I
Ione
Guest
So, I shouldn’t be eating the apple or the egg. What then will I eat?
Or on the other hand, I could be eating anything from a plant to a human as it’s all the same thing.
- Status
Or on the other hand, I could be eating anything from a plant to a human as it’s all the same thing.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Was it wrong of the Nazi’s in the 1930’s to plan to breed humans to improve their stock?
If it was wrong to do such a thing to humans, why not the same to other specie of animal?
Blessings and peace
M
Marfran
Guest
I can get some video to show, if you are in doubt about chickens being bred with large breasts that can not support their weight. In fact, I think it’s coverered in the Humane Society’s ***Eating Mercifully ***video.
Egg laying chickens (in factory farms) are stuffed so many in a cage that they can not move around. They would peck each other to death in these close quarters, so they are de-beaked with a hot gun, and given no anesthetic for the pain (as that would be humane but would be too costly). I can get you video of this too, or you can do an internet search yourself.
Things ***have ***changed, and the small farmer has been pushed aside by the big factory farm. You are not a big fan of today’s agri-business, but that’s who’s producing our food, for the most part–unless you buy organic, or from a small local farm.
I don’t think that God intended for us to stoop to these levels of abuse when allowing us to gently take what we need from the earth, from the environment…
So, in my opinion, breeding animals to suffer, to live lives of intense confinement, to never see the light of day, to live on a slab of concrete their entire life, or to live in a crate so small that they can not even turn around–is wrong.
I do not support big agri-business and do not buy their products. And I will not purchase products where child labor is used, or other abuses to animals or humans occur.
We can live and tread gently on the earth without damaging it, without becoming abuseful.
This question of is breeding animals Ok ? brings to light a lot of troubling things that are going on in our ***progressive ***world.
J
JRKH
Guest
Quite frankly I find this post to be off topic and somewhat in poor taste.
The selective breeding of animals from ancient times to now, from dogs for herding and hunting to better beef and eggs and milk have improved our lives tremendously. You may not agree with it, but there it is.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I don’t know why you think I am fighting agianst you here. I readily admit that there are practices that could and should be changed.
Again, I am fully aware of this and am not a big fan of it. But that does not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with the “selective breeding of animals.”
A person can use money for good or ill. So is it bad to aquire and manipulate money?
Or grow and raise your own.
God never intended for us to sin at all.
OK
Yes it does, but the basic fact remains. Selective breeding of animals is not, in and of itself, wrong.
Peace
James
M
Marfran
Guest
I think that the selective breeding of animals is a slippery slope. And that the majority of it is not for good. I think that it is something that requires us to take a closer look–in almost all cases.I don’t know why you think I am fighting agianst you here. I readily admit that there are practices that could and should be changed.
Again, I am fully aware of this and am not a big fan of it. But that does not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with the “selective breeding of animals.”
A person can use money for good or ill. So is it bad to aquire and manipulate money?
Or grow and raise your own.
God never intended for us to sin at all.
OK
Yes it does, but the basic fact remains. Selective breeding of animals is not, in and of itself, wrong.
Peace
James
So your argument is, that in and of itself it is not wrong–but in so many cases it is abused, that, perhaps the act in and of itself may not be wrong, but it is wrong not to consider all consequences before implementing this act.
M
Marfran
Guest
This may have at one time been true, or partially true, but it is no longer true today. Animal products produced in big agri-business are full of antibiotics, hormones, growth stimulants, chemicals–these products are also eaten in excessive quantities (the average American consumes 50% more protein than s/he needs). Our lives are no longer improved–but rather are shortened by the diseases of affluence associated with the consumption of animal products. See ***The China Study ***that documents the link between animal protein and fat to the Western diet diseases of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, obesity, etc.
J
JRKH
Guest
Here you are talking about health issues that are not associated with breeding practices.
Giving hormones or antibiotics in feed is not part of breeding but rather part of raising the animals.
