Killing Animals for "Sport"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
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
Click to expand...
I guess Jesus could have made tofu.

But he decided on fish, instead.
 
bigfootbob said:
No I am not calling you mad.🙂 I don’t think most normal people kill for the “thrill.” Hunting just because you are a bloodthirsty guy that kills for the sake of killing is wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...
What they are doing is twisting and spinning words.

BLOOD LUST !!!

THRILL KILL !!!

They can’t go after us for killing rats with a .22 because it’s fun AND socially redeeming AND interesting [application of technology with high powered scopes, night vision, and low power cartridges]. Did I mention FUN? But not thrill killing or blood lusting.

Not to mention doing something about those snakes on Guam or rabbits in Australia or nutria in the U.S.

So, they are amping up the word choices. From “sport” to blood lust and thrill killing.

Come on, guys!

**
 
fultonfish said:
What they are doing is twisting and spinning words.

BLOOD LUST !!!

THRILL KILL !!!

They can’t go after us for killing rats with a .22 because it’s fun AND socially redeeming AND interesting [application of technology with high powered scopes, night vision, and low power cartridges]. Did I mention FUN? But not thrill killing or blood lusting.

Not to mention doing something about those snakes on Guam or rabbits in Australia or nutria in the U.S.

So, they are amping up the word choices. From “sport” to blood lust and thrill killing.

Come on, guys!

**

That’s all you are doing, trying to provoke.
Click to expand...
 
fultonfish said:
I guess Jesus could have made tofu.

But he decided on fish, instead.
Click to expand...
??? Tofu wasn’t invented until around 950 A.D. in China, so it did not exist in the time of Christ. In the Biblical passage you quote one might note that ***Christ did not eat ***the fish.
 
fultonfish said:
What they are doing is twisting and spinning words.

BLOOD LUST !!!

THRILL KILL !!!

They can’t go after us for killing rats with a .22 because it’s fun AND socially redeeming AND interesting [application of technology with high powered scopes, night vision, and low power cartridges]. Did I mention FUN? But not thrill killing or blood lusting.

Not to mention doing something about those snakes on Guam or rabbits in Australia or nutria in the U.S.

So, they are amping up the word choices. From “sport” to blood lust and thrill killing.

Come on, guys!

**

I think when threads get long it can be tempting to try to reinforce a point with stronger word - but really - if you want to start another thread about mowing down the rabbits - let me know… I’d be happy to share an opinion there.
Click to expand...
 
Marfran said:
??? Tofu wasn’t invented until around 950 A.D. in China, so it did not exist in the time of Christ.
Click to expand...
God can do pretty much anything he wants.
Quit trying to limit him to time.
Marfran said:
In the Biblical passage you quote one might note that ***Christ did not eat ***the fish.
Click to expand...
Failure to mention if he ate the fish or not is not conclusive evidence that he did either.
 
vz71 said:
God can do pretty much anything he wants.
Quit trying to limit him to time.

Failure to mention if he ate the fish or not is not conclusive evidence that he did either.
Click to expand...
God may, you may not. All you do is try to provoke as shown by your previous posts. You do not participate in discussions.
 
severus68 said:
God may, you may not. All you do is try to provoke as shown by your previous posts. You do not participate in discussions.
Click to expand...
The only reason for any of these animal rights threads is to attempt provoke guilt in anyone who disagrees with your position.
 
pete_29 said:
The only reason for any of these animal rights threads is to attempt provoke guilt in anyone who disagrees with your position.
Click to expand...
Pete - really speaking as one who participates in these threads as a vegan that is not my intent - I do not want to make anyone feel guilty - I could just as easily say that those who eat meat, or hunt participate in these threads to provoke disdain for vegetarians / vegans.

I see this as an opportunity to share and learn from each other. Early in the discussion I know that I’ve said that hunting for food is preferential in my mind to that of getting meat from a CAFO -

I think there is a general consensus that when the term exclusively is added to ‘sport’ hunting – no one seems to stand in support of that - but many feel as long as there is some use for the meat, either for themselves, or donated to a shelter, any type of hunting is justified. (there have been some interesting discussions about taking the ‘trophy’ buck which then does not support the idea of culling a herd by taking weaker animals)

I can appreciate this position of providing for one’s family. Some though, in trying to defend the above want to go further and try to provoke disdain for those of us who find this unnecessary in our lives.

If you are confident in your position - I would think that there would be little that could be offered that could provoke guilt - we can disagree and not be disagreeable 😉
 
vz71 said:
You might want to try squirrel hunting with a 12 gauge loaded with buck shot.

That fine red mist that is left over may get a response.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason for saying this? Are you trying to make a point or just trying to provoke?
 
bigfootbob said:
Is there a reason for saying this? Are you trying to make a point or just trying to provoke?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read the posts this was in response to. There is a running joke concerning hunting with overpowered weaponry and the responses it gains as people refuse to get the joke.

I know I am not the only one to find the imagery and the responses to it hilarious.

I am also finding it funny that in a series of posts involving hunting with a 50 cal sniper rifle, a MAC 10 and a machine pistol, my fine red mist seems to provoke the most response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top