Originally posted by Rajk999The "kingdom to come" has no animals--just saved people. {how else could it be paradise?} 😉
There are two useful points here from the Bible:
1. it suggests that it is better to be a vegetarian than a meat-eater.
2. In the picture painted of the kingdom to come, there is harmony among all creatures .. no killing, hurting, destroying.
Christians who are sufficiently evolved and aware of their environment dont have a problem understanding this. I am somewhat taken aback by PFs stance here but maybe I should not be.
Originally posted by Rajk999(the bible) suggests that it is better to be a vegetarian than a meat-eater.
There are two useful points here from the Bible:
1. it suggests that it is better to be a vegetarian than a meat-eater.
2. In the picture painted of the kingdom to come, there is harmony among all creatures .. no killing, hurting, destroying.
Christians who are sufficiently evolved and aware of their environment dont have a problem understanding this. I am somewhat taken aback by PFs stance here but maybe I should not be.
If that is true, then maybe you can talk some sense into PinkFloyd, even on his own turf.
Originally posted by PinkFloydOkay, that's a start.
Well, how about not killing endangered species? I mentioned I'm in favor of protecting the whales---the ones that are threatened or endangered, anyway. I'm all for saving creatures from extinction, IF that extinction is propogated by man solely for sport or profit.
Originally posted by PinkFloydWhat about those "saved" persons who have established deeply enriching relationships with animals -- say with beloved pets. So these persons have to simply forgo such meaningful relationships in "paradise"?
The "kingdom to come" has no animals--just saved people. {how else could it be paradise?} 😉
Also, if I were forced to judge based on those persons who claim to be so "saved", I'd say your paradisal company is going to be insufferable.
Eden had animals that were all subservient to man--now that's all gone. As for animals in the afterlife, I don't think they will be there. But there's nothing in the Bible I could site to prove or disprove it. Neither does the Bible EVER say vegetarian is somehow a superior way of life. I don't think I would have canine teeth if I weren't supposed to eat meat.
Originally posted by PinkFloydAnimals in kingdom :
Eden had animals that were all subservient to man--now that's all gone. As for animals in the afterlife, I don't think they will be there. But there's nothing in the Bible I could site to prove or disprove it. Neither does the Bible EVER say vegetarian is somehow a superior way of life. I don't think I would have canine teeth if I weren't supposed to eat meat.
Isa 11: 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Are all these animals symbolic? If so please explain what they symbolise.
Eating meat. The bible does not tell you not to eat meat simply because there is nothing wrong with eating meat. The Bible is not only about whats right and wrong. Its also about whats good and whats better and whats best. If you read Daniel 1, surely you must wonder why Daniel refrained from eating the Kings meat and chose to eat only pulses.
Originally posted by Rajk999My guess is that Isaiah was refering to peace among all peoples, and used animals to represent them. But those Old Testament prophecies are subject to interpretation and your guess is as good as mine.
Animals in kingdom :
[i]Isa 11: 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the suckin ...[text shortened]... y you must wonder why Daniel refrained from eating the Kings meat and chose to eat only pulses.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
But "giving due consideration to the animals" (and I'm speaking STRICTLY about using animals for food here--so don't go back to the cruelty thing), I just don't understand the phrase at all. It's like looking at my breakfast of crispy bacon and country ham and thinking "that stuff has rights." To me, it just doesn't.
Somehow, I missed this post.
Do you think anyone who thinks something 'just doesn't have rights' is justified in denying them
their purported rights?
Imagine I said, 'It's like looking at black people and saying 'those people have rights?' To me,
they just don't.' I've provided just as much 'justification' for my position as you have for yours.
I've constructed my world view in no different a fashion as you have yours.
Do you have a problem with people have the viewpoint articulated above?
Nemesio