How our lives are effeected by consuption is a dietary issue and not a breeding issue.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Your last statement is a fair summation of my postiion, with the exception of, "but in so many cases it is abused. I am not aware of the extent of abuse nor just how “abusive” a particular practice may be since this can be subjective.
Overall though yes - Breeding is OK so long as it is done responsibly.
Peace
james
M
Marfran
Guest
My position is: God gives us an inch, and we take a mile. Breeding animals, in and of itself ***may not ***be wrong when done with the best of intentions, but we have to look at all the consequences and abuses before implementing the act. If it is OK to breed an animal, it may not be OK to breed a particular group today. Is it OK to breed chickens? Maybe, maybe not. Is it OK to breed chickens with abnormally large breasts (which cause broken legs, pain and suffering) because some big agri-business company wants to maximize their profits? NO. Animals are living beings, capable of pain and suffering, they are not inanimate commodities. And dogs as pets–OK to breed–yes, probably–but not for superficial characteristics, and maybe not TODAY because we need to get the pet over-population situation under control. The pet over-population situation is a black eye to our jobs as caretakers, stewards of the animals and the planet.
Ione–this is your thread. Give us your opinion. And what prompted you to start a thread on this topic? A specific concern or experience?
P
peary
Guest
From Genesis:
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened:
25
God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.
26
4 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. **Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.” **
27
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28
God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. **Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” **
29
God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
30
and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” (Genesis 1:24-30)
‘Dominion’ means “the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.” It also comes from the Latin dominium meaning ‘property’ or ownership.
4
4elise
Guest
I’m coming in late on this discussion - and have to be honest am not going back to read all the thread — but want to weigh on one issue… 
… pets!
I really don’t understand how people can justify breeding, buying dogs / cats - when SO many are destroyed every day in shelters.
Animals are part of God’s creation, how can one go out and spend money on a ‘breed’ dog when they could get a dog from a shelter?
… pets!I really don’t understand how people can justify breeding, buying dogs / cats - when SO many are destroyed every day in shelters.
Animals are part of God’s creation, how can one go out and spend money on a ‘breed’ dog when they could get a dog from a shelter?
D
didymus
Guest
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Fist it was condemened by the church as a heresy. The best way to put it is it relegates humans to being just a bump on a log. One is to do something with his life, mere survival to the next day doesn’t cut it.
I
Ione
Guest
Originally I was just speaking of dogs but the topic expanded to including livestock. Originally this thought came about for me because I lived in Amish country and many Amish breed dogs. I questioned why they did it being as they are a strict religious group(and my thought was why would they mess with what God created) but never really asked any of them about it. I’m very aware of the puppy mill situations as well. Breeding appears to me to be something done to make money. Some claim it is to make healthier breeds although I don’t think we can out do God. *He made it *the way it was supposed to be. He gave us the animals we need. We don’t need to create ones we want. I had at one time considered breeding dogs for a living, just because I love animals so much, then I realized I didn’t think it was right to mess with and interfer with nature and what God made. Forcing an animal to breed is not natural. Animals breed in their own time frame and should not be made to over produce. The whole natural cycle of things is thrown off by this whether we do it for love or money. As for breeding livestock, this is also unnatural. We have created a situation where the production of these animals is destroying the environment we and all animals need to live. Factory farming is about money and nothing other than that! There is no supporting evidence that it benefits anyone but the farmer who is selling the product. I know there are farmers out there claiming they do it because they love farming. Why not farm crops then? We can feed more people that way. And for those who say the bible says humans come before animals. In the case of factory farming *you are putting animals before people *as you are using the land that could feed more people to raise feed for livestock. Do you care *that the people get fed *or that *just certain people get fed what *they want? It irritates me when they say “I farm, you eat” (there are t-shirts and bumper stickers that state this