Killing Animals for "Sport"

[severus68]

Animals living natural lives hardly experience stress free existences. They are predators or are prey. Some are both. Always on the lookout either for a meal or to avoid being a meal for some other animal.

The very idea of free range chickens is absurd. They wouldn’t last very long with the number of predators out there, ranging from raptors to foxes, not to mention other chickens bent on cannibalism. Not to mention the diseases that chickens get. All animals in the wild are vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses and accidents.

Too much romanticism of animals in the wild, reading books and telling creative stories to their children, devising animal hospitals and clinics. About the only charitable thing they do organize are soup kitchens, at the expense of other animals.

Animals do defend themselves usually by employing incredible violence. Saw a male lion kill a hyena; saw a hippo try to kill a dog. Nature is violent.

And what is all that about this thread please? We are discusing the actions of human beings with free will and the abilty to protect themselves.

If you live in an area with predators, there is fencing and other precautions. Chicken living crammed in so small cages that do not allow them to move cause stress which cause ilnesses,hence the use of antibotics on a large scale.

 

[Brendan]

And what is all that about this thread please? We are discusing the actions of human beings with free will and the abilty to protect themselves.

If you live in an area with predators, there is fencing and other precautions. Chicken living crammed in so small cages that do not allow them to move cause stress which cause ilnesses,hence the use of antibotics on a large scale.

Sort of. We live in a suburban setting with a decent sized backyard, but by no means rural or expansive.

We turned a 8x10 shed that was on a concrete slab into a chicken coop. We added a 10x10 chicken run and had 8 chickens.

That is until raccoons tunnelled under the rat wall, under the 8’ slab into the coop.

Those raccoons have since met with an unfortunate demise, one of them including a dissection for our homeschooled kids and some homeschooled neighborhood kids. The pelt will become a coonskin cap for my son and the meat went to feed our outdoor cat (another aquisiton to help keep down the rodents that chicken feed attracts).

The 8 chickens had a huge amount of space, and we even got a breed ( ISA browns) that doesn’t run very fast, so the kids could keep watch over them loose in the yard. They were in the coop at night though, as if that did any good.

 

[Brendan]

Oh yea, and the raccoon meat became cat food. Since it’s getting cold and the mice aren’t as plentiful since the chicken feed isn’t out as much, we have taken to suplimenting the cat with actual real cat food.

Of course, the raccoons were getting into THAT too, so it just seemed like poetic justice. The raccoon ate the cat food, so they BECAME cat food

The cat seemed to appreciate it as well. She much prefers actual meat instead of the dry stuff she’s been getting lately.

 

[TheWalsh]

Concerning hunting, consider the poor cow. It lives a confined life and it is dispatched in often-cruel manner. Yet, no one should suggest it is immoral to enjoy a good steak. After all, if God did not mean us to eat them, He would not have made them of steaks. Consider the lucky deer. It lives free and wild. It is smarter than we are on its turf. It is a great challenge to track one down. How can one disparage the hunter who expends much effort and intelligence his meal to obtain, while sitting down to feast on a beast killed by proxy? Saint Hubert is the patron saint of hunters. He would not agree with an effete notion about hunting. If hunting is immoral, is fishing immoral? Would Saint Peter think so? Pardon a little humor, but it was loaves and fishes, not tofu. Honorable hunting is bereft of cruelty. Taking cruel pleasure in the kill is foreign and repugnant to the sport of hunting. Young people gain healthy insights to life when properly taught the outdoor sports of hunting and fishing. The alternative activities so prevalent today are often rather unhealthy. Saint Hubert’s feast day has been set as November 3, perhaps appropriately during the season of deer hunting. If you would like to read more about Saint Hubert, I enclose a link to an interesting site:

thecross-photo.com/Hubert-Patron_Saint_of_Hunters-Written_by_Mitch_Ballard.htm

 

[severus68]

