Today, I played God.

[Ardent Listener]

If the compassion is infinite then it must extend to all things, otherwise it is not infinite.

Insects will dry out and be just fine, i might take a long while though.

Also, a drowned insect can be brought back to life (yes, all the God wannabies out there can perform their own mini resurrections ) by drying it out, for rapid effects use salt.

This is because insects "breathe" through their skin and won't die if starved of oxygen for a reasonably long time. Soon as their "air holes" are dried out they spring back to life, if a bit salty and dazed.

And just add a little pepper, bake at 400 for 60 seconds, serve hot.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Rich in response to your initial post my understanding is that small insects do not have the nervous system that we or other mammals do and thus I don't think he would be in pain making cleaning him off a better choice.

Unlike humans, insecta have TWO brains. The supraesophageal ganglion (if memory serves) is the larger of the two and is devoted to sensory organs, such as touch, sight, smell as well as PAIN. The subesophageal ganglion is devoted to motor movement such as wings, balance and walking. Both ganglion are connected to each other by two chorda.

Pain is useful as a bio-feedback mechanism for survival. Pain induces a flight or fight mechanism. Bugs do indeed feel pain.

What is interesting is that some feel that a naturally created pain is somehow superior to a God created pain. If pain has a purpose, and that is obvious by any cursory reflection, then how can it be deemed cruel even if created by God? This reminds me of a twisted Marxist teaching that the means justifies the end (the teaching is exactly backwards).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Today I played God.

A tiny insect managed to land in my cup of coffee. (Fortunately the coffee was not hot.) I carefully fished it out and placed it on my desk. It did a lot of squirming and struggling, and it was difficult to tell if it had been seriously injured or just needed to dry off. My dilemma was whether to put it out of its misery or let it live as long as possible. In a way, I was playing God. Eventually, the insect crawled to the edge of the desk and fell to where I could not see or reach it.

My thought was: Well now, the creature was in the hands of the real God--if He exists. Would the God you believe in care about the fate of an insect?

It's much more fun to put lighter fluid on bugs and watch them run around on fire.

My father kills bugs for a living.

Christianity is a human centered religion.:162:

 

[retrorich]

Just out of curiosity, what are these carnal nutrients that are missing in plants?

Vegetable proteins (grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, and other vegetables) are incomplete proteins because they are missing, or do not have enough of, one or more of the essential amino acids.

http://www.bodyforlife2.com/incompletprotein.htm

 

[retrorich]

It's much more fun to put lighter fluid on bugs and watch them run around on fire. Christianity is a human centered religion.:162:

Perhaps that's why SOME Christians embrace the concept of hell. They enjoy the thought of creatures other than themselves (including nonChristian humans) running around on fire.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Just out of curiosity, what are these carnal nutrients that are missing in plants?

What is missing in plants that can be found in abundance in meat?

1. Scrump-dili-itiousness - rare amino acid found in a properly cooked chicken fried steak.

2. Hmm hmm goodness - a complex protein found in biscuits and gravy, but strangely only found in abundence when it is sausage gravy.

And finally:

3. He-Manliness - a quality that can only be found in meat. Name me three tough-guy vegetarians. . . exactly.

B.

Beef, its what's for dinner, and its tasty.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps that's why SOME Christians embrace the concept of hell. They enjoy the thought of creatures other than themselves (including nonChristian humans) running around on fire.

It's a GOOD thing that I'm not GOD.:149:

BTW: I completely agree with you. I certainly think that SOME Christians embrace the concept of hell because they think that "other" people will be there.

 

[Valjean]

Vegetable proteins (grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, and other vegetables) are incomplete proteins because they are missing, or do not have enough of, one or more of the essential amino acids.

http://www.bodyforlife2.com/incompletprotein.htm

True, retrorich. Amino acid balances are unique to each food and an optimally efficient balance for Hominids is rare in any single foodstuff, but this shouldn't present a problem unless you're trying to exist solely on a single food that's extremely short of some particular amino-acid.

My question stands. Besides B-12, what is found in meat that can't be obtained in any balanced vegetarian diet?

 

[RagnarGalt]

I believe in God and I don't think he gives the importance to animals that some of us do... When God destroyed a world of mankind for gross disregard of his principles in Noah's day, he preserved alive a human family and enough animals to allow procreation after the flood, however, it is clear that along with all wicked humankind, he destroyed countless millions of animals... There was no purpose for the animals any longer if there were no humans left to need them or enjoy them... These animals were only here for the enjoyment or use of humans as the case may have been, and when they were not needed they were done away with... In the same vain, untold numbers of trees and other plants were destroyed in the same flood and I believe that animals have the same value in God's eyes... They are here for us... On the other hand, there were many laws in the Mosaic law concerning proper treatment of animals, domestic and otherwise... However, I believe that these laws were intended to teach us other lessons... So your motive in killing the offending bug would be more important than whether or not you killed it... Do you gain pleasure from ending the life of creatures?... Do you use a magnifying glass to execute ants when the opportunity arises?...

