Is it LAWFUL to kill animals?

[posthuman]

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. So if your verses contradicts my verses on blood sacrifice, then one has to give, because they can't both be Scripture. That is why I've been telling you, you need to choose whom will ye serve, which voice will you hear?

therefore either your interpretation of the contextless passages you have been repeating is incorrect, or the whole Bible is corrupt and none of your quoting of any of it has any weight.

your interpretations insinuate that you reject the Bible. not just the Torah, but large sections of all the prophets and the Psalms and the NT too that all confirm the Torah. your arguments all very clearly imply that your beliefs are not based on the scripture as an whole; that you only accept a scattered few concepts from the word of God, not the whole counsel.

trying to be real here, dude. the current convo is going nowhere.

if you reject the Bible, you should just say so -- otherwise we're just going to be on repeat here with everyone giving you scriptures that show your interpretation is wrong, and you ignoring them because you hold your interpretation in higher regard than the scripture itself. if we need to talk to you as though you don't believe the Bible, we are all at a great disadvantage to go on assuming you do.

we are in the same position as your flat-earth beliefs. you say NASA is all lies, so it's a waste of time for anyone to post anything derived from any NASA research. you necessarily say physics and all astronomy is all lies, so it's a waste of time to cite science or observation to you.
if you really believe the Bible is all lies, then it would be polite for you to let us know so we similarly don't waste our time quoting the Bible to you.


but the truth is that your interpretations are clearly wrong. that has been demonstrated over and over and over.
it's going to take humility on your part for this convo to go anywhere - to where it needs to go, to the real question: why does God allow and even command the death of animals?

 

[TheLearner]

I did not have time to check all the contexts. As one of Jewish background and an historian, I know that animal sacrafice was common in Israel. This puts things in context
https://answersingenesis.org/contra...-israelites-to-sacrifice-to-him-before-sinai/

1 Samuel 1:3
Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord.

1 Samuel 1:4
Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters.

1 Samuel 1:21
Hannah Dedicates Samuel
When her husband Elkanah went up with all his family to offer the annual sacrifice to the Lord and to fulfill his vow,

1 Samuel 1:25
When the bull had been sacrificed, they brought the boy to Eli,

1 Samuel 2:13
Now it was the practice of the priests that, whenever any of the people offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand while the meat was being boiled

1 Samuel 2:19
Each year his mother made him a little robe and took it to him when she went up with her husband to offer the annual sacrifice.

1 Samuel 2:29
Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?’

1 Samuel 3:14
Therefore I swore to the house of Eli, ‘The guilt of Eli’s house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.’”

1 Samuel 6:14
The cart came to the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh, and there it stopped beside a large rock. The people chopped up the wood of the cart and sacrificed the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.

1 Samuel 6:15
The Levites took down the ark of the Lord, together with the chest containing the gold objects, and placed them on the large rock. On that day the people of Beth Shemesh offered burnt offerings and made sacrifices to the Lord.

1 Samuel 7:9
Then Samuel took a suckling lamb and sacrificed it as a whole burnt offering to the Lord. He cried out to the Lord on Israel’s behalf, and the Lord answered him.

1 Samuel 9:12
“He is,” they answered. “He’s ahead of you. Hurry now; he has just come to our town today, for the people have a sacrifice at the high place.

1 Samuel 9:13
As soon as you enter the town, you will find him before he goes up to the high place to eat. The people will not begin eating until he comes, because he must bless the sacrifice; afterward, those who are invited will eat. Go up now; you should find him about this time.”

1 Samuel 10:8
“Go down ahead of me to Gilgal. I will surely come down to you to sacrifice burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, but you must wait seven days until I come to you and tell you what you are to do.”

1 Samuel 11:15
So all the people went to Gilgal and made Saul king in the presence of the Lord. There they sacrificed fellowship offerings before the Lord, and Saul and all the Israelites held a great celebration.

1 Samuel 16:2
But Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me.” The Lord said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.’

1 Samuel 16:3
Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.”

1 Samuel 16:5
Samuel replied, “Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me.” Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.

1 Samuel 20:6
If your father misses me at all, tell him, ‘David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.’

1 Samuel 20:29
He said, ‘Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.’ That is why he has not come to the king’s table.”

2 Samuel 6:13
When those who were carrying the ark of the Lord had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf.

2 Samuel 6:17
They brought the ark of the Lord and set it in its place inside the tent that David had pitched for it, and David sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings before the Lord.

