Kill animal - is it a sin?

[deb1]

It may seem that they are killing unnecessarily, but they are just following the instincts that are hard-wired into their brains – the instinct to catch, kill, and eat food, the instinct to increase the chance of passing on one’s genes by killing off the rivals, and so on. They’re not killing for “fun” in the sick, twisted way of an adult (or near-adult) human killing an animal that he has no intention of eating, and that isn’t hurting him, just for the heck of it.

I don’t think that my cat’s desire to kill is sick or twisted and I didn’t mean to imply that. My cat does not have a reason to kill though. That was my point. She is well fed and a spoiled house cat.

I don’t want to be guilty of humanizing my cat. But she does purr loudly during the time that she is toying with her prey. So, I am guessing that she is enjoying herself.

I don’t think that animals are being good or bad. But I am not going to say that they don’t take pleasure in hunting or killing. Yes, this is their instinct but that doesn’t mean that my cat has a reason for killing.

That was my point.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The irony is that a lot of people who love animals, don’t really love real animals. They are enamored of a Disney type of animal that doesn’t exist.

Great point!

In reality nature can be very cruel and difficult to watch in its pure form. Yet, when you really appreciate nature, in all of it’s beauty, not just the babies and the tender moments but the life and death struggle as well. It is amazing how beatiful it all is.

 

[Celeste88]

May not be in the line of topic…but one of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen lately in a catalog was a wardrobe chest for doggie clothing. If your dog has 30 coats and sweaters and 6 pairs of boots something is wrong with that picture. :whacky: Dogs do not care if they’re wearing striped acrylic or plaid wool (unless they have some kind of fiber allergy) Geesh!

 

[Fidelia]

I agree. Animals do not know right or wrong. But the ad for the program made it sound as if animals are somehow superior to humans. From a human perspective, animals are pretty savage and that is something that is being lost in today’s animal shows. I think that there is a desire to make animals seem more human in an effort to assist us in relating to them.

The irony is that a lot of people who love animals, don’t really love real animals. They are enamored of a Disney type of animal that doesn’t exist.

But you can’t put a human-knowing right-from-wrong perspective on animals’ actions. It simply does not apply. Just as you can’t say “animals do such-and-such so it must be ok for us to” you can’t say “we see such-and-such an action as wrong, so the animals are in the wrong for doing it” either. It goes both ways. I get what you are rightly sayng though. There is no pooh-bear, tigger or dumbo in the wild and that wild animals are just that- wild.
But an effort to being people’s attention to animals should not be seen as an attempt to set them superior to humans. They act on instinct, we don’t. Well, shouldn’t anyway. As i am sure you all will agree, in some aspects humans are doing a great job abusing that free-will thing.

Another irony, though, is people claimng to love and care about certain animals while yet continuing to eat certain other animals. Somehow some are still deemed pets and others deemed food sources on the same level of vegetables. No one says animals are equal to humans. But shouldn’t they at least be equal in our eyes to each other? If all men are equal in God’s eyes, why can’t all animals be equal in man’s eyes?

 

[Beyrak]

If all men are equal in God’s eyes, why can’t all animals be equal in man’s eyes?

God gave man dominion over animals. It is up to man to use animals as they see fit for food, labor and companionship. As long as man does not abuse or be cruel to animals, there is no sin or anything morally wrong in this dominion.

God at one time expected man to sacrifice their best animals to him in tribute and worship. In Acts, God came to Saint Peter in a vision and told Peter that all unclean animals had been cleansed, and that it was ok to eat them, along with the already clean animals. So God intends man to eat meat!!!

Except on fast days, of course.

 

[deb1]

But you can’t put a human-knowing right-from-wrong perspective on animals’ actions. It simply does not apply. Just as you can’t say “animals do such-and-such so it must be OK for us to” you can’t say “we see such-and-such an action as wrong, so the animals are in the wrong for doing it” either. It goes both ways. I get what you are rightly sayng though. There is no pooh-bear, tigger or dumbo in the wild and that wild animals are just that- wild.
But an effort to being people’s attention to animals should not be seen as an attempt to set them superior to humans. They act on instinct, we don’t. Well, shouldn’t anyway. As i am sure you all will agree, in some aspects humans are doing a great job abusing that free-will thing.

Another irony, though, is people claiming to love and care about certain animals while yet continuing to eat certain other animals. Somehow some are still deemed pets and others deemed food sources on the same level of vegetables. No one says animals are equal to humans. But shouldn’t they at least be equal in our eyes to each other? If all men are equal in God’s eyes, why can’t all animals be equal in man’s eyes?

