Um…that’s what I said at the start of this challenge.
Depends what you mean by ‘value.’ A dog can be said to be more ‘valuable’ than a rooster because it is a superior form of life. Doesn’t necessarily mean the ‘value’ that the dog has to you.
Yeah, brilliant.
Okay coach. You’re still in check BTW.[/quote]
So laws that could potentially imprison a man and/or infringe a man’s rights should come down to the “relative and arbitrary personal judgment of species value”?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< please put forth your evidence that animals have “souls”.
i’ll be waiting.
[/quote]I truly don’t wanna hijack this thread, but I know how much you enjoy my posts and would feel myself remiss if I were to forego this opportunity to comfort you with my antique fundamentalist insight.
Biblically speaking, animals ARE souls. (same word in the Hebrew) They are not however souls created in the image of God and are specifically said by God Himself to be given under the dominion of man to be used by man for his good and advancement under God for His glory. This includes food, clothing, medical research and sport. There will be a fine line here and there, but that’s the abbreviated version of the principle.
[/quote]
Humans wrote the bible, with how they think. god didn’t sit down and write the bible.
and plants do not have a brain, a nervous system. they are not self aware, which is the crux of being alive.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< please put forth your evidence that animals have “souls”.
i’ll be waiting.
[/quote]I truly don’t wanna hijack this thread, but I know how much you enjoy my posts and would feel myself remiss if I were to forego this opportunity to comfort you with my antique fundamentalist insight.
Biblically speaking, animals ARE souls. (same word in the Hebrew) They are not however souls created in the image of God and are specifically said by God Himself to be given under the dominion of man to be used by man for his good and advancement under God for His glory. This includes food, clothing, medical research and sport. There will be a fine line here and there, but that’s the abbreviated version of the principle.
[/quote]
provide the scripture.
you do any other time.
does not refute my argument though; not even on religious grounds.
if there is a religious “fine line here and there” provide the scriptural reference.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< provide the scripture.
you do any other time.
does not refute my argument though; not even on religious grounds.
if there is a religious “fine line here and there” provide the scriptural reference.[/quote] Real quick. Got bible study tonight. Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a LIVING SOUL” King James Version. Genesis 1:20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
This is just a quick example since you asked. The same root word rendered as “living soul” in 2:7 is rendered as “creature that hath life” in 1:20. The New American Standard Bible (nasb), my favorite translation, Gives us living creature in 1:20 and “living being” in 2:7. “nefesh hayya” in the Hebrew. What distinguishes one from the other is God’s personally enlivening man in His very image. Like I say one quick example.
I wasn’t trying to refute or support your argument. I was reporting the biblical view because I knew you’d be in unbearable suspense until I did… Couldn’t let ya down like that.
The fine lines are related to the godly treatment and ungodly abuse of animals which is a guaranteed hijack which I am trying to get better at not doing with rather modest success.
Of course I share a bed with my wife. And I certainly do not let a dirty animal sleep in bed with us. Dogs have their own room and beds to sleep in.
I wasn’t equating as much as making an emotional association. That’s it.
Oh, and NOBODY can convince me that the sport of fox hunting was initiated to keep the bird population strong. For centuries it was the sport of royalty and the well-to-do who couldn’t have cared less about birds.
Ironically, the wealthy DID enjoy the good breeding and keeping of their precious lap-doggies.
lol
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I have a question for you ID. You share a bed with your wife, I assume. Do you share that same bed with your dog?
Equating a child abducted on the news to shooting a fox that decimates the bird populations, well that is a stretch for even me at 6’7" :o ]
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I probably could not shoot a fox (or a wolf for that matter).
It’s like when you see the news of a child abduction. As a dad I naturally put my child’s face on the victim out of empathy.
I see my own beloved dogs in every fox and wolf as well. [/quote]
[/quote]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< provide the scripture.
you do any other time.
does not refute my argument though; not even on religious grounds.
if there is a religious “fine line here and there” provide the scriptural reference.[/quote] Real quick. Got bible study tonight. Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a LIVING SOUL” King James Version. Genesis 1:20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
This is just a quick example since you asked. The same root word rendered as “living soul” in 2:7 is rendered as “creature that hath life” in 1:20. The New American Standard Bible (nasb), my favorite translation, Gives us living creature in 1:20 and “living being” in 2:7. “nefesh hayya” in the Hebrew. What distinguishes one from the other is God’s personally enlivening man in His very image. Like I say one quick example.