2 Samuel 15:12
While Absalom was offering sacrifices, he also sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, to come from Giloh, his hometown. And so the conspiracy gained strength, and Absalom’s following kept on increasing.

2 Samuel 15:24
Zadok was there, too, and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the ark of the covenant of God. They set down the ark of God, and Abiathar offered sacrifices until all the people had finished leaving the city.

2 Samuel 24:24
But the king replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them.

2 Samuel 24:25
David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then the Lord answered his prayer in behalf of the land, and the plague on Israel was stopped.

 

[DanielLL]

'Kill' in King James era English more or less meant 'murder'.

Yes, killing an ox is like killing a man, because they are brothers of the same Father. So killing an ox is like murdering your brother.

clearly you reject the Torah. what else?

Against Moses indeed I do not speak nor against the Law, but against them who corrupted his law, which he permitted for the hardness of your hearts

 

[TheLearner]

"
God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).

God commanded the nation of Israel to perform numerous sacrifices according to certain procedures prescribed by God. First, the animal had to be spotless. Second, the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal. Third, the person offering the animal had to inflict death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided a temporary covering of sins. Another sacrifice called for on the Day of Atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. The high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering. One of the goats was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:15), while the other goat was released into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22). The sin offering provided forgiveness, while the other goat provided the removal of sin. "
https://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

Warning to Others in this thread, expect him to take texts responded to in this article OUT of CONTEXT:
https://answersingenesis.org/contra...-israelites-to-sacrifice-to-him-before-sinai/

 

[presidente]

J
-He said: "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone". He was without sin, and He didn't stone her. So, He is clearly against murder, even of the guilty. He delights not in the death of the wicked. He came so you may have life.

There were no accusers at the end of it. There had to be two or three witnesses to stone her lawfully. Christ did show her mercy. But that does not mean that she did not deserve to die if she were guilty.

Christ shall return executing vengence on them that know not God.

Isaiah 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man [...]

You should read the context. This is not what God said when the righteous offered animal sacrifices in the OT. The problem was with the sinfulness of those doing the offering.

Yes, animals are your our brothers of the same Father, made by the same Hand, out of the same dust, with the same Breath of Life:

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

You can claim a monkey as a brother if you want. You clearly miss the point of Ecclesiastes. This doesn't say we are brothers.

-This is why killing an ox is just like killing a man, both are your brother of the same Father:

I Corinthians 9
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

If a cow is your brother, is it okay if we eat you? Would it have been okay for Noah to sacrifice you alongside the animals when he gets off the ark.

The Word, cannot lie, whosoever lies has not seen Him neither known Him. So the lie is of the wicked one, who is a liar, and the father of it. You have to choose whom will ye serve.

This is a good warning for you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

You mean like adding the idea that the innocent blood in some of those verses was the animal blood of their sacrifices? Or taking away the parts of the Bible where animal sacrifices and eating the passover were commanded by God?

You've got one of the most confused agenda-driven methods of interpreting scripture I've seen on here since the 'piney' guy with musical instruments. At least you aren't posting confused interpretations of the Strong's concordance.

You don't know what you are talking about. You need to humble yourself and pray about this. Do you love animal rights more than you love truth?

-You can guess what the disobedient children of Israel did next, right?

Ezekiel 5:6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.

Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.

So are you assuming the false pen was in the Bible as opposed to the ideologies the Biblical prophets were arguing against. Here you are 'scribing' and writing twisted interpretations of the Bible, interpreting one passage to contradict the rest.

Isaiah 8:20

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Isaiah acknowledged the veracity of the law.

Malachi 2:8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

Okay. But this is not evidence that they corrupted it according to your theory.

Jeremiah 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

Continue reading:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

The sacrificial commands were given later. If you really think Jeremiah's prophecy truly contradicted the prophecies given through Moses, why would you accept Jeremiah?

What you are doing is misinterpreting passages of scripture in an ignorant, foolish way to contradict other passages of scripture. We aren't accepting it. You shouldn't accept your own self-deception yourself.

The problem is when innocent blood is shed, innocent blood cries for justice, and God is Most Just, so He had to avenge the innocent blood, of righteous Abel to Zachariah, and the blood of the saints which were beheded for the witness of Jesus.

Abel offered an animal sacrifice, so it is good that you acknowledge that his blood was innocent. Notice the blood shed in the story here that was innocent was human, Abel's blood, not the sheep Abel sacrificed.

