant degree.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Don’t forget it was the Brits who gave Indians blankets infected with smallpox, not the Americans.
Historian Robert Utley estimated that approximately 6,000 Indians were killed directly by American settlers and the army. And of those, some were inadvertently caused in battle. In the “Indian wars”, the whites often had Indian allies. The vast majority of Indian deaths were the result of disease. But that was inevitable, no matter who discovered whom first. Had Indians discovered Europe or Africa first and returned home, the result would have been the same.
I have never seen estimates of Indian-on-Indian killings, but they were plentiful. In the Ozarks, where I live, for a time before white settlers there was no population at all because the Osage invaders from the north settled along the Missouri River and exterminated the indigenous tribes in the Ozarks in order to make this their private hunting ground. The same was largely true of Kentucky, which was depopulated by Ohio River tribes.
We think of the Apache as desert dwellers. They were actually plains dwellers until the Comanche came out of the Rocky Mountains, killed many and drove the rest into the desert. That happened before whites ever arrived.
So, romantic notions of American genocide against innocent Indians is just as false as romantic notions of white heroes with silver spurs and fringed jackets riding forth to simply defend women and children against irredeemable savages.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The cattle and other animals raised for slaughter in this case are for the purpose of food and products useful to human survival. The Catechism makes the distinction…
Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
I’m dreading you responding that Americans include killing for an individuals pleasure as a necessity of human life. That is a unique attitude that comes out of extremist America to justify too many deathly activities. it has no place in the global conversation.
Killing creatures that are threatening the welfare of humanity is permitted by the Catechism and … frankly, common sense. To hunt down a creature of any sort and kill it for the soul purpose of pleasure is morally wrong and an officially recognised sign of a future psychopathic serial killer.
The Catechism limits the right to kill animals to service of human survival. The pure pleasure of purposely taking a life is sick and it’s even sicker to celebrate it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think a good part of the time the motivation is mixed. Yes, most deer hunters eat the venison, but the hunt itself is usually the big motivating factor nowadays. And yes, the trophy “racks” too. But in their case, it’s a good thing they do it for whatever reason, because deer easily multiply to a point where they are all half-starved and spread deadly diseases among their number.
Clearly, some hunting of big game is permitted in Africa. In some places, it’s probably best for the game and the people that it happens. I don’t know whether that was the case with “Cecil the lion”, but it certainly isn’t unheard of to thin big game animals while simultaneously providing a cash source for the locals.
When it serves such purposes, it’s hard to think of it as cruel. When lions get old and can no longer defend themselves, they’re usually killed by other lions or by hyenas. As between that kind of finale and being shot, there’s not much to be desired in the former.
- Status