4 ms·

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 s

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._
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Calling it cynical is a cheap way to dismiss it, and my experience of seeing it first hand. Well done. Animals there are predominantly seen food and organic machinery (and in the case of stray cats/dogs, pests). > Genesis and Leviticus were written by the same primary author (Moses) "Scholars generally agree that it [Book of Leviticus] developed over a long period of time, reaching its present form during the Persian Period, from 538–332 BC. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy; however, modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, place the books' authorship in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis > does not suggest at all divine permission to _drive entire species to extinction._ I said food, not extinction. You are not arguing in good faith. Let's stop here.
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    You seem to be the one not arguing in good faith. You quote from the Bible to prove your point, and then immediately dismiss counter-quotes by questioning the authorship of the book you originally quoted yourself. The thing with interpretation is: anybody can do it. If the claim you're trying to make is using a passage that is open to interpretation, I would question how solid a claim it is.

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._

zasdffaa 4y ago
Calling it cynical is a cheap way to dismiss it, and my experience of seeing it first hand. Well done. Animals there are predominantly seen food and organic machinery (and in the case of stray cats/dogs, pests). > Genesis and Leviticus were written by the same primary author (Moses) "Scholars generally agree that it [Book of Leviticus] developed over a long period of time, reaching its present form during the Persian Period, from 538–332 BC. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy; however, modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, place the books' authorship in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis > does not suggest at all divine permission to _drive entire species to extinction._ I said food, not extinction. You are not arguing in good faith. Let's stop here.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  You seem to be the one not arguing in good faith. You quote from the Bible to prove your point, and then immediately dismiss counter-quotes by questioning the authorship of the book you originally quoted yourself. The thing with interpretation is: anybody can do it. If the claim you're trying to make is using a passage that is open to interpretation, I would question how solid a claim it is.