 

[presidente]

Against Moses indeed I do not speak nor against the Law, but against them who corrupted his law, which he permitted for the hardness of your hearts

So do you think the _original_ law of Moses was a pro-animal rights book that did not have animal sacrifices? And now you somehow are supposed to have the wisdom to know that and know what parts are true and what aren't?

I have an alternative theory. You are a crackpot-level Bible misinterpreter who lacks the spiritual perception to know what scripture says. Repent and humble yourself before the Lord. Repent of your foolishness. If you want to be a vegetarian, that's fine. But quit twisting scripture.

Why do you think Jesus' parents offered a sacrifice in the temple? Why would Jesus tell a leper to offer what Moses commanded? Why did Jesus eat fish? If you acknowledge Jesus as Lord, you should acknowledge His righteousness as superior to your own.

 

[presidente]

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. So if your verses contradicts my verses on blood sacrifice, then one has to give, because they can't both be Scripture. That is why I've been telling you, you need to choose whom will ye serve, which voice will you hear?

There is another solution. You misunderstand and misinterpret the scriptures about blood sacrifices. They are about sinful men whose sacrifices displease God because of their idolatry, sin against other men, and other sins.

That's why you post these verses and we are trying to figure out why you think they support your viewpoint, then you have to post them back with giant bolded parts on whatever little pieces you are misinterpreting out of context.

When Abel or Noah offered sacrifices, God didn't see a dog's neck broken or the blood of men. Abel is known as 'righteous able.' Noah was perfect among his generations. God accepted Abel's sacrifice. He smelled a sweet savor from Noah's sacrifice. But He reject Cain's offering even though later he would allow Israelites to offer agricultural produce in the tabernacle. God saw the individuals offering the sacrifices, not just the physical objects they brought.

The question here is what is more important to you, God's truth or your animal rights agenda? Do you go on the Muslim forums trying to convince Muslims that the Al Qur'an teaches against eating animals also?

 

[DanielLL]

TheLearner

Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

If a cow is your brother, is it okay if we eat you?

You are the one who thinks that it is lawfull to eat your dead brothers, not me. I can see that is the next step, for if you think you can eat the cow who is your brother of the same Father, then what stops you from eating me aswell? After all, I am a creature that "moves upon the earth", right? So, I am also food, am I not? -I'm the one saying it is unlawful, you can't murder your brothers, nor eat their corpses.

your foolishness.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[presidente]

TheLearner

Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Look at the last verse there and try to understand the message here. God commanded sacrifices, but he says, "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams.' And he isn't listening to their prayers when they spread forth their hands in verse 15. Is God against prayer? No, their hands are full of blood. This isn't blood from following the commands of God regarding how to offer sacrifices, or from eating meat the way God allowed them to do so. They are guilty because of their sins toward their fellow man. Have you ever bothered actually reading the next few chapters of Isaiah to see where this point is explained quite elaborately, of the types of sin and oppression that they were guilty of?

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

You are the one who thinks that it is lawfull to eat your dead brothers, not me.

No, I don't. Cows aren't my brothers. You wants cows, or oxen, to be your brothers. If they really are, then why can't we eat you? If you identify as a cow, does that make you a cow? I am not in favor of this post-modern trans 'identify'stuff. I believe there is reality, so I won't eat you.

But if you identify as a woman an dyou aren't, then you aren't a woman. And if you identify as a bovine brother and you aren't bovine, then you aren't, so I won't eat you.

I can see that is the next step, for if you think you can eat the cow who is your brother of the same Father, then what stops you from eating me aswell?

God created cattle, but how do you justify yourself in claiming a Father-son relationship between God and one of the kine. The Bible indicates that bearing false witness of God is a bad thing. You shouldn't presume to make such conclusions.

But you just make up doctrine left and right-- inventing the idea that adultery has to do with animals or that cows are our brothers. Your self-willed method of Bible interpretation-- as if your imagination creates truth-- is dangerous.

After all, I am a creature that "moves upon the earth", right? So, I am also food, am I not? -I'm the one saying it is unlawful, you can't murder your brothers, nor eat their corpses.

The Bible says do not murder. It does not say we are not to eat cattle. They have been given to food. God told Noah-- a human-- that the animals were given for food. But the same passage warns against shedding man's blood. Look at what the Bible says instead of creating doctrine out of your foolish human reasoning.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I did not call you a fool. I will let God judge that. But I did identify some of the ideas you spout which are foolish.

What do you think the plan of salvation is? How is a man justified before God?

Do you engage in occultic rituals or have any kind of experiences with spirits, aliens, etc.?