Concerning hunting, consider the poor cow. It lives a confined life and it is dispatched in often-cruel manner. Yet, no one should suggest it is immoral to enjoy a good steak. After all, if God did not mean us to eat them, He would not have made them of steaks. Consider the lucky deer. It lives free and wild. It is smarter than we are on its turf. It is a great challenge to track one down. How can one disparage the hunter who expends much effort and intelligence his meal to obtain, while sitting down to feast on a beast killed by proxy? Saint Hubert is the patron saint of hunters. He would not agree with an effete notion about hunting. If hunting is immoral, is fishing immoral? Would Saint Peter think so? Pardon a little humor, but it was loaves and fishes, not tofu. Honorable hunting is bereft of cruelty. Taking cruel pleasure in the kill is foreign and repugnant to the sport of hunting. Young people gain healthy insights to life when properly taught the outdoor sports of hunting and fishing. The alternative activities so prevalent today are often rather unhealthy. Saint Hubert’s feast day has been set as November 3, perhaps appropriately during the season of deer hunting. If you would like to read more about Saint Hubert, I enclose a link to an interesting site:

thecross-photo.com/Hubert-Patron_Saint_of_Hunters-Written_by_Mitch_Ballard.htm

I think most here would agree hunting for food would be less cruel for the animals concerned compared to slaughter houses. The assumption is made that the animals are killed quickly. It is hunting for the sheer pleasure of the kill that I and others like me have issue with .

I don’t know if there was much tofu around where Christ was.

With regard to the beef steak, never had one and will never have one. I can live well without it.

 

[4elise]

To follow Him, no.

We can see from the Gospel of John (21) that after that Peter, James and John spent the time between the Resurrection and Penetecost returning to their fishing.

On one of those nights, they caught nothing and Christ appeared. He instructed them to cast their nets on the other side and they caught a huge catch, 153 fish. Peter dragged the net ashore.

There, Christ offered them a breakfast of fish cooking over a charcoal fire, along with some bread.

So that shows us two things. First, that Peter, James and John, after having recieved the fullness of Christ’s teachings, contined to practice fishing.

Secondly, Christ offered them fish for breakfast. That shows us the level of ‘necessity’ required to eat flesh. Christ has no absolute need for anything. It was not a matter of self defense that forced Christ to feed the Apostles fish. There is no objective need, but rather the need was subjective. The lesson here is that one might use their God given skills to obtain food, and that one can eat flesh, since it is part of the Providence of God.

And again, it shows that Dr. Jones assessment is incorrect. She attributes the killing of animals for food to be a sinful act, but where the cupability may be reduced if there is no other source of protein. Christ is sinless, He cannot perform an inheretnly sinful act, and ‘self defense’ cannot apply to a omnipotent person. Any source of protein could have been provided to the Apostles, but Christ chose to allow the Apostles to kill to obtain it.

And since I strive to emulate Christ in all things, I will take this lesson to and emulate Him

First, in the text that was provided from Dr. Jones I read nothing that implied as you say ’ killing of animals for food to be a sinful act, ’ - perhaps you have another quote that your are referencing? I think painting her position as so extreme that it would be calling Jesus sinful not in keeping with that quote either.

I believe there is more to John 21 than a Jesus cook book, don’t you? Christ, risen in body and spirit - continues to care for the bodily needs of his friends -

 

[severus68]

First, in the text that was provided from Dr. Jones I read nothing that implied as you say ’ killing of animals for food to be a sinful act, ’ - perhaps you have another quote that your are referencing? I think painting her position as so extreme that it would be calling Jesus sinful not in keeping with that quote either.

I believe there is more to John 21 than a Jesus cook book, don’t you? Christ, risen in body and spirit - continues to care for the bodily needs of his friends -

I believe the number of fish and the casting was symbolic. It was about bringing all to Christ.

 

[CWBetts]

I believe the number of fish and the casting was symbolic. It was about bringing all to Christ.

There is nothing in the context to indicate symbolism. You can’t just twist the Scriptures to make them say what you want. If you are going to do that, than you may as well be a Protestant.

 

[4elise]

There is nothing in the context to indicate symbolism. You can’t just twist the Scriptures to make them say what you want. If you are going to do that, than you may as well be a Protestant.

These are the footnotes from the USCCB on that reading:

4 [9,12-13] It is strange that Jesus already has fish since none have yet been brought ashore. This meal may have had eucharistic significance for early Christians since John 21:13 recalls John 6:11 which uses the vocabulary of Jesus’ action at the Last Supper; but see also the note on Matthew 14:19.

5 [11] The exact number 153 is probably meant to have a symbolic meaning in relation to the apostles’ universal mission; Jerome claims that Greek zoologists catalogued 153 species of fish. Or 153 is the sum of the numbers from 1 to 17. Others invoke Ezekiel 47:10.

6 [12] None . . . dared to ask him: is Jesus’ appearance strange to them? Cf Luke 24:16; Mark 16:12; John 20:14. The disciples do, however, recognize Jesus before the breaking of the bread (opposed to Luke 24:35).

