|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2016 15:43:47 GMT -5
I'm curious, Maryhig. Do you have the eucharist (bread and wine) in your meetings? Yes we do What do they mean to you?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 3, 2016 16:17:53 GMT -5
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
Jesus forgave sins under the old covenant. The new did not take place until His death. A will or testament does not come into effect until the person had died. Believing in His life is not enough but that through his blood we are saved. How could His blood save before it had been shed on the Cross but people still were forgiven. Under the New covenent or testament we are saved through his blood which he shed on the Cross. He said it is finished after the Cross.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 3, 2016 17:43:22 GMT -5
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. How does killing an animal or a human solve anything? What is the theory behind sacrifice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 18:25:36 GMT -5
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. How does killing an animal or a human solve anything? What is the theory behind sacrifice? I think that this all boils down to whether one is a believer or not. The offering up of sacrifices in the bible is to be regarded as a divine institution. God himself appointed it as the mode in which acceptable worship was to be offered to him by guilty man. The language and the idea of sacrifice pervade the whole Bible. And today, under the new covenant, those who believe try to offer up their bodies daily as a living sacrifice. I agree that, to a non-believer, the whole idea of offering up a sacrifice sounds bonkers but to a believer it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by pa on May 3, 2016 18:42:29 GMT -5
A bit like a lifesaver on the beach. Once the lifesaver has grabbed the drowning swimmer and got him to hold on to the lifebuoy then he had saved him from a watery grave. Now that swimmer needs to hold on and stay with the lifesaver to reach the side safely. The swimmer will need to be saved every now and then if he lets go of the buoy, however as long as he holds on he doesn't need to be saved as he is OK. He doesn't need to be saved from the watery grave again and again, because he is holding on. He's inability to swim (sin) which caused him in the first place to almost go to a watery grave has been taken care of. A bit like Peter when he walked on the water, he sank and Jesus saved him by grabbing his hand. He was saved then. He wasn't being saved the whole time he spend after that in the boat with Jesus. Should he get out of the boat, yes then he would need to be saved again.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 3, 2016 20:40:18 GMT -5
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. How does killing an animal or a human solve anything? What is the theory behind sacrifice? A great question, Rational, that requires far more than a 2 sentence answer (which I don't have time to give at present!) It's essentially to do with substitutionary atonement. Eg. When you commit sin, how is that atoned for? Can you ask forgiveness? Make restitution? Sometimes, oftentimes. But sometimes you can't. You can never really make restitution to someone you have harmed, damaged (or even killed). Moreover, we can't make restitution to our Creator when we sin against his standards, his laws. Most of us want forgiveness and restoration for ourselves. But when someone sins against us, mostly we want justice. How you balance the need for justice against the individual plea for mercy? God is a God of complete justice, and all sins must be accounted for, and punished. And yet he is also willing to give complete forgiveness. But what is the price of such forgiveness? If just offered, no matter what, then it makes a mockery of justice. The animal sacrifices only ever pointed forward to a time when the once-for-all sacrifice would be offered - God himself, in the form of man (as Jesus). He himself pays the price, takes the punishment for our sin against him. It's like your friend being in immense debt and will go to jail if they don't pay. You pay the debt on his behalf, and free him. He can never repay you, but his gratitude towards you would be overwhelmingly grateful. Here is a first resource: www.gotquestions.org/blood-sacrifice.html
|
|
|
Post by churchmouse on May 3, 2016 20:56:31 GMT -5
If that is the case, it doesn't matter where... then there is no need to take the emblems... Then why, some feel the need to take the emblems at conventions... MOST of the friends and workers don't take the emblems at convention around the world but they remember Jesus on Every Sunday morning at conventions. The workers on Sunday morning, who speak on the platform always speak subjects pertain to Jesus life, death on Calvary in rememberance of Him.
Thanks, Pa.... They can keep their emblems at conventions. When they come to USA and many other places, they don't need to take the emblems at conventions on Sunday, I hope they don't mind. However, I hope they will respect our custom and we will respect theirs.