 

[TheLearner]

Wrong. Seven pairs of each animal considered clean was on the ark, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird.

Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Genesis 7:2-3

"The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood comes in Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." "
https://www.gotquestions.org/eating-drinking-blood.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Israelites-eat-flocks.html

Exodus 16:8
Easy-to-Read Version
8 Then Moses said, “In the evening the Lord will give you meat to eat, and in the morning you will have all the bread you want. The Lord will do this because he has heard your complaining, which was against him, not us. What can we do? We do only what he tells us to do, so your complaints are really against the Lord.”

 

[TheLearner]

If animals did not kill each other, and if God did not kill them (as you believe), how did the animals die that God got skins from? How does my affirming what Scripture says to counter your error mean I believe Noah lived off death? Guess again. No, it is not the only thing you are wrong in, for it is wrong of you to repeatedly demand verses that specifically articulate that God killed the animals to make a covering for Adam and Eve, when you are incapable of providing any verse that specifically articulates the innocence of animals. Your double standard has been highlighted many times over, but you persist in it regardless. If God kills an animal it is not murder, whether we consider animals innocent or not. Animals most certainly do kill each other.

God also provides this feat Sister, friend.

saiah 25:6
God’s Banquet for His Servants
The Lord All-Powerful will give a feast for all the people on this mountain. At the feast, there will be the best foods and wines. The meat will be good and tender, the wine pure and clear.

 

[TheLearner]

This guy's just being stupid on purpose, or perhaps it comes natural. Either way, PARB!

I expect he is brainwashed by PETA who killed my Dog when i was a child. They have vans pick up animals from yards and kill them.

Google "peta vans kill animals reddit" for 989,000 proofs or stories.

From Snopes website:

"
PETA workers are stealing family pets and euthanizing them.
Rating

Mixture
About this rating

What's True
PETA associates have been involved in some incidents involving the alleged theft and/or euthanization of family pets.
What's False
PETA workers do not routinely lure pets away from families for the sole purpose of euthanizing the animals.

...

WARNING: PETA may be in your neighborhood rounding up animals to kill.

Today, this full page ad appeared in The Virginian Pilot (www.pilotonline.com), the newspaper of PETA’s hometown. I and other animal lovers paid for it. We will not stand by and allow PETA to get away with “murder.”

The Theft and Killing of Maya

On October 18, 2014, in Parksley, VA, PETA stole Maya, a happy and healthy dog, from her porch while her family was out. They killed her that very day.

According to a spokesman for Maya’s family, PETA came to the trailer park where the family lives, where most of the residents are Spanish speaking with few resources. The PETA representatives befriended the residents. They got to know who lived where and who had dogs. In fact, they sat with the family on the same porch off which they later took Maya. Waiting until the family was away from the home, PETA employees backed their van up to the porch and threw biscuits to Maya, in an attempt to coax her off her property and therefore give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog “at large.” But Maya refused to stay off the porch and ran back. Thinking that no one was around, one of the employees — who was later charged with larceny — went onto the property and took Maya.

When the family returned and found their beloved Maya missing, they searched around the neighborhood before checking the video on the surveillance camera. That is when they saw the PETA van on the film and recognized the woman who had come to their house on prior occasions to talk to them about Maya. They called PETA and asked for Maya’s return. According to a family spokesperson, PETA claimed it did not have the dog. When PETA was told that its employees had been filmed taking the dog, they hung up. Shortly afterward, a PETA attorney called and informed the family that Maya was dead. PETA had killed her. She may not be the only one. On the day they stole Maya, other animals went missing as well. Had a surveillance video not been available, the killing of Maya would have remained unknown, as are the fates of the other animals. In the last 11 years, PETA has killed 29,426 animals.

The ad’s claims were corroborated by a number of local news articles that reported the chihuahua’s capture and death. The two PETA workers involved in incident were arrested but not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence they possessed criminal intent, according to a statement from Accomack County’s commonwealth’s attorney Gary Agar:

The facts appear be that PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits. Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.

Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerate’s dog [Maya] was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerate’s home.

 

[TheLearner]

continued


On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, [they] had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.

In 2007, a PETA worker in Virginia was arrested and charged with a felony count of theft after she was found to be in possession of a sheriff’s hunting dog. The charge was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed entirely in 2008:

A judge on has dismissed a misdemeanor charge against a worker for Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who had been accused of stealing a hunting dog’s tracking collar.

