4 ms·

AIUI the western view of animals was via the bible, of resources provided to us by god, a gift to humanity; there to be used however we wanted.

jbotz 4y ago
Except that's not precisely what the bible says, at least not exclusively. The bible is a big, heterogeneous book, you can find a bit of everything in it, and there are passages that specifically say that it's our responsibility to take care of nature and that we should treat our animals with kindness. Proverbs 12:10 ESV / 26: "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beasts".
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Okay, sounds like you know your stuff, but yet Genesis 9:2-3 - The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Genesis 1:26-28 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” I understand what you're saying though.
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    Are you interpreting "dominion" in the worst possible way? A King has dominion over his subjects and yet we'd say he is a bad king of he treated them harshly. Why should having dominion over animals mean anything more than caring for them? I realise it's open to interpretation, but so is the entire Bible. I don't really think the passage you quoted can be taken a single way.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      In a barely literate pre-industrial culture, yes, dominion = abuse. I know firsthand how peasants treat animals, and if you went to a country in poverty you'd see it too. And it is explicit in one quote Genesis 9:2-3 - The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. Everything in dread of mankind (ok, 'dread' may have changed its meaning a bit), and - explicitly - "shall be food for you". Again: "food".
      - cfiggers 4y ago
        > In a barely literate pre-industrial culture, yes, dominion = abuse. That's a pretty cynical interpretation. You may know that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. The Hebrew word that is sometimes translated "dominion" in Genesis 1 is the word וּרְד֞וּ (root verb רדה), which simply means "to be king/queen over." It does not connote abuse at all. But here, let me prove that. The same word appears in the Hebrew Law: Leviticus 25:43 - "Do not >rule< over them ruthlessly, but fear your God." If the word רדה automatically connotes abuse, then this is a nonsensical command. "Do not _abuse_ them abusively"...? No. רדה just means "have royal rule over." It can be done "ruthlessly," or it can be done in a way that "fear[s] your God." Genesis and Leviticus were written by the same primary author (Moses) in the same couple-decade span of time. A single person's lifespan is not enough time for radical vocabulary shift in an ancient context (remember, ancient cultures did not change as fast as ours—their language could remain relatively stable over hundreds of years, as proven by hundreds of ancient documents). > Everything in dread of mankind (ok, 'dread' may have changed its meaning a bit), and - explicitly - "shall be food for you". Again: "food". "Dread" just describes the default reaction of animals to humans. When was the last time a squirrel came up to you just to hang out? Undomesticated animals run away from humans, that's all that means. That does not at all connote a Scriptural authorization to exploit nature with reckless abandon, which seems to be the high-level position you're arguing for. And in a society without the capacity for industrial scale murder farms like we have, mere authorization to _eat_ animals (you say twice—"food") does not suggest at all divine permission to _drive entire species to extinction._
  - mellavora 4y ago
    > Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you So, bring on the beetle soup!
- marcinreal 4y ago
  > The bible is a big, heterogeneous book, you can find a bit of everything in it Concerning the animal question, the Bible is clear and consistent: mankind was supposed to faithfully steward God's creation and all that lives in it. Man has utterly failed, which is why you can't even go in the woods without getting 20 ticks, and practically every plant you find is invasive and not good for food. The present Earth is falling apart, due to man's imperfect sin nature. The confusion in this discussion arises from a conflation of mainstream Republican thought with what the Bible actually says. Edit: "God destroys those who destroy the earth." ~ Revelation 11:18. We see a consistent message from the beginning of the Bible (Genesis) to the end.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    I won't judge you or your comment but I have to say as a rationalist(?) and atheist, it seems very odd to suggest the natural world would be a kind place if we were less destructive to it. By kind I mean non-infectious, non-aggressive, non-carnivorous etc. (as I read you anyway) Another way, I don't see that the lion would lie down with the lamb in any circumstances. I don't dispute that we're destroying the world, just questioning that in the absence of said destruction we would be in an eden where they, lion and lamb, would. Curious for your response, if any.
    - marcinreal 4y ago
      The Bible does say we were supposed to live in an idyllic garden, Eden, before Adam's first sin. All the animals were tame, and will be tame again. Now I tend to take the Bible literally, but the important thing is that this story indicates how desperately fallen we are. It points to our need for a savior, Jesus -- who is God, because only God could get the job done.
      - zasdffaa 4y ago
        We couldn't be further apart in many ways, but in being 'fallen' from what we could have been... yeah, we're strangely indistinguishable. Thanks for your reply, it's appreciated.

