1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

in the beginning (Genesis) do we really?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by t3gah, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    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?
     
  2. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    This was because of mans vast mental superiority.(if used in the right way)
     
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,767
    Ratings:
    +10,108
    Religion:
    Judaism
    And how does man use this "vast mental superiority" to be 'bit, scratched, or eaten'?
     
  4. rivet

    rivet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    92
    Ratings:
    +16
    Huh? Why would having dominion over someone/thing necessarily mean that they wouldn't fight back?
     
  5. Natural Submission

    Natural Submission Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +43
    Clearly man has the ABILTY to overcome the animals when in danger. Man can safely pass by a pride of lions in a motor vehicle and be protected. Man has the abilty to "create" weapons to defend his/her-self. This is why we don't see kangaroo's with machine guns or jackal's with shotguns's. Though intellect man has the ability to take charge of the Earth. BECAUSE we have been given this gift, we should strive to give the animals fair treatment and take care of them as God commanded.

    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.

    Some people try to twist and turn these verses by taking DOMINION of the animals, thus taking them as slaves and food. Likewise some try to oppress woman by saying he is stronger. This is nothing but conjecture. Man's gift of strength is exactly tat, a gift, and should be treated as such. We should walk with humility and fear, striving to please God in all manners.
     
  6. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    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.
     
  7. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +558
    Hey Rex....we need a smiley with a zipper across its lips. I really really really need one right now.
     
  8. Natural Submission

    Natural Submission Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +43
    What's that suppose to mean?
     
  9. BUDDY

    BUDDY User of Aspercreme

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,031
    Ratings:
    +488
    I agree that the mental capacity of humans gives us the ability to have rule over all the other animals on the earth, but and in like manner, because animals other than humans do not have this same mental capacity, they can not judge their actions as right or wrong. This means that with the lack of the same intellect we are capable of, animals act like animals.

    BTW. Melody, Men are usually stronger than women, but women are always smarter than men. I can tell because sometimes we act like animals too.:)
     
  10. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    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?
     
  11. Natural Submission

    Natural Submission Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +43
    Well that's just it, it was NOT the will of God to offer burnt blood sacrifices for remission of sins. This was and is nothing more than a man-made innovation. All True Prophets and Messengers spoke out against this.

    "They love sacrifice, they sacrifice flesh and eat it, but YHVH has no delight in them." Hosea 8:13

    "All creatures are like a family of Allah: and Hu loves the most those who are the most Compassionate to Hu&#8217;s family." The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sal)

    "The first cases to be adjudicated on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed." - The Prophet Muhammad (sal)

    "They shall no longer sacrifice their slaughtered beasts to the demons whom they wantonly follow. This shall be a rule binding on them and their descendants for all time." Leviticus 17:7

    "I hate, I spurn your pilgrim feasts; I will not delight in your sacred ceremonies. When you present your sacrifices and offerings I will not accept them, nor look on the buffaloes of your shared offerings. Spare me the sound of your songs; I cannot endure the music of your lutes." Amos 5:21-23

    "For I desire Mercy not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of YHVH rather than burnt offerings. Like Adam they have broken the covenant." Hosea 6:6-7

    "The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to me" Isaiah 1:13

    "There is blood on your hands; wash yourselves and be clean." Isaiah 1:15-16


    "There is no burnt-offering, no sacrifice, no oblation, no incense, no place to make offering before thee and find mercy. But because we come with contrite heart and humbled spirit, accept us...Accept our pledge of loyalty to You, for no shame shall come to those who put their trust in You." Song of the Three, Lines 15-17


    "...I will hide my Eyes from you: yea, when you make your prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood...put away the evil of your doings from My Eyes; cease to do evil." Isaiah 1:11-16
     
  12. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Wonderfully out of context Scripture pickin` there.

    I`ll be back in a couple.
     
  13. Natural Submission

    Natural Submission Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +43
    Thanks for the peaceful slander. Do i have to copy and paste the whole Bible? See you in a couple.
     
  14. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    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.
     
  15. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    Good quotes natural submission. I'm not sure why he thinks they are "out of context". I'm not sure how "The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to me" Isaiah 1:13 can be out of context. I also believe the animal sacrifices to be an addition of pagan men.
     
  16. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Slander is the implication of a falsity.
    I have not slandered.
    I find it odd a believer seems to have less knowledge of the intent and context of Biblical verse however.
    This is the OT after all.
    Context is everything….

    I`m only going to touch on the Biblical scripture you`ve ripped out of context to make it appear to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. I have not read the Koran and my reference was clearly Biblical.

    Your reference to Hosea 8:13 is a deliberate twisting of scripture to fit your agenda.

    Read all 14 verses in chapter 8 and the deception becomes clear.

    Hosea 8:13

    They sacrifice flesh [for] the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat [it; but] the LORD accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they shall return to Egypt.

    In 8:13 God isn’t claiming disdain for the Israelis because they offer animal sacrifice but he is angry with their transgressions despite the sacrifices and no amount of sacrifice will appease him due to their other transgressions.

    Read it in context..

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hsa/Hsa008.html#13

    Then you take Leviticus 17:7 out of context.

    Leviticus 17:7

    "They shall no longer sacrifice their slaughtered beasts to the demons whom they wantonly follow. This shall be a rule binding on them and their descendants for all time."

    In 17 The God isn`t mad or banning animal sacrifice he is just mad because they are sacrificing to a different God.

    He still demands sacrifice for himself.

    The irony is that the verse right before 17:7 is 17:6 which states that the Lord does appreciate the “sweet savour” of the burning animal fat.

    Again read the entire chapter and it will show you he actually is setting rules for HOW to properly sacrifice animals to him.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev017.html#7

    By citing Amos 5 you also intentionally mislead.

    Amos 5:21-23

    I hate, I spurn your pilgrim feasts; I will not delight in your sacred ceremonies. When you present your sacrifices and offerings I will not accept them, nor look on the buffaloes of your shared offerings. Spare me the sound of your songs; I cannot endure the music of your lutes.

    Again, read the entire chapter and you`ll see God isn`t against animal sacrifice.

    He’s mad at Israel for other transgressions and telling them that their sacrifices are worthless without holding to the covenant.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Amo/Amo005.html#21

    Hosea 6:6-7

    Same thing.

    Read the entire chapter and you see there is no denunciation of animal sacrifice but rather discussion about “returning to the Lord” and holding to the covenant.

    Saying that “Knowing the Lord” is more important than sacrifices.

    Not that God doesn`t want sacrifices

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hsa/Hsa006.html#top

    Isaiah 1:13

    Again God is mad and telling them their sacrifices are worthless considering they do not honor the convenent.

    He calls their sacrifices “vain” as in worthless.

    By the way “sacrifice” used in place of “incense” is an interesting switch.

    It may be my KJV though.

    Read..

    http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=106845&posted=1#post106845

    I think thats enough to get my point across.
    A large portion of Leviticus is nothing more than the proper way to slaughter and sacrifice animals according to Gods law.
    Not wrong but worthless.

    God doesn`t share your agenda.
     
  17. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    "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
     
  18. Natural Submission

    Natural Submission Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +43
    God isn&#8217;t claiming...
    God isn`t mad...
    He still demands...
    He&#8217;s mad...
    Not that God doesn`t want sacrifices...
    I think...

    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.
     
  19. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    No, I claim to know nothing of God.
    I merely claim the ability to read in context.

    If my claims are baseless refute them with evidence.

    If you cannot, your assertion that my claims are baseless is...baseless.

    :)
     
  20. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    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.
     
Loading...