 

[CWBetts]

It is significant that only the number of fish is symbolic, not the eating of fish. You need to use honesty in your arguments, and not be so selective. One could also argue that vegetarianism/veganism is a mark of heresy, by using similar tactics. Notice I have not done so, because it would be intellectually dishonest. I ask you stay away from the same twisting of the Scriptures.

 

[severus68]

There is nothing in the context to indicate symbolism. You can’t just twist the Scriptures to make them say what you want. If you are going to do that, than you may as well be a Protestant.

Here we go again with the accusations and personal attacks. Please read te notes and commenaries. BTW just being a Catholic does not give anyone a fee pass to heaven.

 

[CWBetts]

Here we go again with the accusations and personal attacks. Please read te notes and commenaries. BTW just being a Catholic does not give anyone a fee pass to heaven.

Never said it did, but taking passages out of context and twisting them to fit your own, predetermined “theology” is a Protestant trait. Not a personal attack, but rather an evaluation of a VERY flawed argument.

 

[severus68]

It is significant that only the number of fish is symbolic, not the eating of fish. You need to use honesty in your arguments, and not be so selective. One could also argue that vegetarianism/veganism is a mark of heresy, by using similar tactics. Notice I have not done so, because it would be intellectually dishonest. I ask you stay away from the same twisting of the Scriptures.

I am not being dishonest , I have read this passage many times before and notes/commentaries on and not because I am vegetarian. You used the passage to support a viewpoint and I am entitled to respond. There is really no discussion if the only idea for some is to launch personal attacks.

 

[severus68]

Never said it did, but taking passages out of context and twisting them to fit your own, predetermined “theology” is a Protestant trait. Not a personal attack, but rather an evaluation of a VERY flawed argument.

ascensioncatholic.net/lectionary.htm
Please go to this link and to Pastor’s relfetion re the John 21 passage…

 

[CWBetts]

This is a homily. My response is “so what?” This is no evidence for veganism. Jesus ate fish. Peter, James and John were fishermen. There are later Saints, including Saint Francis of Assisi, who condoned eating of meat. Stop trying to push your choice as doctrine, for that IS a component of heresy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Concerning hunting, consider the poor cow. It lives a confined life and it is dispatched in often-cruel manner.

thecross-photo.com/Hubert-Patron_Saint_of_Hunters-Written_by_Mitch_Ballard.htm

Just to clarify. Very few cattle live confined lives, and for good reason. One of the most significant benefits cattle confer on humans is cows’ ability to make food out of grass. Grass is useless to human beings as a food. Grass is out in the fields, and it’s far cheaper to let them graze in the field than it is to feed them in confinement.

 

[severus68]

This is a homily. My response is “so what?” This is no evidence for veganism. Jesus ate fish. Peter, James and John were fishermen. There are later Saints, including Saint Francis of Assisi, who condoned eating of meat. Stop trying to push your choice as doctrine, for that IS a component of heresy.

So you say I am wrong, I point out what the Church says the passage is about so now you come up with me pushing my choice as a doctrine. Come on, am I right about the passage? No one is forcing you or anyone else. We can’t even if we wanted to. Who said not eating meat is a doctrine? This thread is about killig fo sport.

Now I am a heretic? Earlier you said I am a Protestant following someone else on this thread. This heretic stance has beeen used on me on another thread. Please don’t read our posts if it upsets you so much. It upsets me when people use name calling rather than particiate in a respectful discussion.

 

[Brendan]

First, in the text that was provided from Dr. Jones I read nothing that implied as you say ’ killing of animals for food to be a sinful act, ’ - perhaps you have another quote that your are referencing? I think painting her position as so extreme that it would be calling Jesus sinful not in keeping with that quote either.

Note her use of phrase here "would mitigate the culpability ". Culpabililty refers to the level in which a malum ( something that is evil) is sinful ( the willful commision of a malum).

The malum becomes a culpa (something sinful as in "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

A person can commit a malum without it being sinful, such as if they have no knowledge or did not commit the act willing. A person can commit a malum with a large measure of gravity but have the sin remain venial if their culpability is reduced.

So Dr. Jones seems to consider the killing of animals for food to be a malum, and the need for protein reduces the culbablity. In other words, she defaults to killing for food as being a culpa already, where the level of culpa can be reduced if self defense is involved.