also). It’s more, you farm, we lose. I can eat vegetables and soy and live just fine. You the livestock farmer are destroying the earth that I need to survive. You are destroying our water supply also. And your products don’t benefit my health. You put animals in unnatural conditions and then claim that they are vicious. It makes absolutely no sense. It’s all done for money! I find it hard to believe that alot of people can’t comprehend this. As it is so blatantly obvious! I look at Philip Morris and I say the same thing. No one is benefiting but him. Whether you are the smoker yourself or the person or animal breathing the second hand smoke. We can say, we have the right to smoke. But do we really? As it affects everyone else as well. Is it serving the good of all humanity? Could that money not be spend better elsewhere (as someone stated in another post that it was sinful to spend money on animals, that God says we should alliviate human suffering first). I’m all for freedom as long as you are not hurting anyone or anything else by doing it. And this whole argument of people would not have a job so do we want to put people out of work (the factory farm workers, slaughterhouse workers, etc.) is such an asinine argument. It’s like saying continue on with abortion because we don’t want to put the abortionist out of work. Get real people! And the argument that Jesus did it therefore I shall do it. Jesus ate meat, therefore I shall eat meat. Jesus walked, therefore I shall walk. Jesus did not have modern technology, therefore I shall not have modern technology. Jesus healed, therefore I shall heal. Jesus loved thy neighbor, therefore I shall love my neighbor. Seems to me out of all of those (and that’s just a few), the only one most, not all, seem to be doing is eating meat:shrug: In the case of breeding to stop the extinction of certain animals I’d have to say why not correct the things we are doing that are making the animals extinct? Wouldn’t that be the more logical way to go? At this point, yes, maybe we should be breeding for this specific incidence but we also must look to fixing the problem that’s causing it. It’s all just common sense really. And be able to look past what we as individuals want and do what is right for all. Sure, maybe you like the taste of meat but if you are going to argue that humans come before animals then you need to think of how many people can be fed if we use the farmland for vegetables and plant proteins as opposed to feeding all that livestock. And there is no concrete argument that we need meat to survive as I’ve said before, I’m sitting here writing this, healthy as can be, and I don’t eat meat. Hence, living proof that it can be done.
I
Ione
Guest
This is a good point also. If you are going to say that humans come first and that money is supposed to go to alliviate human suffering first than there is no argument for buying a “breed” dog. They are expensive. And only support vanity. The money could be better spent elsewhere.how can one go out and spend money on a ‘breed’ dog when they could get a dog from a shelter?
M
Marfran
Guest
Fabulous post that covers it all!!!
M
Marfran
Guest
Your interpretation of the word “dominion” as used in the Bible, does not agree with most scholars and theologians. The Bible was not written in Latin. (Latin is an ancient language that is officially adopted in only one country: Vatican. It has no native speakers. However, most of western countries had influence of this language due to the Roman Empire.) It has been translated from several languages, a very arduous task, to translate some very complex ideas and thoughts. It is generally agreed the word “dominion,” chosen for English texts is more a form of stewardship, man entrusted to care for Creation, in a position that gives him authority and responsibility.
From Bibleinfo.org
The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
HISTORY OF TRANSLATIONS
**The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388. **
A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.
From which language was the KJV was translated. Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate.** As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch.** And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale’s New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.
The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752.
The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects.
M
Marfran
Guest
Not for Biblical purposes in understanding our relationship and duties to the rest of creation.
Here is an excerpt from Dominion by Matthew Scully.
**We can challenge farming practices today without passing judgement on the whole of human experience, just as we can reflect on the hardships of mules in the coal mines of another time without faulting the miners. Once, men like those miners had no choice except to use mules, dragging them down into the heavenless pit–and even then, as Crane describes, giving them a break sometimes, feeling for them as comrades in toil and misery. One needn’t condemn the practice. How could you? Hard necessity demanded it. It is part of the story, the animals’ and our own, and both good and ill came of it.