I think that you and I are basically agreeing, so I am just clarifying what I meant. The ad-and maybe I am reading into this-seemed to suggest that animals aren’t savage but humans are. Perhaps the show would not have that tone but I see so many animal shows(My daughters love these shows) that depict all animals as having human traits that I get a little annoyed.

I do think that we have a right to use animals as we see fit but that we must be responsible. Some people are vegetarians because they are appalled at modern methods of mass slaughter. I can respect that view despite being a die hard carnivore myself.

We are able to choose if an animal is a pet or food item because we have dominion over them.

 

[Fidelia]

God gave man dominion over animals. It is up to man to use animals as they see fit for food, labor and companionship. As long as man does not abuse or be cruel to animals, there is no sin or anything morally wrong in this dominion.

But we do abuse them and are cruel to them when we choose regard them as inanimate objects akin to vegetables, in a slaughterhouse.

God at one time expected man to sacrifice their best animals to him in tribute and worship. In Acts, God came to Saint Peter in a vision and told Peter that all unclean animals had been cleansed, and that it was ok to eat them, along with the already clean animals. So God intends man to eat meat!!!

Except on fast days, of course.

The key-phrase there is at one time. And yes God said at one time it was ok to eat animals. But that does not mean he intends us to always. Just do some research about how He created our bodies, and you will find that our bodies are designed to consume a predominantly plant-based diet You wouldn’t say He created our bodies wrong, just because of what you think tastes good would you?

 

[Fidelia]

We are able to choose if an animal is a pet or food item because we have dominion over them.

A dominion which is being appallingly abused.

 

[Celeste88]

But you can’t put a human-knowing right-from-wrong perspective on animals’ actions. It simply does not apply. Just as you can’t say “animals do such-and-such so it must be ok for us to” you can’t say “we see such-and-such an action as wrong, so the animals are in the wrong for doing it” either. It goes both ways. I get what you are rightly sayng though. There is no pooh-bear, tigger or dumbo in the wild and that wild animals are just that- wild.
But an effort to being people’s attention to animals should not be seen as an attempt to set them superior to humans. They act on instinct, we don’t. Well, shouldn’t anyway. As i am sure you all will agree, in some aspects humans are doing a great job abusing that free-will thing.

Another irony, though, is people claimng to love and care about certain animals while yet continuing to eat certain other animals. Somehow some are still deemed pets and others deemed food sources on the same level of vegetables. No one says animals are equal to humans. But shouldn’t they at least be equal in our eyes to each other? If all men are equal in God’s eyes, why can’t all animals be equal in man’s eyes?

Animals should not be on the same level as vegetables. Animals have a nervous system, have brains, can think and have sleep cycles. Mammals share a percentage of our DNA.
Now what people eat as far as meat is cultural. We would never consider eating cats and dogs and yet I understand some Asian countries do. Certain religions may forbid eatting of pork. Traditionally, sheep, oxen, goats, cattle have been raised as food for thousands of years, as witnessed in the Bible.

Now as far as pets, that came a little later with people. Cats were introduced from Egypt where they kept grain stores free from mice, dogs were domesticated to help with hunting, later as toy dogs. Parrots and other exotic animals introduced from the Americas with exploration of these lands.

You asked why can’t all animals be equal in people’s eyes. I think it’s the thousands of years of tradition that is so hard to break, when farming was how most people lived and grew their own food, including their own animals for food. Now it has been replaced by factory farming and its horrible inhumane conditions. Most people don’t see these conditions when they buy their steaks. They don’t even know about the conditions. They see the "Eat steak, eat steak’ commercial. They see the texture and smell of a steak grilling with onions and mushrooms. They don’t see a cow suffering. Plus, some simply don’t care. Yes, it will take a long time if ever to convert the world to vegetarianism.

I know quite a few vegetarians. I myself am trying to cut back on meat, red meat only once a week now because I am slightly anemic. Recently I found a great cookbook called ‘American Wholefoods Cuisine’ with over 1300 meatless wholesome recipes. For myself I can not go cold turkey and become a vegetarian overnight but I’m cutting back slowly and looking forward to trying some of these recipes.

 

[Beyrak]

A dominion which is being appallingly abused.

I hope you guys are just as concerned about unborn babies as you are beasts.

 

[Fidelia]

I hope you guys are just as concerned about unborn babies as you are beasts.