The circuit judge overseeing the case of Ondrea Harris , 26, called her a “meddlesome do-gooder” for picking up a foxhound on a Southampton County road that leads to North Carolina.

Harris and another outreach worker saw the hound on the side of the road. A motorist who witnessed the pickup called Southampton County Sheriff’s Deputy J.T. Cooke Jr., an animal control officer. The hunting dog happened to belong to Cooke.

Harris, who was driving a PETA van, and co-worker Carrie Beth Edwards were accused of stealing the dog and charged with felony theft. The charge against Edwards was later dropped, and the charge against Harris was reduced to misdemeanor petty larceny, for the alleged theft of the collar. She had removed the collar and left it on the roadside.

Harris contended that she was attempting to save a dog that she found on the edge of a road where the speed limit is 55 mph.

Assistant Southampton Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Edwards said the judge ruled prosecutors failed to prove Harris had intended to permanently deprive the collar’s owner of its possession.

David Perle, a PETA spokesman, praised the decision.

“Resources would have been better spent investigating the poor condition and abandonment of hunting dogs instead of impugning the motives of a decent young woman who tried to help a dog,” he said. “Our employee acted out of a humane desire to try to protect a dog from getting hurt on the highway.”

Partially at issue in many of the claims regarding PETA’s handling of companion animals appears to stem from their “uncompromising” stance on euthanizing shelter animals:

Euthanasia literally means “good death,” and true euthanasia — delivered by an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital — is painless, quick, and dignified. Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus.” The American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States agree that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals.

Until dog and cat overpopulation is brought under control through spaying and neutering, we must prevent the suffering of unwanted animals in the most responsible and humane way possible. Euthanasia, performed properly, is often the most compassionate option.

Many critics contend PETA’s policies extend to its putting down tens of thousands of healthy, adoptable stray and homeless animals without having made sufficient (or any) effort to find homes for them:

In the last 12 years, PETA has killed 31,250 companion animals. While PETA claims the animals it takes in and kills are “unadoptable,” this is a lie. It is a lie because employees have admitted it is a lie. They have described 8 week old, 10 week old, and 12 week old healthy kittens and puppies routinely and immediately put to death with no effort to find them homes. It is a lie because rescue groups, individuals, and veterinarians have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable and PETA insiders have admitted as much, one former intern reporting that he quit in disgust after witnessing perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in the kill room. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making the determination as to whether or not an animal is “unadoptable.” It is a lie because according to a state inspector, the PETA facility where the animals are impounded was designed to house animals for no more than 24 hours. It is a lie because PETA staff have described the animals they have killed as “healthy,” “adorable” and “perfect.” It is a lie because PETA itself admits it does not believe in “right to life for animals.” And it is a lie because when asked what sort of effort PETA routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care, PETA had no comment.

While PETA’s stance on euthanasia is controversial, we could find little evidence it has been extended to family pets with any frequency. PETA workers were arrested over pet theft incidents in 2007 and 2014, but the intent of the workers in those cases was not sufficiently clear to consider their actions unlawful. Aside from those two incidents, we’ve found no evidence supporting the claim that PETA regularly takes household pets from their homes and euthanizes them. PETA did not respond to a request for comment."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peta-taking-pets/

 

[TheLearner]

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Yes, if you think Noah feasted upon dead corpses, ate their body of death, lived off of death, as in death sustaining him.
Matthew 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

It is not written how they die, but they died after sin had entered the world. God didn't kill them because God cannot sin. And killing them is an abomination, so you can't have God sinning, nor contradicting Himself, nor hating Himself:

Isaiah 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,


Isn't the command God gave to Adam and Eve, a Law? Isn't because they broke the Law that they were judged and punished accordingly?
Before the Law of Moses there were already Laws, even Abraham had laws, just not the Law of Moses:

Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Check the verses, they are on these page. Blood Sacrifice is condemned as an abomination by The True God, and His Holy Law. It is only in the law of men you will find justification for shedding innocent blood, in the Law of Moses. Choose you this day whom will ye serve.

Your arguments are foolish friend. Animals are not created in the image of God, thus your misapplication of Jesus does not apply. Learn to read in context.

 

[TheLearner]

Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Jeremiah 15:2 And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord; Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for the captivity, to the captivity.

Isaiah 33:1 Woe to thee that spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not treacherously with thee! when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be spoiled; and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee.

Jeremiah 43:11 And when he cometh, he shall smite the land of Egypt, and deliver such as are for death to death; and such as are for captivity to captivity; and such as are for the sword to the sword.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Isaiah 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man

The context is ubelivers and the killing with the sword has nothing to do with killing animals.

