Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And how does man use this "vast mental superiority" to be 'bit, scratched, or eaten'?may said:This was because of mans vast mental superiority.(if used in the right way)t3gah said:In the book of Genesis the scriptures say Man has dominion over animals. IF that is true, how come some bite, scratch or eat people?
Huh? Why would having dominion over someone/thing necessarily mean that they wouldn't fight back?t3gah said:In the book of Genesis the scriptures say Man has dominion over animals. IF that is true, how come some bite, scratch or eat people?
We have been given dominion over them through strength and intellect as has been discussed. This dominion has been used improperly. We are supposed to care for them. They bite, scrath, and eat people because animals submit to the will of God. As such, they know to fight against the oppressor if possible. Man is a definite oppressor of animals by destroying their homes, eating their flesh, drinking their blood, stealing their milk, etc. If someone was killing me/my bretheren or destroying my home or doing any number of the things that are done to animals daily, i would fight back as well.t3gah said:In the book of Genesis the scriptures say Man has dominion over animals. IF that is true, how come some bite, scratch or eat people?
Hey Rex....we need a smiley with a zipper across its lips. I really really really need one right now.Natural Submission said:In the Qur'an it says man has been put in charge of women. This is because man has PHYSICALLY been made STRONGER than woman, thus he is her guardian and should protect her the way any husband should protect his wife.
Did the animals slaughtered and burned on Gods alters so he could savour the sweet smell bite kick or scratch do you think?They bite, scrath, and eat people because animals submit to the will of God. As such, they know to fight against the oppressor if possible. Man is a definite oppressor of animals by destroying their homes, eating their flesh, drinking their blood, stealing their milk, etc.
linwood said:Did the animals slaughtered and burned on Gods alters so he could savour the sweet smell bite kick or scratch do you think?
Or did they submit becuase it was the will of God?
I think they fought because animal sacrifice is a pagan tradition, not the will of God. God does not demand blood or death for atonement of sins.linwood said:Did the animals slaughtered and burned on Gods alters so he could savour the sweet smell bite kick or scratch do you think?
Or did they submit becuase it was the will of God?
No, I claim to know nothing of God.Natural Submission said:Your claims are baseless and you follow nothing but conjecture. Appartely you know the intention of God more than the prophets, again, conjecture and non-sense.
your translation is not necessarily the same as all translations. But i believe it is not an intentional or unintentional mistranslation because it is not a mistranslation at all. the "incense" of sacrifice would be equivalent to the "smell " of sacrifice. Reek is another word for a bad smell. If something is abhorrent, it would be a bad smell, therefore reek is just as appropriate if not more appropriate than incense. This is an appropriate translation. I do not know which version of the bible was used, but whether it says incense or reek, it still makes the point that God does not want sacrifices of that nature.linwood said:"The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to me" Isaiah 1:13
Actually I believe this is a deliberate mistranslation to suit the agenda at hand.
Please correct me if I`m wrong but he is not saying "sacrifice" is abhorrent to me but the "incense" of the sacrifice is abhorrent to him.
Slight difference I know but it changes the intent of the verse.
Intentionally.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1109289135-7012.html