Just my opinion though...

 

[gnomon]

Hey!Hey!

If God felt the same way about insects as I do you would all be squashed! (rimshot):jiggy:

oh man. I'm outta here!

 

[retrorich]

I believe in God and I don't think he gives the importance to animals that some of us do... When God destroyed a world of mankind for gross disregard of his principles in Noah's day, he preserved alive a human family and enough animals to allow procreation after the flood, however, it is clear that along with all wicked humankind, he destroyed countless millions of animals... There was no purpose for the animals any longer if there were no humans left to need them or enjoy them... These animals were only here for the enjoyment or use of humans as the case may have been, and when they were not needed they were done away with... In the same vain, untold numbers of trees and other plants were destroyed in the same flood and I believe that animals have the same value in God's eyes... They are here for us...

I consider the belief that animals and plants exist for no other reason than to be used by humans to be incredibly selfish and egotistical.

So your motive in killing the offending bug would be more important than whether or not you killed it...

If I had killed the insect I rescued from my coffee cup, my only motivation would have been to spare it from suffering.

Do you gain pleasure from ending the life of creatures?...

Absolutely not. Ending life of any kind is a very unpleasant and traumatic experience for me.

Do you use a magnifying glass to execute ants when the opportunity arises?...

In the case of the insect I rescued from my coffee cup, I used a magnifying glass in an attempt to determine if the injuries it had suffered, and the pain it was experiencing, were sufficient to warrant a mercy killing. The insect fell out of sight and reach before I could make that determination.

 

[michel]

I believe in God and I don't think he gives the importance to animals that some of us do... When God destroyed a world of mankind for gross disregard of his principles in Noah's day, he preserved alive a human family and enough animals to allow procreation after the flood, however, it is clear that along with all wicked humankind, he destroyed countless millions of animals... There was no purpose for the animals any longer if there were no humans left to need them or enjoy them... These animals were only here for the enjoyment or use of humans as the case may have been, and when they were not needed they were done away with... In the same vain, untold numbers of trees and other plants were destroyed in the same flood and I believe that animals have the same value in God's eyes... They are here for us... On the other hand, there were many laws in the Mosaic law concerning proper treatment of animals, domestic and otherwise... However, I believe that these laws were intended to teach us other lessons... So your motive in killing the offending bug would be more important than whether or not you killed it... Do you gain pleasure from ending the life of creatures?... Do you use a magnifying glass to execute ants when the opportunity arises?...

Just my opinion though...

As you so correctly put it, "Just your opinion", to which, of course you are perfectly entitled.

The irony here (and I don't intend to 'streotype') is that an atheist is following a moral code which a theist thinks is too high; to me that seems 'strange'.

Like Rich, I believe that all life has an intrinsic value and deserves veneration; from insects to plant life, to animals, to humans (and everything in the world that reproduces, grows and dies).

My belief is that I have to (vicariously) kill animals and plants for my sustenance; it is something I have to do to survive. That doesn't make it any easier on the fact that I do it; I feel guilt at what has had to die to sustain me; when I eat (if I can remember to do so) I give thanks to all life that was sacrificed to feed me.............

But, as you say, each one to his own............

In the mean time, RagnarGalt, I noticed that this is your first post here, and wished to take the opportunity to welcome you to Religious Forums;

You might like to introduce yourself to the other members, by psting on:-
Are you new to ReligiousForums.com? , and I hope you will please feel free to ask questions, if you have any, and to check out our article with links for our newer members; there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to look at.

Have fun, and I look forwards to seeing you around.

 

[RagnarGalt]

Well, I would like to point out that I don't think the atheist you speak of has a moral code that is TOO HIGH, as I don't think that is possible... I think that some people are misguided in the thinking that animals are as important as humans... Though some of what I said was personal opinion, it was largely based on what I consider to be FACT from the Bible... Being a believer in our creator, I also believe the Bible to be inspired... And the Bible tells me that God commanded his people via the Mosaic law to sacrifice animals on the altar for dozens of different reasons... These animals were not killed for sustenance, nor necessity for survival... They would be considered "innocent" to one who believes that animals can be innocent... However, the same God that left the Bible as the guidebook on morals in every other aspect of life, does not at anytime indicate that animals are somehow sacred, or to be treated as human... Even the penalty for killing another man's animal was to replace it up to 4 times, but there is no mention of soul for soul in the case of animals... Also, God via the Bible made the initial allowance for man to eat the flesh of animals... And as was mentioned, God destroyed millions of animals in the flood, and I suspect many were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah and other places in the Bible that suffered divine retribution... The are not my opinion but fact from the Bible... Understandably, an atheist is not bound by any of these principles if they do not hold the Bible to be fact, but a Christian who claims to believe the Bible would have to admit that animals are not given the same importance as men and women... God is not immoral, nor is he a murderer and therefore, I can only assume that the treatment of animals in the Bible was acceptable treatment for them... They WERE treated like property soley put on the earth for the enjoyment of humans... To say that I am egotistical because I believe that way is no different than my saying that you are egotistical because you believe your car or home are soley here for your use and enjoyment... As a student of the Bible it is clear to me that we don't get to pick and choose our morals on a whim... Am I somehow being more righteous or moral because I choose to call sacred the life of animals and plants (living things) even though the Bible does not consider them such?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Just because a person does not hold to YOUR standard, does not mean that they hold to no standard. They could easily hold to a standard MUCH HIGHER than yours. Deal with it.