Revelation 13
Easy-to-Read Version
The Beast From the Sea
13 Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads. There was a crown on each of its horns. It had an evil name written on each head. 2 This beast looked like a leopard, with feet like a bear’s feet. It had a mouth like a lion’s mouth. The dragon gave the beast all of its power and its throne and great authority.

3 One of the heads of the beast looked as if it had been wounded and killed, but the death wound was healed. All the people in the world were amazed, and they all followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because it had given its power to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast. They asked, “Who is as powerful as the beast? Who can make war against it?”

5 The beast was allowed to boast and speak insults against God. It was allowed to use its power for 42 months. 6 The beast opened its mouth to insult God—to insult his name, the place where he lives, and all those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to make war against God’s holy people and to defeat them. It was given power over every tribe, race of people, language, and nation. 8 Everyone living on earth would worship the beast. These are all the people since the beginning of the world whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life. The Lamb is the one who was killed.

9 Anyone who hears these things should listen to this:

10 Whoever is to be a prisoner,
will be a prisoner.
Whoever is to be killed with a sword,
will be killed with a sword.

This means that God’s holy people must have patience and faith.

The Beast From the Earth
11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he talked like a dragon. 12 This beast stood before the first beast and used the same power the first beast had. He used this power to make everyone living on the earth worship the first beast. The first beast was the one that had the death wound that was healed. 13 The second beast did great miracles.[a] He even made fire come down from heaven to earth while people were watching.

14 This second beast fooled the people living on earth by using the miracles that he had been given the power to do for the first beast. He ordered people to make an idol to honor the first beast, the one that was wounded by the sword but did not die. 15 The second beast was given power to give life to the idol of the first beast. Then the idol could speak and order all those who did not worship it to be killed. 16 The second beast also forced all people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to have a mark put on their right hand or on their forehead. 17 No one could buy or sell without this mark. (This mark is the name of the beast or the number of its name.)

18 Anyone who has understanding can find the meaning of the beast’s number. This requires wisdom. This number is the number of a man. It is 666.

 

[TheLearner]

Your stubbornness and resistance to learning aren't hurting anyone else; they are just making you look ridiculous.

You're wrong on this matter. Give it up already. Go find another windmill.

He looks like this to me:

 

[TheLearner]

So..
Are you saying they were murderous evil fish?

Don't forget Jesus ate fish at passover and ate fish after the resurrection.

Mark 14:12
The Passover Meal
It was now the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread—the day the lambs were killed for the Passover. Jesus’ followers came to him and said, “We will go and prepare everything for you to eat the Passover meal. Where do you want us to have the meal?”

Luke 22:7
The Passover Meal
The Day of Unleavened Bread came. This was the day when the Jews always killed the lambs for the Passover.

Luke 24:43
While the followers watched, he took the fish and ate it.

 

[posthuman]

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. So if your verses contradicts my verses on blood sacrifice, then one has to give, because they can't both be Scripture. That is why I've been telling you, you need to choose whom will ye serve, which voice will you hear?

seeing that scripture cannot be broken - the clear truth is that your position is false, because your position demands that scripture be broken in order to accept it.

 

[TheLearner]

start with #316

 

[posthuman]

They'll cut my tongue.

you will not be the first person to reject the Bible and re-write it for themselves while still claiming to believe it.

strict Armostrongites, for example, also teach the whole OT and part of the NT are lies, choosing for themselves what they will listen to and what they will stop their ears to -- for them, on account of loving their proscription against instrumental music. it is the natural extension of their teaching, because the Bible does not condemn music, that they condemn the Bible in order to cling to their traditions.

you are in the same category. your teachings have no other end but to either condemn the scripture or to accept that your thoughts were incorrect.

when our understanding conflicts with what is written, i choose to renew my understanding. you choose to delete what is written.
this is clear, and not without precedent.

Armstrongites have had their voice on the forums before. and our recently departed friend in your flat-earth thread, he was not banned for his beliefs or lack of beliefs, but because of his wicked behaviour. if you remain the way you always have been since i have met you, which is, polite and having fair decorum, not cursing everyone and causing a ruckus, i don't think you need to be banned for believing the Bible is corrupt. you should probably give up your kjv-onlyism tho lol that's a bit incongruous.

not that my opinion here carries weight, ha -- i am not mod material. but you will know at least that i have no such thought to cut you off from conversation. to the contrary i hope to continue talking with you for some time