I wasn’t trying to refute or support your argument. I was reporting the biblical view because I knew you’d be in unbearable suspense until I did… Couldn’t let ya down like that.
The fine lines are related to the godly treatment and ungodly abuse of animals which is a guaranteed hijack which I am trying to get better at not doing with rather modest success.
[/quote]
Sorry. You’re off your game.
Try going to the root language, give me the verse and give me the proper translation - not the easy to read English version. Anyway, what you gave me above does not support your earlier comment.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< provide the scripture.
you do any other time.
does not refute my argument though; not even on religious grounds.
if there is a religious “fine line here and there” provide the scriptural reference.[/quote] Real quick. Got bible study tonight. Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a LIVING SOUL” King James Version. Genesis 1:20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
This is just a quick example since you asked. The same root word rendered as “living soul” in 2:7 is rendered as “creature that hath life” in 1:20. The New American Standard Bible (nasb), my favorite translation, Gives us living creature in 1:20 and “living being” in 2:7. “nefesh hayya” in the Hebrew. What distinguishes one from the other is God’s personally enlivening man in His very image. Like I say one quick example.
I wasn’t trying to refute or support your argument. I was reporting the biblical view because I knew you’d be in unbearable suspense until I did… Couldn’t let ya down like that.
The fine lines are related to the godly treatment and ungodly abuse of animals which is a guaranteed hijack which I am trying to get better at not doing with rather modest success.
[/quote]
I’d also like to hear your biblical view point (with reference of course) defining “godly treatment” and “ungodly abuse”. Be very careful of those treacherously slippery slopes. I don’t believe God engaged in slippery slope commandments but I’ll anxiously await your attempt.
So laws that could potentially imprison a man and/or infringe a man’s rights should come down to the “relative and arbitrary personal judgment of species value”?
Is that what you could call it?
check[/quote]
No and no. The judgement is neither personal nor arbitrary. It is fact. Dogs are superior forms of life to roosters. Not superior because of any personal and arbitrary judgement that I have made, but superior due to the fact that they are a more advanced form of life than a rooster.
So laws that could potentially imprison a man and/or infringe a man’s rights should come down to the “relative and arbitrary personal judgment of species value”?
Is that what you could call it?
check[/quote]
No and no. The judgement is neither personal nor arbitrary. It is fact. Dogs are superior forms of life to roosters. Not superior because of any personal and arbitrary judgement that I have made, but superior due to the fact that they are a more advanced form of life than a rooster.[/quote]
What?!
“A more advanced form of life”?!
I’ll play along.
Explain how the dog is a “more advanced form of life” than the rooster.
‘Advanced’, def: ‘Ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc’
A dog is capable of tracking, chasing, holding, flushing, retrieving and pointing game. Working dogs provide transport as sled dogs, herd sheep and cattle, search and rescue, lead the blind, detect drugs and explosives etc These attributes make a dog a vastly more advanced and therefore valuable lifeform than a rooster.
Back where we started. Perhaps if you try and get out of check instead of just replying with the word ‘check?’
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘Advanced’, def: ‘Ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc’
A dog is capable of tracking, chasing, holding, flushing, retrieving and pointing game. Working dogs provide transport as sled dogs, herd sheep and cattle, search and rescue, lead the blind, detect drugs and explosives etc These attributes make a dog a vastly more advanced and therefore valuable lifeform than a rooster.
Back where we started. Perhaps if you try and get out of check instead of just replying with the word ‘check?’[/quote]
Your argument is nonsensical.
And by the way, that boar in your AVI is smarter than your dog.
Perhaps if you try to get out of “utility” and stop moving the goal post and define this arbitrary definition of value, we could stop going in circles.
It’s nonsense that a dog is “ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc” than a rooster? That argument is nonsensical.