I know many Africans visitor workers come to USA and they respect our custom NO, emblems at convention. When the USA workers go to Australia, South Africa conventions, they will respect their ways of doing things and take the emblems. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
Emblems at conventions is obviously a local thing - US workers have tried in vain to stop it on the basis that the convention is not a home. Seems to me that those US workers are tied up in legalisms ie saying that they can only be taken in a home. Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer is something that we can remember every day - we don't need to take emblems to do that. But obviously, when in a group situation Christ felt it was important to do. There is nothing to say how frequently it should be done and there is nothing to say it couldn't be done at a mid-week Bible study meeting for instance. BBM This explains something someone once told me, and what she said bolsters this thought. A woman who started having meeting in her home told me that the overseer told her she was never to take the emblems out of her house. So, there is something considered reverential about the home, just like many other religions consider the church building reverential.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 3, 2016 21:43:09 GMT -5
Can any of you tell me if you believe that Jesus is talking about his natural blood here?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me
When you take the bread and wine, is it real blood you are drinking? And why do you think you have to drink the blood of Christ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 3, 2016 21:53:10 GMT -5
How does killing an animal or a human solve anything? What is the theory behind sacrifice? I think that this all boils down to whether one is a believer or not. The offering up of sacrifices in the bible is to be regarded as a divine institution. God himself appointed it as the mode in which acceptable worship was to be offered to him by guilty man. The language and the idea of sacrifice pervade the whole Bible. And today, under the new covenant, those who believe try to offer up their bodies daily as a living sacrifice. I agree that, to a non-believer, the whole idea of offering up a sacrifice sounds bonkers but to a believer it makes sense. Not so sure it is a believer/non-believer issue. How does it make sense? What does it accomplish? How does killing a dove/slaughtering a goat/sacrificing a human change anything? If you abuse a child how many animals would you need to sacrifice to make it alright?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 3, 2016 21:53:16 GMT -5
What do they mean to you? Jesus doesn't say to drink the blood to remember his death on the cross, he said to drink it in remembrance of him! I remember all his life and all of him, not just his death on the cross. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is talking about the bread and the wine, after speaking about Jesus taking the bread and the wine and us drinking from his cup, Paul said this..... "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." How can we, show Jesus' natural death on the cross? What death is he talking about if not Jesus' natural death?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 3, 2016 22:08:43 GMT -5
Can any of you tell me if you believe that Jesus is talking about his natural blood here? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me When you take the bread and wine, is it real blood you are drinking? And why do you think you have to drink the blood of Christ? How the Eucharist Was Celebrated Apostolic fathers' writings: ~~ Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) On the "Sunday! all who live in cities or in the country gather together to "ONE" place. And the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the readers have ceased, the president verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then before, when our prayer is ended, "Bread & Wine" are brought. Then, the president in the like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying, "AMEN." Then the Bread and Wine is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in that over which thanks have been given." "Now concerning the Eucharist [Thanksgiving], give thanks in this manner: First, concerning the cup: "We thank you, our Father, for the knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your Servant. To be the glory forever. And concerning the broken [Bread] was scattered over the hills and was gathered together and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.
But, let no one eat or drink or your Eucharist, but those who have been "Baptized" into the name of the Lord." Then there is brought to the president of the Bread and a cup of the Wine. He takes them and gives praise and glory to the Father of the Universe. And when the President has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present the Bread & Wine, having ended the prayers we greet one another. Interpretations of "Body" and "Blood":~~~ Clement of Alexandria (A.D.195) But EVERY Lord's Day, gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgression, that your sacrifice may be pure". Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by "Symbols" when Jesus said: "Eat my flesh and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor and drinkable properties faith. The flesh "Figuratively" represents to us the Holy Spirit, for the flesh was created by Him. The blood indicates to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has infused into life. To Christ, the fulfilling of His Father's will was food. And to us infants, who drink the milk of the Word of the Heaven, Christ Himself is food. But He said, "And the bread that I will give is my flesh." Now, flesh is nourished with blood, and the blood is "figuratively" called wine. "Take, drink. This is my blood." The blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins," Jesus says that, not only He is the vine, but that He is also the Bread of life. Bread nourishes and makes strong. On the other hand, vine pleases, rejoices, and relaxes man. So, perhaps it can be said that ethical studies are the bread of life, for they bring life to him who learns them and practices them. The bread signifies His body. For He himself is the food and life of all who believe in the flesh that he bored.But I'm asking, is it Jesus' natural blood you are drinking, and is Jesus talking about his natural blood in those verses I have quoted? I'll ask you this question also What do you think this following verse means? 1 Corinthians 11 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 3, 2016 22:21:37 GMT -5
How does killing an animal or a human solve anything? What is the theory behind sacrifice? A great question, Rational, that requires far more than a 2 sentence answer (which I don't have time to give at present!) It's essentially to do with substitutionary atonement. Eg. When you commit sin, how is that atoned for? Can you ask forgiveness? Make restitution? Sometimes, oftentimes. But sometimes you can't. You can never really make restitution to someone you have harmed, damaged (or even killed). Moreover, we can't make restitution to our Creator when we sin against his standards, his laws. Most of us want forgiveness and restoration for ourselves. But when someone sins against us, mostly we want justice. How you balance the need for justice against the individual plea for mercy? God is a God of complete justice, and all sins must be accounted for, and punished. And yet he is also willing to give complete forgiveness. But what is the price of such forgiveness? If just offered, no matter what, then it makes a mockery of justice. The animal sacrifices only ever pointed forward to a time when the once-for-all sacrifice would be offered - God himself, in the form of man (as Jesus). He himself pays the price, takes the punishment for our sin against him. I would place this, and the reference provided below, all in the area of being a postdiction. Explain how killing an animal atones for some wrong committed. Yes, this does make sense. You owe someone something of value and your friend provides that value to satisfy the debt. Killing an animal or person provides nothing. You end up with a dead entity. And from Abraham's reaction, child sacrifice was not uncommon. It doesn't explain how shedding blood changes anything. Why does killing atone for sin? I think the issue is that this is all wound up in metaphors. The real meaning is lost. Anyone who has visited an abattoir will quickly be dissuaded from the notion that the blood of the lamb will make anything as white as snow.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 3, 2016 22:28:28 GMT -5
When you take the bread and wine, is it real blood you are drinking? And why do you think you have to drink the blood of Christ? If the doctrine of your denomination believes in transubstantiation then yes. But you might need to read about the accidents and substance as they relate to the eucharist. Here's a start...
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 3, 2016 22:42:35 GMT -5
When you take the bread and wine, is it real blood you are drinking? And why do you think you have to drink the blood of Christ? If the doctrine of your denomination believes in transubstantiation then yes. But you might need to read about the accidents and substance as they relate to the eucharist. Here's a start...I will read that rational, thanks. Although I will never understand how people can believe they are drinking Jesus' natural blood.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 3, 2016 22:54:23 GMT -5
A great question, Rational, that requires far more than a 2 sentence answer (which I don't have time to give at present!) It's essentially to do with substitutionary atonement. Eg. When you commit sin, how is that atoned for? Can you ask forgiveness? Make restitution? Sometimes, oftentimes. But sometimes you can't. You can never really make restitution to someone you have harmed, damaged (or even killed). Moreover, we can't make restitution to our Creator when we sin against his standards, his laws. Most of us want forgiveness and restoration for ourselves. But when someone sins against us, mostly we want justice. How you balance the need for justice against the individual plea for mercy? God is a God of complete justice, and all sins must be accounted for, and punished. And yet he is also willing to give complete forgiveness. But what is the price of such forgiveness? If just offered, no matter what, then it makes a mockery of justice. The animal sacrifices only ever pointed forward to a time when the once-for-all sacrifice would be offered - God himself, in the form of man (as Jesus). He himself pays the price, takes the punishment for our sin against him. I would place this, and the reference provided below, all in the area of being a postdiction. Explain how killing an animal atones for some wrong committed. Yes, this does make sense. You owe someone something of value and your friend provides that value to satisfy the debt. Killing an animal or person provides nothing. You end up with a dead entity. And from Abraham's reaction, child sacrifice was not uncommon. It doesn't explain how shedding blood changes anything. Why does killing atone for sin? I think the issue is that this is all wound up in metaphors. The real meaning is lost. Anyone who has visited an abattoir will quickly be dissuaded from the notion that the blood of the lamb will make anything as white as snow. Simple answer shed blood and sacrificial killing are primitive ideas that have stuck around albeit in modified form. Killing does not atone for sin. People will interpret as it suits them, but there are bible verses even that straight out say God does not desire sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 3, 2016 22:57:12 GMT -5
If the doctrine of your denomination believes in transubstantiation then yes. But you might need to read about the accidents and substance as they relate to the eucharist. Here's a start...I will read that rational, thanks. Although I will never understand how people can believe they are drinking Jesus' natural blood. I think you should keep your interpretation on this one maryhig any blood sacrifice for sin interpretation is just theology anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 3, 2016 22:58:17 GMT -5
I think that this all boils down to whether one is a believer or not. The offering up of sacrifices in the bible is to be regarded as a divine institution. God himself appointed it as the mode in which acceptable worship was to be offered to him by guilty man. The language and the idea of sacrifice pervade the whole Bible. And today, under the new covenant, those who believe try to offer up their bodies daily as a living sacrifice. I agree that, to a non-believer, the whole idea of offering up a sacrifice sounds bonkers but to a believer it makes sense. Not so sure it is a believer/non-believer issue. How does it make sense? What does it accomplish? How does killing a dove/slaughtering a goat/sacrificing a human change anything? If you abuse a child how many animals would you need to sacrifice to make it alright? If you abuse a child (or commit any kind of sin), then no amount of animal sacrifices will make it alright. In fact no sin is "alright". The animal sacrifices only ever reminded people of the existence of sin, and its need for judgement, and the need for a solution. This is not a "hail mary" type of a thing. Sin needs to be truly recognised, and forgiveness sought, in order to be given. God is not mocked, he knows the heart. It is also important to remember two different issues here - eternal and temporal consequences. Forgiveness of sins by God does not negate earthly consequences as a result of that sin. For this reason, a worker (or priest, pastor!) should never tell a CSA victim to "just forgive". It is not just a forgiveness issue, it is a criminal issue. The CSA perpetrator may seek forgiveness from God, and from their victim, but they still need to face charges and punishment from earthly authorities and governments, which God has instituted for this purpose. You asked "how does [it] change anything?" Whatever sins we commit, can be forgiven, and we can be restored to a relationship with our creator. Mercy can given, forgiveness can be granted, judgement can be meted out, justice met. Because all these things are possible with God, we are entreated to behave like this is our personal earthly relationships as well. As we have been forgiven, we need to forgive others. But authorities still "brandish the sword" to mete out civil punishment here on earth. We are the only creatures made in the image of God, with this inbuilt sense of justice and morality, with God as the ultimate judge and lawgiver. It does not belong to the animals, it belongs to us, the sons of God. No matter how close the monkeys are to us in DNA, you can be assured they are not discussing these issues on the internet or elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 3, 2016 23:13:03 GMT -5
Not so sure it is a believer/non-believer issue. How does it make sense? What does it accomplish? How does killing a dove/slaughtering a goat/sacrificing a human change anything? If you abuse a child how many animals would you need to sacrifice to make it alright? If you abuse a child (or commit any kind of sin), then no amount of animal sacrifices will make it alright. In fact no sin is "alright". The animal sacrifices only ever reminded people of the existence of sin, and its need for judgement, and the need for a solution. This is not a "hail mary" type of a thing. Sin needs to be truly recognised, and forgiveness sought, in order to be given. God is not mocked, he knows the heart. It is also important to remember two different issues here - eternal and temporal consequences. Forgiveness of sins by God does not negate earthly consequences as a result of that sin. For this reason, a worker (or priest, pastor!) should never tell a CSA victim to "just forgive". It is not just a forgiveness issue, it is a criminal issue. The CSA perpetrator may seek forgiveness from God, and from their victim, but they still need to face charges and punishment from earthly authorities and governments, which God has instituted for this purpose. You asked "how does [it] change anything?" Whatever sins we commit, can be forgiven, and we can be restored to a relationship with our creator. Mercy can given, forgiveness can be granted, judgement can be meted out, justice met. Because all these things are possible with God, we are entreated to behave like this is our personal earthly relationships as well. As we have been forgiven, we need to forgive others. But authorities still "brandish the sword" to mete out civil punishment here on earth. We are the only creatures made in the image of God, with this inbuilt sense of justice and morality, with God as the ultimate judge and lawgiver. It does not belong to the animals, it belongs to us, the sons of God. No matter how close the monkeys are to us in DNA, you can be assured they are not discussing these issues on the internet or elsewhere. I'm lost. If God is capable of mercy and forgiveness why do you think god needs some sort of blood sacrifice?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 3, 2016 23:16:23 GMT -5
1) But I'm asking, is it Jesus' natural blood you are drinking, NOT his natural blood... The wine was symbolic as his Natural blood.2) and is Jesus talking about his natural blood in those verses I have quoted? No, the Jews and many of his own disciples thought Jesus was talking of drinking his natural blood... In Luke 22 Jesus explained drinking the wine/as his blood, and eating the bread/as his body.3) I'll ask you this question also What do you think this following verse means? 1 Corinthians 11 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. I Cor. 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (NIV)
We are to keep taken the bread and wine commandment/ceremonial practices until Jesus returns.
The wine as his blood is only a symbol. We must show the lords death till he comes. Jesus was dead long before he died on the cross. It talks in Isaiah of Jesus and it says Isaiah 11 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears It also says of Jesus that his voice was not heard in the street Jesus came not by the seeing of his own eyes, or the hearing of his own ears, nor by his own voice. He was dead to self will and full of the living God. And the death we show is death to self. We must die to the world and be alive in God. Jesus poured out his life, and that life is his blood. And that life needs to be poured into us. Then we should live it out. These following verses do they mean natural blood and flesh? No they don't! The following verses don't mean drinking wine and eating natural bread either. They mean taking all of Jesus in to have life in us. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Read the last sentence "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.' If we eat Jesus we will live by him, we don't naturally eat him, we take him all in, then live it out. Living our life by him.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 4, 2016 0:15:50 GMT -5
What do they mean to you? Jesus doesn't say to drink the blood to remember his death on the cross, he said to drink it in remembrance of him! I remember all his life and all of him, not just his death on the cross. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is talking about the bread and the wine, after speaking about Jesus taking the bread and the wine and us drinking from his cup, Paul said this..... "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." How can we, show Jesus' natural death on the cross? What death is he talking about if not Jesus' natural death? I realize it is in remembrance of his physical death. What I'm wondering about is what you consider so important about his death that you have a ritual to remember it, rather than any other event in his life. I don't need scripture for it -- just what you think about that is all I'm wondering about.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 4, 2016 0:19:37 GMT -5
Can any of you tell me if you believe that Jesus is talking about his natural blood here? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me When you take the bread and wine, is it real blood you are drinking? And why do you think you have to drink the blood of Christ? According to Catholic doctrine, yes, it is real, once it's been blessed. And don't try to tell them it's only symbolic either.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 4, 2016 0:20:47 GMT -5
