Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aaqucnaona, Dec 13, 2011.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I fully agree with and sympathize on animal cruelty. It seems that the perception of dominion over animals starts with the premise that they are here for our food. If I'm going to eat you anyway, why not wring your neck by slamming you on the pavement. If I'm going to wring your neck anyway, why not coop you up in this little hell hole (etc.) Over the years I have developed a distaste for any food that brings this to mind. So I appreciate your remarks.
I am also interested in your view that slaughtering animals for pleasure (Here I'm thinking of the way someone orders a Porterhouse medium rare) - that this is an expression of atheism. I have never heard that connection before, and would be interested to hear more about it.
It seems that modern rituals generally shy away from animal sacrifices as they were once practiced. That at least shows a benefit of progress on religion.
And let us not forget that the non-pure-Africans among us also carry traces of our Neanderthal parentage.
Conclusion: this discussion is not as high-brow it seems. (Notwithstanding Spidergoat's slapstick.) :xctd:
Oh- and not only did they use tools, bury their dead and perhaps use fertility fetishes or some form of religious ideation, but they also practically invented art. Not that this changes the timeline - just, please, let's not desecrate the memory of the ancestors! :worship:
It seems that modern rituals generally shy away from animal sacrifices as they were once practiced. That at least shows a benefit of progress on religion.[/QUOTE]
Now they burn the fat made in candles and is cheaper and you can burn more then one
I'm not refering to the group of people who identify themselves as atheist. I refering to the actual meaning of ''atheist'', someone who does not believe in God, and what that actually means. One is atheistic when one engages the senses purely for ones own gratification, likewise one is ''theistic'' or (God/god) religious when one engages the senses according to the religious principle set out in the scripture.
There is a difference between the actuality of atheist, the the club of atheists.
Rituals that sacrifice animals according to the scripture are meant to benefit the inhabited soul of the body of the animal, not to mention restrict the culling of animals, preserving the environment, creating healthy humans because they eat more fruit and veg. There is so much benefit to mankind if they only kill animals according to scriptoral regulations, it's just not funny.
But as that probably doesn't mean anything to you (being atheist an' all, there's no point in going there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is interesting to me because you are speaking on a different level than a prima facie reading of scripture (the Bible?) would reveal. There is a level of interpretation involved. [Or maybe you are referring to some ancillary writings or pseudepigrapha.] In any case, it's somewhat unusual to hear a native English speaker - with an American inflection (I'm thinkin sho nuff you is) - refer to the soul of an animal in a religious context.
I'm not sure (in all mah born days) I've ever come across an idea like that, outside of the Eastern philosophies and religions.
She sho nuff ain't no Christian. They don't believe that any animal has a soul except Homo sapiens. This is why there's no Dog Heaven. We get to be "reunited" with all the people who were mean to us, the mother who never stopped screaming and the father who did nothing to make her stop, and all of the dead spouses whom we mourned before remarrying. But not the most faithful friends we ever had!
I agree with Will Rogers: "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." If that means "absolutely nowhere," because neither dogs nor humans have souls, I'm cool with it.
I once encountered a Christian advice website on which a mother asked what to tell her children when they asked if their beloved dog, who just died, would be waiting for them in Heaven. The priest replied that since God can do anything he wants, he can easily create an exact duplicate of Rover, with all his quirks and memories, which will be indistinguishable from the real Rover--since neither has a soul. Since this is much too complicated to explain to five year-olds, he told her it would be okay to lie to them and simplify the story by just saying yes, Rover will be waiting happily for you in Heaven.
Let's see, that would be about six hundred dog years. Poor Rover!
I just got through nominating someone else for best-ever comebacks, but, on second thought, I think you have the lead by a mile. Keep on rockin - DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL WILL BURN IN HELL!!! :mufc: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bollocks. They believe everything from A to Z these days. The tent goes very wide in the reach to embrace.
Particularly if they're sacrificing bullocks from a to Ω at a tent revival! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wouldn't surprise me for a second.
I'm sure that's true since the church authorities don't have as much influence as they did a thousand years ago. Nonetheless, it is a key point of Christian doctrine that only humans have souls. If other animals had souls, would they not also be worthy of saving? What part of God's commandments and other entreaties directs his human children to help save the souls of his non-human children?
I agree, doctrinally. But the mind of the average kneeler is a bit more muddied, these days.
What's even more interesting is why you think the Bible is the only scripture.
Actually, I was just messing around. I am an English person.
You should actually LISTEN to what is being said, rather than resorting to stereo types. It makes for an actual conversation.
It's quite clear that there are a few things you haven't come across.
I think the question mark inside the parentheses was meant to make it clear that the Bible was merely a guess, since Christianity is the overwhelming majority religion in anglophone countries, but that he also understood that you might have been referring to another religion's scripture.
I do not. Without knowing your perspective, I was left to reference the US English common usage. Inferring now that you are not asserting an US Southern Baptist theology, I will correct myself of that misunderstanding.
In that case I retract all inferences of US fundamentalism unless you object. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If I am in error I am happy to amend. I enjoy this forum because of the rich diversity and interesting personas of its members. My tendency to stereotype to US fundamentalism is deeply ingrained. I haven't found any recourse yet than to call a spade a spade. I am all ears, and taking notice of your objections, with curiosity and interest.
Well, not you, but that's my loss. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thank you for this interaction, it deletes one item from that list. As far as the question at hand, (arising from your Southern US impersonation), if there are any practitioners of animal sacrifice, I certainly admit that I have not encountered any in the US, as they do this at night in secret rituals that do not interest me. I would further add that I have encountered animal sacrifice outside of the US, practiced openly.
When you explained that animal sacrifice was to liberate the soul of the animal, were you referring to any particular religions, sects, or cults, if so, which?
If you say "scripture", am I correct to assume you mean the combined sacred writings of the principal world religions, or to include the ancillary and non-canonical writings, or also those of the smaller denominations, sects and cults, or the occult, or also the inspired writings of great authors in general?
Yes, thank you, that was a good and correct observation.
I cant help but notice how Jan turned the conversation around and had AI apologising, meanwhile completely Not answering the original question.
I am interested in what Jan has to say. I still do not fully comprehend. And I made some incorrect inferences from what I understood from Jan's posts. I think that's been straightened out now. Hopefully there will be more repartee.
Well, look at what she did in post 114. U asked her opinion of immortality in non human speices and she pointed just the simple guess u made as being streotyping and wrote quite disparagingly about ur inability to listen and ur stereotyping and that u hadnt come across quite a lot, etc. She made a issue out of total trivials coz what u said was in conflict with the scripture. She bashed u, avoided the question and gave the impression that it was ur fault. That's what I meant.
Man, she would do well as a lawyer.
Separate names with a comma.