For your information, I am against abortion if it is any of your business. I am against the killing of ANY sentient being for the sake of convenience, pleasure or luxury.
God created animals and trusted us not to abuse what he gave us ‘dominion’ over. Isn’t there a thing caled stewardship?

**
How is vegetarianism good stewardship?
Did God put animals here for our use?
Adam’s “dominion” over animals (Gen. 1:26, 28), we believe, conveys sacred stewardship, since God immediately afterward prescribed a vegetarian diet (1:29–30) in a world God found “very good” (1:31). Created in God’s image of love (1 John 4:4), we are called to be caretakers of God’s Creation, not tyrants over God’s creatures.
Genesis 2:18–19 indicates that God made animals as Adam’s helpers and companions: “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them…” (RSV) Adam named the animals, which we believe shows concern and friendship. We don’t name the animals we eat.
God endowed pigs, cattle, sheep, and all farmed animals with their own desires and needs, which is apparent when these animals are given an opportunity to enjoy life. For example, pigs are as curious, social, and intelligent as cats and dogs. Pigs can even play some video games better than monkeys. Similarly, chickens enjoy one another’s company and like to play, dust bathe, and forage for food. Jesus compared his love for us to a hen’s love for her chicks (Luke 13:34).

—>all-creatures.org/cva/honoring.htm **

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think unneccessary killing of animals for profit like baby harp seal hunting is unjust, though I don’t consider it a sin.

Just look at this baby white coat.

I think its ok for bears to hunt them because its part of their nature. Those seal hunters kill out them, even though they make most of their income from fishing crabs…

excessive hunting is just wrong.

In fact it may cause an inbalance food chain. Moderate is the key.

I’m an avocate against Seal Hunting, and I’m also avocate for Pro-Life issues and Sociel justice system for helping the poor… so for me.

Killing 325,000 harp seals n(2 weeks old) every April (annually) is a little too much for someone who received his income from lobsters…and commercial fishing…

 

[Beyrak]

For your information, I am against abortion if it is any of your business. I am against the killing of ANY sentient being for the sake of convenience, pleasure or luxury.

Then you are consistent. This thread, however, was starting to sound like some ultra left-wing PETA liberals had invaded. Some of these liberals will demonstrate against fur, eating meat, fish, etc, and even march against the consumption of milk, then the next week, be demonstrating in favor of killing unborn babies.

How moronic and hypocritical is that? Glad you are not in that boat. Their rudder just hit a manatee.

 

[Celeste88]

Then you are consistent. This thread, however, was starting to sound like some ultra left-wing PETA liberals had invaded. Some of these liberals will demonstrate against fur, eating meat, fish, etc, and even march against the consumption of milk, then the next week, be demonstrating in favor of killing unborn babies.

How moronic and hypocritical is that? Glad you are not in that boat. Their rudder just hit a manatee.

Although I am not a PETA member I know people who are PETA members and I’ve visited their website. To my knowledge they have never demonstrated in PRO ABORTION rallys, in fact their policies are towards animal rights and do not take sides with human rights issues.

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

I’m certianly not going to eat the termites, roaches or skunks I kill. And no Killing animals is not a sin, intentionally making animals suffer is.

 

[Beyrak]

Although I am not a PETA member I know people who are PETA members and I’ve visited their website. To my knowledge they have never demonstrated in PRO ABORTION rallys, in fact their policies are towards animal rights and do not take sides with human rights issues.

You are saying that liberal zealots who are members of PETA do not support abortion or demonstrate in pro-abortion rallies? How about visiting a gathering of either of these organizations and asking for a raising of hands of whom may also belong to the other. I dare say you will see a majority of hands raised. This is the ultra realm of hypocrisy.

When it comes to liberal fanatics that like to march and demonstrate, you will see lots of the same faces at different events.

 

[Sixtus]

I hear what you say about animal liberation movements but this thread is not about them per se. But feel I must add the facts:

Living in a part of Norfolk in East Anglia England, near the Broads. It is very beautiful. Thee used to be hundreds of natural species of animal, fish and birds in the water and surrounding river banks. They were reckoned to be among the finest in all Europe for their diversity of wildlife.

But we have an epidemic of very large water-rats which are devastating the local habitats of other animals and birds, killing and eating them. Often they just kill for the sake of it, even when they are not hungry. The broads are full of them. They are a real nuisance. Millions of pounds have been spent to trap and eliminate them. But they breed so prolifically that those which survived have recovered their numbers before the culling and added to it.