jbotz 4y ago

Except that's not precisely what the bible says, at least not exclusively. The bible is a big, heterogeneous book, you can find a bit of everything in it, and there are passages that specifically say that it's our responsibility to take care of nature and that we should treat our animals with kindness. Proverbs 12:10 ESV / 26: "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beasts".

zasdffaa 4y ago
Okay, sounds like you know your stuff, but yet Genesis 9:2-3 - The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Genesis 1:26-28 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” I understand what you're saying though.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  Are you interpreting "dominion" in the worst possible way? A King has dominion over his subjects and yet we'd say he is a bad king of he treated them harshly. Why should having dominion over animals mean anything more than caring for them? I realise it's open to interpretation, but so is the entire Bible. I don't really think the passage you quoted can be taken a single way.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    In a barely literate pre-industrial culture, yes, dominion = abuse. I know firsthand how peasants treat animals, and if you went to a country in poverty you'd see it too. And it is explicit in one quote Genesis 9:2-3 - The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. Everything in dread of mankind (ok, 'dread' may have changed its meaning a bit), and - explicitly - "shall be food for you". Again: "food".
    - cfiggers 4y ago
      > In a barely literate pre-industrial culture, yes, dominion = abuse. That's a pretty cynical interpretation. You may know that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. The Hebrew word that is sometimes translated "dominion" in Genesis 1 is the word וּרְד֞וּ (root verb רדה), which simply means "to be king/queen over." It does not connote abuse at all. But here, let me prove that. The same word appears in the Hebrew Law: Leviticus 25:43 - "Do not >rule< over them ruthlessly, but fear your God." If the word רדה automatically connotes abuse, then this is a nonsensical command. "Do not _abuse_ them abusively"...? No. רדה just means "have royal rule over." It can be done "ruthlessly," or it can be done in a way that "fear[s] your God." Genesis and Leviticus were written by the same primary author (Moses) in the same couple-decade span of time. A single person's lifespan is not enough time for radical vocabulary shift in an ancient context (remember, ancient cultures did not change as fast as ours—their language could remain relatively stable over hundreds of years, as proven by hundreds of ancient documents). > Everything in dread of mankind (ok, 'dread' may have changed its meaning a bit), and - explicitly - "shall be food for you". Again: "food". "Dread" just describes the default reaction of animals to humans. When was the last time a squirrel came up to you just to hang out? Undomesticated animals run away from humans, that's all that means. That does not at all connote a Scriptural authorization to exploit nature with reckless abandon, which seems to be the high-level position you're arguing for. And in a society without the capacity for industrial scale murder farms like we have, mere authorization to _eat_ animals (you say twice—"food") does not suggest at all divine permission to _drive entire species to extinction._
- mellavora 4y ago
  > Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you So, bring on the beetle soup!
marcinreal 4y ago
> The bible is a big, heterogeneous book, you can find a bit of everything in it Concerning the animal question, the Bible is clear and consistent: mankind was supposed to faithfully steward God's creation and all that lives in it. Man has utterly failed, which is why you can't even go in the woods without getting 20 ticks, and practically every plant you find is invasive and not good for food. The present Earth is falling apart, due to man's imperfect sin nature. The confusion in this discussion arises from a conflation of mainstream Republican thought with what the Bible actually says. Edit: "God destroys those who destroy the earth." ~ Revelation 11:18. We see a consistent message from the beginning of the Bible (Genesis) to the end.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  I won't judge you or your comment but I have to say as a rationalist(?) and atheist, it seems very odd to suggest the natural world would be a kind place if we were less destructive to it. By kind I mean non-infectious, non-aggressive, non-carnivorous etc. (as I read you anyway) Another way, I don't see that the lion would lie down with the lamb in any circumstances. I don't dispute that we're destroying the world, just questioning that in the absence of said destruction we would be in an eden where they, lion and lamb, would. Curious for your response, if any.
  - marcinreal 4y ago
    The Bible does say we were supposed to live in an idyllic garden, Eden, before Adam's first sin. All the animals were tame, and will be tame again. Now I tend to take the Bible literally, but the important thing is that this story indicates how desperately fallen we are. It points to our need for a savior, Jesus -- who is God, because only God could get the job done.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      We couldn't be further apart in many ways, but in being 'fallen' from what we could have been... yeah, we're strangely indistinguishable. Thanks for your reply, it's appreciated.