Now, in the more developed world, the mule is free at least of that assignment. His services are no longer needed. So too have many other animals served us well over the ages. It was the use of livestock that first freed us from the chase, allowed man to settle and civilize himself, slowly rendering the hunter a useless and ever more ridiculous figure engaged in what the name itself “game,” implies. Meat and dairy products undeniably furnished a wide array of protein sources, like the soybean today as we discover its many uses and superior protein value. It was the labor of the mule and the horse and the ox and the elephant that allowed man to turn his energies to greater work, building his earthly life over the ages up from savage squalor to the world we live in today. It was the fur-bearer whose pelt shielded us from the elements, the oil of the whale that lighted our lamps, the ivory of the elephant and bones and antlers of other animals that gave us tools and adornments. And so on through the story of civilization, leaving today, in many cases, only customs and habits and industries surviving on the momentum of varnished necessity. **For ages people needed furs to survive in the severe elements we faced. Women who today keep the fur industry thriving, in order to be seen swathed in mink on a 60-degree December evening in Beverly Hills, or in Manhattan making the harsh winter trek from Saks to Tiffany’s, do not have the same excuse.
When substitute products are found, with each creature in turn, responsible dominion calls for a reprieve. The warrent expires. The divine mandate is used up. What were once “necessary evils” becomes just evils. Laws protecting animals from mistreatment, abuse, and exploitation are not a moral luxury or sentimental afterthought to be shrugged off. They are a serious moral obligation, only clearer in the more developed parts of the world where we can not plead poverty. Man, guided by the very light of reason and ethics that was his claim to dominion in the first place, should in the generations to come have the good grace to repay his debts, step back wherever possible and leave the creatures be, off to live out the lives designed for them, with all the beauty and sights and smells and warm winds, and all the natural hardships, dangers, and violence too.
If we take Isaiah at his word, maybe the moment prophesied is arriving, an unexpected turn in our human story, not an onerous moral demand but a wonderful moral opportunity. Perhaps we are getting uneasy about our mistreatment of animals because we should be uneasy about it. Maybe we wonder about these practices because we are supposed to be wondering about them. There comes a time when the service is no longer needed, and the master, if he is just, will turn to the suffering creatures in his dominion, from the mink to the pig to the elephant to the great leviathan, and say, “Dismissed.”
J
JRKH
Guest
Since the title of the thread did not specify dogs, or pets in general, a broader anser seemed to be in order.
If you can find a place in either the Bible or the culture of biblical times where breeding of animals is condemned I’d like to here about it. The fact is that this has been going on and Jesus knew about it when He was here. He had no problem with the flocks, the eating of meat and fish, the sacrifice of animals in the temple, killing the fatted calf in the prodigal son parable, etc. If Jesus saw no need to condemn the intentional breeding of animals for meat and wool and profit, then neither do I.
You seem to be unaware that you cannot force an animal to breed out of cycle. Just as a human female can only concieve at certain times, so too with animals.
I agree that the specialization of “Factory Farming” has resulted in environmental problems. But they are not problems that are difficult to overcome. The biggest problem is th econcentration of waste products. Years ago when farmes raised both grain and meat, this waste was spread on fields as fertilizers. Today, this waste can still be processed for fertilizer, or for producing natural gas for heating and lighting and there are “factory farms” who are looking into this extensively.
The supporting evidence that others benefit is in every supermarket in the country where one buys reasonably priced produce. As for the Farmers benefitting by profiting, there is nothing wrong with making a profit.
Of course for those dead set against supporting these practices, I suggest that you plant a large garden and orchard, can your fruits and vegitables and enjoy the fruits of your labor. Personally I love putting up pickles and freezing the tomatoes we don’t eat fresh.
Calorie for caloie, meat productino takes less acreage than grain production.
As I said earlier, if you wish to not eat meat - then don’t eat meat. If you want to be organic then plant your garden and live happily aver after.
(cont)
- Status