I don’t doubt it. I currently have a Rhodesian Ridgeback/Mastiff mongrel that likes to eat tissues.
[quote]
Perhaps if you try to get out of “utility” and stop moving the goal post and define this arbitrary definition of value, we could stop going in circles. [/quote]
Dogs are more valuable than roosters because, for the reasons already stated, “with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance,” dogs exceed roosters. Therefore dogs must be “regard(ed) or esteem(ed)” more highly than roosters. Still in check.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Sorry. You’re off your game.
Try going to the root language, give me the verse and give me the proper translation - not the easy to read English version. Anyway, what you gave me above does not support your earlier comment. [/quote]Are you actually going someplace here? What difference does the precise exegesis make in this area? I am not an animal rights guy (if that’s what you thought) and I am certainly not qualified to improve upon the translators of the nasb or the kjv. I did this study many years ago which was totally unrelated to animals at the time, but I stumbled over the fact that biblical Hebrew as used by Moses does not clearly distinguish man from animals all the time in an etymological fashion.
A bicycle is a vehicle as is an automobile. Both can be called vehicles. The differences require further description. Both animals and man are called by similar general descriptions in the original language which are sometimes rendered as “soul”. The differences are in the fact of God’s special design for man which also requires explanation beyond simple labels which we do get. It wasn’t that big a deal. This isn’t as bad as pop tarts, but you’re taking this topic much more seriously than I am. Animals belong to man under God. I eat tons of meat, wear leather every chance I get and support animal medical research.
It’s nonsense that a dog is “ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc” than a rooster? That argument is nonsensical.
I don’t doubt it. I currently have a Rhodesian Ridgeback/Mastiff mongrel that likes to eat tissues.
[quote]
Perhaps if you try to get out of “utility” and stop moving the goal post and define this arbitrary definition of value, we could stop going in circles. [/quote]
Dogs are more valuable than roosters because, for the reasons already stated, “with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance,” dogs exceed roosters. Therefore dogs must be “regard(ed) or esteem(ed)” more highly than roosters. Still in check.[/quote]
Wrong.
If I’m hungry, the rooster has more “value” AND utility.
Furthermore, you’re argument is intellectually dishonest (avoiding “fallacious”). Should we do your analysis for all species to decide which has “rights” under the law and which doesn’t? Where for instance do you draw the line?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Sorry. You’re off your game.
Try going to the root language, give me the verse and give me the proper translation - not the easy to read English version. Anyway, what you gave me above does not support your earlier comment. [/quote]Are you actually going someplace here? What difference does the precise exegesis make in this area? I am not an animal rights guy (if that’s what you thought) and I am certainly not qualified to improve upon the translators of the nasb or the kjv. I did this study many years ago which was totally unrelated to animals at the time, but I stumbled over the fact that biblical Hebrew as used by Moses does not clearly distinguish man from animals all the time in an etymological fashion.
A bicycle is a vehicle as is an automobile. Both can be called vehicles. The differences require further description. Both animals and man are called by similar general descriptions in the original language which are sometimes rendered as “soul”. The differences are in the fact of God’s special design for man which also requires explanation beyond simple labels which we do get. It wasn’t that big a deal. This isn’t as bad as pop tarts, but you’re taking this topic much more seriously than I am. Animals belong to man under God. I eat tons of meat, wear leather every chance I get and support animal medical research.
[/quote]
It’s nonsense that a dog is “ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc” than a rooster? That argument is nonsensical.
I don’t doubt it. I currently have a Rhodesian Ridgeback/Mastiff mongrel that likes to eat tissues.
[quote]
Perhaps if you try to get out of “utility” and stop moving the goal post and define this arbitrary definition of value, we could stop going in circles. [/quote]
Dogs are more valuable than roosters because, for the reasons already stated, “with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance,” dogs exceed roosters. Therefore dogs must be “regard(ed) or esteem(ed)” more highly than roosters. Still in check.[/quote]
And, if I can prove I exceed you in worth, excellence, usefulness and importance, can I dispatch you with prejudice? It may be the only manner by which to extinguish your circular and slippery slope arguments.