They are not natives of England. They were brought over here by some research group and their labs were broken into by some animal liberation organisation about 10-years ago and the huge rats released into the wild. They have done billions of pounds worth of damage, some broads species have become extinct because of them.

This is what animal liberation is all about. Animal liberation do not support the interests of animals. Because of them, hundreds of species have been devastated to exintinction.

Being rats, they are also a health hazard. People living near river banks are now resorting to carrying hi-powered air rifles to kill them if they see them. They will attack and bite a human with serious risks to infection and health.

Animal liberation are terrorists. They should be shot on site, no questions asked.

 

[Sixtus]

hear what you say about animal liberation movements but this thread is not about them per se. But feel I must add the facts:

Living in a part of Norfolk in East Anglia England, near the Broads. It is very beautiful. Thee used to be hundreds of natural species of animal, fish and birds in the water and surrounding river banks. They were reckoned to be among the finest in all Europe for their diversity of wildlife.

But we have an epidemic of very large water-rats which are devastating the local habitats of other animals and birds, killing and eating them. Often they just kill for the sake of it, even when they are not hungry. The broads are full of them. They are a real nuisance. Millions of pounds have been spent to trap and eliminate them. But they breed so prolifically that those which survived have recovered their numbers before the culling and added to it.

They are not natives of England. They were brought over here by some research group and their labs were broken into by some animal liberation organisation about 10-years ago and the huge rats released into the wild. They have done billions of pounds worth of damage, some broads species have become extinct because of them.

This is what animal liberation is all about. Animal liberation do not support the interests of animals. Because of them, hundreds of species have been devastated to exintinction.

Being rats, they are also a health hazard. People living near river banks are now resorting to carrying hi-powered air rifles to kill them if they see them. They will attack and bite a human with serious risks to infection and health.

Animal liberation are terrorists and should be treated as such

 

[Sixtus]

I hear what you say about animal liberation. This thread is not about them per se. But feel I must add the facts:

Living in a part of Norfolk in East Anglia England, near the Broads. It is very beautiful. There used to be hundreds of natural species of animal, fish and birds in the water and surrounding river banks. They were reckoned to be among the finest in all Europe for their diversity of wildlife.

But we have an epidemic of very large water-rats which are devastating animals, birds and fish, killing and eating them. Often they just kill for the sake of it, even when they are not hungry. The broads are full of them. They are a real nuisance. Millions of pounds have been spent to trap and eliminate them. But they breed so prolifically that those which survived culling, have recovered their numbers before the culling and added to it.

They are not natives of England. They were brought over here by some research group and their labs were broken into by some animal liberation organisation about 10-years ago and the huge rats released into the wild.

This is what animal liberation is all about. Animal liberation do not support the interests of animals. Because of them, many species have been devastated. Hundreds are at risk of extinction. Some 40 odd species are now completely exintinct.

Being rats, they are also a health hazard. People living near river banks are now resorting to carrying hi-powered air rifles to kill them if they see them. They will attack and bite a human with serious risks to infection and health.

Animal liberation are terrorists and treated as such.

 

[Sixtus]

hear what you say about animal liberation. This thread is not about them per se. But feel I must add the facts:

Living in a part of East Anglia England, near the Broads. It is very beautiful. There used to be hundreds of natural species of animal, fish and birds in the water and surrounding river banks. They were reckoned to be among the finest in all Europe for their diversity of wildlife.

But we have an epidemic of water-rats which are devastating animals, birds and fish, killing and eating them. Often they just kill for the sake of it, even when they are not hungry. The broads are full of them. They are a real nuisance. Millions of pounds have been spent to trap and eliminate them. But they breed so prolifically that those which survived culling, have recovered their numbers before the culling and added to it.

They are not natives of England. They were brought from South America by some research group and their labs were broken into by some animal liberation organisation about 10-years ago and the water- rats released into the wild.

This is what animal liberation is all about. Animal liberation do not support the interests of animals. Because of them, many species have been devastated. Hundreds are at risk of extinction. Many species are now completely exintinct.

Being rats, they are also a health hazard. People living near river banks are now resorting to carrying hi-powered air rifles to kill them if they see them. They will attack and bite a humans and other land-based animals, with high risks to infection and health.

The attack was well orchestrated. They were released into several places at the same time to make sure they bred and spread to make culling, very difficult if not impossible. It is my belief they knew exactly what they were doing when they released these into the wild. They are terrorists and treated as such.