I believe there is more to John 21 than a Jesus cook book, don’t you? Christ, risen in body and spirit - continues to care for the bodily needs of his friends -

Yes, the Church looks at the Bible on several levels, all of which carry Truth. The number if the fish is certainly symbolic, 153 fish is commonly thought to refer to the number of known nations or peoples at the time. And Peter will bring them all to Christ without tear ( in Greek Schiso, or Schism

But the literal also remains, and it has to, otherwise we would have to infer that Christ will eat some of us for breakfast

The Apostles DID return to fishing after the initially left their nets to follow Christ, and after spending years learning from Him. Christ DID cook fish and offer it to the Apostles for breakfast.

That is the great thing about the Bible, there are lessons on many, many levels. We find Truth in both the Symbolic and the Literal and it must be read on both levels.

One of the techniques we learned (along with the seminarians) was called Lectio Divina. It is a form of Scriptural prayer where one examines a passage of Scripture and first looks for the literal meanings, next the historical meanings, thirdly the moral meanings and finally the symbolic meanings. And one can find lessons in all four.

 

[Godscre]

To follow Him, no.

We can see from the Gospel of John (21) that after that Peter, James and John spent the time between the Resurrection and Penetecost returning to their fishing.

On one of those nights, they caught nothing and Christ appeared. He instructed them to cast their nets on the other side and they caught a huge catch, 153 fish. Peter dragged the net ashore.

There, Christ offered them a breakfast of fish cooking over a charcoal fire, along with some bread.

So that shows us two things. First, that Peter, James and John, after having recieved the fullness of Christ’s teachings, contined to practice fishing.

Secondly, Christ offered them fish for breakfast. That shows us the level of ‘necessity’ required to eat flesh. Christ has no absolute need for anything. It was not a matter of self defense that forced Christ to feed the Apostles fish. There is no objective need, but rather the need was subjective. The lesson here is that one might use their God given skills to obtain food, and that one can eat flesh, since it is part of the Providence of God.

And again, it shows that Dr. Jones assessment is incorrect. She attributes the killing of animals for food to be a sinful act, but where the cupability may be reduced if there is no other source of protein. Christ is sinless, He cannot perform an inheretnly sinful act, and ‘self defense’ cannot apply to a omnipotent person. Any source of protein could have been provided to the Apostles, but Christ chose to allow the Apostles to kill to obtain it.

And since I strive to emulate Christ in all things, I will take this lesson to and emulate Him

They did ultimately leave fishing to follow Jesus once and for all. And Jesus used their fishing to convey a message. I don’t think He said to go forth and continue fishing. He did say: Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature." Mk. 16:15 after He was resurrected.
Psalm 150:6 says: “Let everything that has breath give praie to the Lord! Hallelujah!”\

God is love and we are to love one another (not seeking our own interests as 1 Cor. 13.5states). St. Paul also states: “Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” 1 Cor. 13 and before that he says in 1 Cor. 10:31-32 “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.”

ps: The fishing industry is ruining the environment.

Just a comment about the other post by someone that animals were put here for us to be our resources. Animals have souls as stated in the Bible and by Pope John Paul II.
They were created to be our companions, only after the Fall did chaos enter the world with violence which Jesus came to give us peace. He also died to redeem the world as Col. 1:20 states and that everything was created for God, (not man) as stated in the Bible (ie. Col. 1:16).

God is a compassionate God “the Lord is good to all, compassionate to every creature.” Ps. 145.9.

 

[Marfran]

**They did ultimately leave fishing to follow Jesus once and for all. ** And Jesus used their fishing to convey a message. I don’t think He said to go forth and continue fishing. He did say: Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature." Mk. 16:15 after He was resurrected.
Psalm 150:6 says: “Let everything that has breath give praise to the Lord! Hallelujah!”\

God is love and we are to love one another (not seeking our own interests as 1 Cor. 13.5states). St. Paul also states: “Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” 1 Cor. 13 and before that he says in 1 Cor. 10:31-32 “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.”

ps: The fishing industry is ruining the environment.

Just a comment about the other post by someone that animals were put here for us to be our resources. Animals have souls as stated in the Bible and by Pope John Paul II.
They were created to be our companions, ***only after the Fall ***did chaos enter the world with violence which Jesus came to give us peace. He also died to redeem the world as Col. 1:20 states and that everything was created for God, (not man) as stated in the Bible (ie. Col. 1:16).

God is a compassionate God “the Lord is good to all, compassionate to every creature.” Ps. 145.9.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping: