There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

[John Creeser]

Friends,

We all know the Bible tells us every moving animal on this planet is ours to do with as we please:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

It's also a known FACT, that animals do not feel pain. True Christian(tm) Dr. William Lane Craig explains that here

OK, my point; one of my bleeding heart liberal nieces sent me the picture below today, I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw. I simply could not believe these two young men were being unfairly targeted when the Bible tells us we can do what we want with animals. I mean come on, it's a stupid dog for crying out loud!! Do you know how many dogs I've beaten to death with my bare hands for urinating or defecating in the house? (Or simply not coming when called for).

The stupid dog below is probably enjoying itself. Wake up people, there is no such thing as animal abuse.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

Anointed True Christian™ preaching, Brother. Here's a Bible passage that I like to share with animal-rights activists:

Genesis 9:1-2: And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

From that standpoint, the notion that it's even possible to abuse an animal will be seen as complete nonsense.

[meemie]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

If animals don't feel pain, then why do they limp when they hurt their leg and holler and jump back when you touch it? They bleed, don't they?

The verses you used say nothing about an animal feeling pain (which means it doesn't say if they do or don't) All they say is that humans have permission from God to eat them, and also say humans are just a higher rank since they are made in God's image.

If you don't think animals feel pain, then adopt a pet and beat it all you want. Who's stopping you?


You say the dog's having fun being hung? Huh, I guess that's fun for all of us to hang by the neck. At your kid's next birthday party, bring up that new game where all the kids hang by their necks. Oooh, those kids look like they're having fun.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

The verses you used say nothing about an animal feeling pain (which means it doesn't say if they do or don't) All they say is that humans have permission from God to eat them, and also say humans are just a higher rank since they are made in God's image.

Where is God's permission limited to eating them?

You say the dog's having fun being hung? Huh, I guess that's fun for all of us to hang by the neck. At your kid's next birthday party, bring up that new game where all the kids hang by their necks. Oooh, those kids look like they're having fun.

Dogs != human beings. That's the point of this thread, sunshine.

[meemie]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

Where is God's permission limited to eating them?

I just referred to the two verses used here. I'm not sure if it's limited to eating, though.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This is the ranking I mentioned earlier where humans are placed higher than animals. (Do correct me if I'm wrong) Doesn't say a word about the subject of the OP, where this quote is from.

Genesis 9:1-2: And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Noah gets permission to eat them. Before the flood, meat was not apart of the food chain. All it says here is God saying, yes, you're free to eat the animals. (Like before, correct me if I'm wrong. I'll gladly admit if it's a mistake.)

Dogs != human beings.

The != isn't clear. Was that a typo and meant equal, or is it saying unequal?

[Bjorn Jensen]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

The only animal abuse that exists is to commit sodomy with an animal, and that is only because the Bible says so, not because it's "painful" to the animal or because it "infringes" on the animal's "rights", but simply because it's perverted just like homosexuality, nothing else than that, animals were made for us to hunt, kill and eat, thats the only purpose of their existence!

Leviticus 20:15-16
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

So if you are against beastiality, you have to be against it for the right reasons, that is being against it because God says so, if you are against it just because the alleged so called "animal cruelty" in beastiality like PETA is, then you are just as damned as all other atheists. Notice that God says that both the sodomite human and the sodomite animal should be put to death for commiting sodomy, God does not make any exception for animals that are involved in sodomy, He ain't no PETA member!

[Bjorn Jensen]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

If animals don't feel pain, then why do they limp when they hurt their leg and holler and jump back when you touch it? They bleed, don't they?

They are just faking it to make us think they feel pain

[meemie]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

The only animal abuse that exists is to commit sodomy with an animal

Have to agree, bestiality is disgusting and downright stupid. I'm glad the bible is against that at the very least.

Notice that God says that both the sodomite human and the sodomite animal should be put to death for commiting sodomy, God does not make any exception for animals that are involved in sodomy, He ain't no PETA member!

Truest thing I've heard all day.

[meemie]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

They are just faking it to make us think they feel pain

Are you sure? Positive? Is there a verse with that fact?

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

I don't care if animals feel pain. I was given dominion over them (Genesis 1:28): any so-called "pain" they experience as a consequence of that dominion is implicitly part of God's Plan.

Naturally, if God would've commanded me to consider their physical state, I would gladly obey Him.

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Jack O'fagan]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

Actually there is one animal that does suffer and that is the serpent.

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

The serpent is cursed because it went behind God's back and told the truth to Eve.

Bastard.

That is the only animal suffering I care about. Long may it continue.


YIC

Jack

[Whip of Japheth]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

Too late, the True Christians™ have given the Biblical Answers so I'll give the secular ones according to the natural law also knows as ius naturale.

With a perfect symmetry you can keep just the rights wich you can respect in the others according the corresponding obligations. Life, liberty and private property are the only wich can pass the symmetry test. A convict, for example, loses his rights in the measure that has transgressed it in a the victim/s, whenever it is possible, of course.

Can a lion respect my life?
Can an alligator in my backyard respect my liberty?
Can a monkey in my kitchen respect my private property?

Nonsenses. If some day the animals can understand what is the concept of rights/obligations, drive a car, shot with rifle or gun, write a book, paint a picture, play piano and ask for the suffrage for them perhaps, and only perhaps, I'd give them a try.

Meanwhile the animals are properties and, under this awesome right, can be protected and better than with socialists laws. Try to poison my dog and, suddenly, you will weigh a few ounces more. Depending of the size of the nearest bullets.

What happen if i see a neighbor killing his own dog with cruelty? It is not my dog and not my problem. Of course i am free to stop going to his shop or to do not shake his hand. But i must respect his right to have private property and use it under his own wishes because i have another property and i want to be respected by others.

Animal abuse does not exists, it is just use. And the animals do not have honor or dignity because they do not know what it is...
...Wait, the socialists neither.

[Whip of Japheth]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

This is, probably, the only respectable activity in my country and the liberals are trying to ban. Stupid puercos without artistic and aesthetic sensibility...

[Bjorn Jensen]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

I heard they banned it in Catalonia, so i guess that part has to be even worse and more liberal than the rest of Spain right? This is indeed a very exciting and manly sport, fun for the whole family.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: There is no such thing as "ANIMAL ABUSE!!"

All it says here is God saying, yes, you're free to eat the animals. (Like before, correct me if I'm wrong. I'll gladly admit if it's a mistake.)

That's all it says? How did you get out of the text that that's all it says?

The != isn't clear. Was that a typo and meant equal, or is it saying unequal?

Which is more likely: that I made a typo and meant to say something that contradicted everything else that I said, or that I didn't make a typo and meant to say something that agreed with everything else I said?