Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ted Kirkpatrick and Animal Cruelty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No, I wouldn't cry - I would say - thanks Lady for keeping me alive another few days... Even so, this is a dog that I knew - I would not have any qualms about killing and eating your dog.
    Eat your own dog, you monster! Mine would taste like crap, anyway. He licks his o-ring, fer criminy. Sometimes he even eats my cat's turds.

    Have some dandelions and crickets. Greens and protein are everywhere, so you needn't dine on my dog.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You know there was no real lamb in Nathan's story to David, right? Nathan wanted David to realize that he was the Rich man who took away the "lamb"

    5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

    7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’


    So whether men have empathy towards animals or not, this is just a bad section of scripture to make your point with.
    It was a beautiful example that was based in real attitudes that some people had about animals. It would have been a strange parable to tell David if David were not already somewhat familiar with pet sheep having the capacity to be "daughter like."

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    hepherds did care for their sheep, nobody has disputed that. Sheep were not generally slaughtered either, they were raised for their wool and not their meat. But they did eat lamb once in a while, and sacrificed them during passover. And a sacrifice is not a sacrifice if it doesn't mean a lot to the person doing the sacrificing.

    But I still don't get your point. Everyone agrees that humans like animals and can even love them. We also eat various animals and raise them for food. I have a great deal more empathy for a dog (since I do have a pet) than I do for a cow. Why? Because I am separated from the cow being slaughtered. I don't have to butcher my own steaks. But many ranchers still do.

    I always liked the way the American Indians treated their kills. Thanking God for the animal and making sure they used as much of it as possible. Treating the animal's death as a sacrifice for their use and living. I think we need more of that attitude today.
    I agree. Native Americans had much more empathy and respect for their kills rather than sacrificing them for propitiation purposes like the Jews and Greeks did. They had a more realistic and resourceful view re: nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    You'd still cry, though, meaning you wouldn't be able to turn off your empathy.
    No, I wouldn't cry - I would say - thanks Lady for keeping me alive another few days... Even so, this is a dog that I knew - I would not have any qualms about killing and eating your dog.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    You know there was no real lamb in Nathan's story to David, right? Nathan wanted David to realize that he was the Rich man who took away the "lamb"

    5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

    7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’


    So whether men have empathy towards animals or not, this is just a bad section of scripture to make your point with.

    Shepherds did care for their sheep, nobody has disputed that. Sheep were not generally slaughtered either, since they were raised for their wool and not their meat. But they did eat lamb once in a while, and sacrificed them during passover. And a sacrifice is not a sacrifice if it doesn't mean a lot to the person doing the sacrificing.

    But I still don't get your point. Everyone agrees that humans like animals and can even love them. We also eat various animals and raise them for food. I have a great deal more empathy for a dog (since I do have a pet) than I do for a cow. Why? Because I am separated from the cow being slaughtered. I don't have to butcher my own steaks. But many ranchers still do.

    I always liked the way the American Indians treated their kills. Thanking God for the animal and making sure they used as much of it as possible. Treating the animal's death as a sacrifice for their use and living. I think we need more of that attitude today.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I've seen people do that to other human beings, so I don't see why some can't do it for animals.
    I don't think that's a matter of flipping a switch. Circumstances such as offenses committed factor into the transition from compassion to lack of empathy. Interestingly, the same applies to loving one's enemies. Love and hate can't be reduced to switch flipping, which is why loving one's enemies is very hard to actualize.
    Last edited by whag; 12-10-2014, 01:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Sure, if I was hungry enough...
    You'd still cry, though, meaning you wouldn't be able to turn off your empathy.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Apparently not. David was outraged at the man in Nathan's parable due to the injustice done to the man who owned the lamb. I highly doubt it was a "pet" too. It was likely kept for it's wool, or intended to be a meal/sacrifice at some point.



    I didn't argue that at all. In fact, it's pretty clear in the first parable that there was emotion for the "lamb", but the "lamb" was a representative Bathsheba. What you are calling "nuance" is most certainly eisegesis. You are reading your own modern ideas into the text.

    As for the other example I misunderstood what you were talking about since you said "story of a trapped lamb". That's not quite what it was at all. It was an example of how people would obviously react if their own animal had been trapped.

    Matthew 12:10-12New International Version (NIV)

    10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

    11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

    It was still not about the "plight of our animal kin", but a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of His opponents.



    I never said that people in the ANE had no compassion for animals, just that you picked poor examples to make your point. Adrift gave far better ones.



