Yes. Because it was not directed at those men. It was directed at us. What is so bad about the message “don’t trust only in men”? Citing weapons is appropriate because it is a common object of people’s inordinate trust. (If I have weapons I have no need of God to save me. I can save myself.) But the message was more general than that. It was not just about weapons.
Yes, wolves and coyotes are common here in rural or even suburban areas. I live in a small town west of Houston and we have coyotes, feral pigs and mountain lions. Not to mention snakes and alligators. (I wouldn’t shoot an alligator but have no problem blowing the snake away)That’s quite an informative post. Mountain lions, in the U.S? You have wolves too?! The most dangerous animals on view that we have in the U.K, seem to be humans, after pub hours!They try to get run over when I drive past on safari.
" Jesus,I trust in You". Personal,but that is what I thought.with " not only in men" .
The Pope cannot err in matters of faith, morals and doctrine.
There are many areas in the Hebrew Sciptures that could do with more sensitive treatment. The name of our Creator which begins with ‘Y’, I think is sacred, for example, and to be used with care.
It must be awe-inspiring to see these creatures. I would have thought shooting an alligator might have to be done in self-defence, more so than a giant snake. Unless alligator’s are less predatory than crocs.
No he wasnt citing trust in weapons but the PEOPLE involved in manufacturing weapons because he thinks their faith is questionable by the very nature of their occupation: “They call themselves Christian?”
When said ex cathedra. He has not been making these what I think are gaffes in that capacity.
You mean Goldilocks? Black bears are the most dangerous (or so I heard), then the Grizzly, then the brown bear who likes oat-meal porridge - a hot breakfast relaxes it.
NO black bears are not the most dangerous. We have bunches of them in PA and rarely do they cause an issue…but like a lot of animals, stay clear and dont provoke.
The Grizzly then? I thought black bears could run the fastest making them the most dangerous?
I beleive its the Grizzley. I dont think its the speed but temperment. But hey maybe I’m wrong too, far from an expert.
If there was no protection for animals then I think rules would be abused. For example, the biggest of the tiger species are now almost extinct, with only 400 of them in existence, due to China using the poor creatures for herbal remedies. I guess it is a case of a few ruin it for eveyone else. But I think there need to be stronger restrictions not less. And obviously, from what a few of you have said, grey areas need to be taken into account.Moose live far north of here.
Predators are on the increase because their natural prey (deer, in the case of mountain lions) is increasing, and because they’re protected for the most part. Feral hogs are not, though. They are “shoot on sight” at any season of the year. One would be very heavily fined for shooting a mountain lion or black bear unless in self defense. I, of course, do not favor widespread protection of predators, but environmentalists who care much more for animals than for people, rule such things.
Population in the countryside is decreasing in some places, but (as where I live) greatly increasing in others. There are not enough hunters in most places, and some things are protected. Wild game is massively increased from what it was when I was a child. When I was a kid, I never saw otters, mink, or eagles. Now I see them all the time. Nobody traps otters or mink for fur anymore and it’s illegal to so much as possess an eagle feather.
Growing up, I rarely saw deer or coyotes. Now, if one is in the country, one sees them nearly every day.
But there are compensations to an Irish-descended person for moving here. For one thing, we’re a lot farther away from Russia.
Exactly. The area I live in has very annoying hunting restrictions, but even they allow experienced bow-hunters who pass a proficiency test to hunt in various parks to control the population.
What does that compare price-wise to wild rabbit?
There are wild boar in France, maybe, but I don’t think we have them in the U.K.
Of course, there are wild boars in the U.K.
Who’d want to be an expert?!!
Thats part of it. Not too long ago the US was mostly frontier, and a gun was essential for survival. Not to mention the country was founded not on swords but guns. Its in the blood.
I think maybe the difference in perception comes partly with the territory. I have looked at maps of the U.S. and a lot of the U.S seems to be built up areas in amongst really wild natural habitat. A strange thing. In the U.K, we have villages in rural areas, but the cities or towns are not in amongst very wild habitat. So we might get an ant or snail politely nod as it skittles past, and obviously cats and dogs, birds - not many eagles, the odd rabbit or squirrel, but as a rule, not large creatures. Very, very different. I can’t imagine if people were allowed guns here.
Do you think maybe the U.S. has a bigger problem with the idea of less gun usage because of a kind of (excuse the cliched term) cowboy-esque lifestyle / history of your people, due to living in amongst wild habitat - along with the obvious factor of gun liences and tight government enforcement over the country - as I do believe that people have a natural (and also do develop) relationship with their environments?