Not so sure it is a believer/non-believer issue. How does it make sense? What does it accomplish? How does killing a dove/slaughtering a goat/sacrificing a human change anything? If you abuse a child how many animals would you need to sacrifice to make it alright? We are the only creatures made in the image of God, with this inbuilt sense of justice and morality, with God as the ultimate judge and lawgiver. It does not belong to the animals, it belongs to us, the sons of God. No matter how close the monkeys are to us in DNA, you can be assured they are not discussing these issues on the internet or elsewhere. Hmmmm perhaps we are not the only animals capable of moral behaviour. Dolphins for example exhibit some suprisingly human like traits. Sometimes the way we treat them in captivity I wonder if we are in fact the more immoral ones.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 4, 2016 0:28:22 GMT -5
We are the only creatures made in the image of God, with this inbuilt sense of justice and morality, with God as the ultimate judge and lawgiver. It does not belong to the animals, it belongs to us, the sons of God. No matter how close the monkeys are to us in DNA, you can be assured they are not discussing these issues on the internet or elsewhere. Hmmmm perhaps we are not the only animals capable of moral behaviour. Dolphins for example exhibit some suprisingly human like traits. Sometimes the way we treat them in captivity I wonder if we are in fact the more immoral ones. I believe that a lot of people feel that the only species that one is supposed to treat morally is the human species -- and I normally think those people have a perverted sense of morality even in dealing with humans. I am seriously comforted by governments that see fit to extend moral treatment to all sentient life.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 4, 2016 1:39:20 GMT -5
We are the only creatures made in the image of God, with this i nbuilt sense of justice and morality, with God as the ultimate judge and lawgiver. It does not belong to the animals, it belongs to us, the sons of God. No matter how close the monkeys are to us in DNA, you can be assured they are not discussing these issues on the internet or elsewhere. A couple of observations on that.
1. If indeed humans are the "only creatures made in the image of God, with this inbuilt sense of justice and morality," then we are doing a lousy job of it!
2. If indeed we are "made in the image of GOD with HIS inbuilt sense of justice and morality," then we have a good excuse for doing a lousy job because God HIMSELF was a lousy role model!
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 4, 2016 4:46:53 GMT -5
Hmmmm perhaps we are not the only animals capable of moral behaviour. Dolphins for example exhibit some suprisingly human like traits. Sometimes the way we treat them in captivity I wonder if we are in fact the more immoral ones. I believe that a lot of people feel that the only species that one is supposed to treat morally is the human species -- and I normally think those people have a perverted sense of morality even in dealing with humans. I am seriously comforted by governments that see fit to extend moral treatment to all sentient life. No arguments from me on this, Bob. I think we humans are very accountable to how we treat non-human species. I sometimes wonder if animals are the silent witnesses to how we really treat all other living beings. One of the founders of the RSPCA was Evangelical Christian William Wilberforce, who was also instrumental in abolishing slavery. Proverbs 12:10 The righteous care for the needs of their animals,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 4:52:04 GMT -5
Hmmmm perhaps we are not the only animals capable of moral behaviour. Dolphins for example exhibit some suprisingly human like traits. Sometimes the way we treat them in captivity I wonder if we are in fact the more immoral ones. I believe that a lot of people feel that the only species that one is supposed to treat morally is the human species -- and I normally think those people have a perverted sense of morality even in dealing with humans. I am seriously comforted by governments that see fit to extend moral treatment to all sentient life. I wonder how "moral" you think a lion or wolf or bear are when they kill another animal for food sometimes in the most brutal way?
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 4, 2016 4:54:34 GMT -5
Hmmmm perhaps we are not the only animals capable of moral behaviour. Dolphins for example exhibit some suprisingly human like traits. Sometimes the way we treat them in captivity I wonder if we are in fact the more immoral ones. I believe that a lot of people feel that the only species that one is supposed to treat morally is the human species -- and I normally think those people have a perverted sense of morality even in dealing with humans. I've seen the same. The way a person treats a non human animal says a lot about them. Perhaps as much as the way they treat the cleaner.Me too. At this point in time we don't have a clear idea of the extent to which each type of sentient being might suffer. Better to be kind and over assume than the other way IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 4, 2016 5:06:23 GMT -5
I believe that a lot of people feel that the only species that one is supposed to treat morally is the human species -- and I normally think those people have a perverted sense of morality even in dealing with humans. I am seriously comforted by governments that see fit to extend moral treatment to all sentient life. I wonder how "moral" you think a lion or wolf or bear are when they kill another animal for food sometimes in the most brutal way? I wonder more about the morality of humans killing for sport.
|
|