    I'm trying to stay out of discussing the topic of evolution. That's why I've been doing my best to stay out of Nat. Sci. 301. So, don't take it personally that I'm not making a substantial response to this part of your post.

    "He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him."

    It was like a daughter to him. Also, the shepherd in Jesus' parable cares for the trapped in the same way a father cares for his son. That's the point of that parable. People at the time related to these stories because they also had close relations with them, sleeping with them and whatnot.

    Granted, Adrift gave good examples of how our compassion for animals is innate, which means it's programmed. Enculturation amplifies that compassion to an extent.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    If you can turn off your empathy at will, I could tell you to stop loving your dog and you'd be able to flip off that switch?
    Sure, if I was hungry enough...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    If you can turn off your empathy at will, I could tell you to stop loving your dog and you'd be able to flip off that switch?
    I've seen people do that to other human beings, so I don't see why some can't do it for animals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    I know exactly what they're about.
    Apparently not. David was outraged at the man in Nathan's parable due to the injustice done to the man who owned the lamb. I highly doubt it was a "pet" too. It was likely kept for it's wool, or intended to be a meal/sacrifice at some point.

    Unless you're arguing that the pet lamb's owners didn't have a semblance of love for their lamb and the shepherd didn't have compassion for his trapped lamb, you don't have a point. There's nuance in these stories.
    I didn't argue that at all. In fact, it's pretty clear in the first parable that there was emotion for the "lamb", but the "lamb" was a representative Bathsheba. What you are calling "nuance" is most certainly eisegesis. You are reading your own modern ideas into the text.

    As for the other example I misunderstood what you were talking about since you said "story of a trapped lamb". That's not quite what it was at all. It was an example of how people would obviously react if their own animal had been trapped.

    Matthew 12:10-12New International Version (NIV)

    10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

    11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

    It was still not about the "plight of our animal kin", but a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of His opponents.

    To reiterate, it's not either/or. People in the ANE had compassion and empathy for animals. It was decidedly less, just as some modern cultures today have differing degrees of compassion for animals, depending on species, etc. Compassion is programmed and cultural.
    I never said that people in the ANE had no compassion for animals, just that you picked poor examples to make your point. Adrift gave far better ones.

    Our evolutionary history with wolves is a good example. They used to eat us, and then they became our helpers.
    I'm trying to stay out of discussing the topic of evolution. That's why I've been doing my best to stay out of Nat. Sci. 301. So, don't take it personally that I'm not making a substantial response to this part of your post.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    So what is your goal? To start a thread then insult anyone that replies to it?
    No, seer claimed empathy could be shut off at will, and then I posed a question to him about that. How is that an insult?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    If you can turn off your empathy at will, I could tell you to stop loving your dog and you'd be able to flip off that switch?
    So what is your goal? To start a thread then insult anyone that replies to it?

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well it seems that we can turn off our our empathy at will. And that is the point, it is not a "programmed" behavior.
    If you can turn off your empathy at will, I could tell you to stop loving your dog and you'd be able to flip off that switch?

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Because of the injustice done to the man who owned it, not due to the slaughtering of the lamb.



    That's a parable about people who are lost. So, it wasn't about the "plight of our animal kin", but the way God treats those who are lost.

    Bad examples for the intended point.
    I know exactly what they're about. Unless you're arguing that the pet lamb's owners didn't have a semblance of love for their lamb and the shepherd didn't have compassion for his trapped lamb, you don't have a point. There's nuance in these stories.

    To reiterate, it's not either/or. People in the ANE had compassion and empathy for animals. It was decidedly less, just as some modern cultures today have differing degrees of compassion for animals, depending on species, etc. Compassion is programmed and cultural.

    Our evolutionary history with wolves is a good example. They used to eat us, and then they became our helpers.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    Evolution programmed us to be capable of empathy. That was necessary for us to exist as a social species. Our empathy is triggered by certain sensory data, mostly visual. Evolution had no occasion to fine-tune our brains to the point where our empathy could not be triggered by similar data from creatures not of our own species.
    To me, this seems to be a personification, if not deification (in the Platonic sense), of evolution, and an ad hoc, at best, explanation for why we are a social species.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by One Bad Pig, 11-17-2022, 01:47 PM
20 responses
29 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 08-29-2022, 02:12 PM
356 responses
1,620 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, 08-11-2021, 09:24 AM
36 responses
287 views
2 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X