 

[retrorich]

Well, I would like to point out that I don't think the atheist you speak of has a moral code that is TOO HIGH, as I don't think that is possible... I think that some people are misguided in the thinking that animals are as important as humans...

And I think YOU are misguided in thinking that animals are NOT as important as humans.

Though some of what I said was personal opinion, it was largely based on what I consider to be FACT from the Bible... Being a believer in our creator, I also believe the Bible to be inspired... And the Bible tells me that God commanded his people via the Mosaic law to sacrifice animals on the altar for dozens of different reasons... These animals were not killed for sustenance, nor necessity for survival... They would be considered "innocent" to one who believes that animals can be innocent... However, the same God that left the Bible as the guidebook on morals in every other aspect of life, does not at anytime indicate that animals are somehow sacred, or to be treated as human... Even the penalty for killing another man's animal was to replace it up to 4 times, but there is no mention of soul for soul in the case of animals... Also, God via the Bible made the initial allowance for man to eat the flesh of animals... And as was mentioned, God destroyed millions of animals in the flood, and I suspect many were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah and other places in the Bible that suffered divine retribution... The are not my opinion but fact from the Bible...

I do not accept something as being a fact simply because it is in the Bible.

Understandably, an atheist is not bound by any of these principles if they do not hold the Bible to be fact, but a Christian who claims to believe the Bible would have to admit that animals are not given the same importance as men and women... God is not immoral, nor is he a murderer...

God does not exist, therefore, He can be neither moral nor immoral.

...and therefore, I can only assume that the treatment of animals in the Bible was acceptable treatment for them... They WERE treated like property soley put on the earth for the enjoyment of humans...

To me, the Bible is just another work of fiction.

To say that I am egotistical because I believe that way is no different than my saying that you are egotistical because you believe your car or home are soley here for your use and enjoyment...

My car and my home are not living things, so your comparison is invalid. And yes, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

As a student of the Bible it is clear to me that we don't get to pick and choose our morals on a whim... Am I somehow being more righteous or moral because I choose to call sacred the life of animals and plants (living things) even though the Bible does not consider them such?

I believe unnecessary killing to be immoral, and I don't give a rat's tail what the Bible considers it to be.

 

[RagnarGalt]

NetDoc... Show me again where I accused anyone of having NO standard... And secondly, the standard I follow is not my own... I try to imitate the examples I am given in the Bible as the appropriate way to behave toward God and my fellow man... I don't believe I have the wisdom or farsight to create my own standard, but the creator of the universe does...

And Retrorich, you and I have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not the Bible is inspired and so I respect your opinion... In my first post, I believe I clearly stated that an atheist or someone who doesn't hold the Bible as the standard to follow would not be bound by it... However, I think as a Christian, one should consider the Bible's viewpoint on the matter before making statements that 'all living things are sacred' or that 'a person is a murderer if they kill a cow, or cut down a tree'...

And for the record, I have a great deal of respect for all the things, living and nonliving, that my God created, and would not unnecessarily harm a living thing (I put spiders out of the house before my wife has the opportunity to execute them), but I merely stated that I don't think the original poster incurred bloodguilt by killing said insect, nor do I think he or she did anything wrong for making a determination of whether it should live or die... Compassion is certainly something the Bible would support, as would appreciation for all God's creation...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Post 53 of this thread. You can read it for yourself.

 

[RagnarGalt]

NetDoc... I reread the post and I don't see where I said someone had NO moral code... In post 52, Michel says that he finds it interesting that a theist (me) believe that an atheist (rich) has a moral standard that is TOO HIGH... In 53, I merely stated that I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to have a moral standard that is TOO HIGH... How can one be TOO good, or TOO nice, or TOO righteous... That is the part that I think is impossible...

 

[Scuba Pete]

I merely stated that I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to have a moral standard that is TOO HIGH

It read to many of us that the ATHEIST could not have a moral standard that was very high. Work on your communication skills. We can't read your mind.

 

[RagnarGalt]

Excuse me NetDoc, but my original statement in #53 is perfectly clear and conveys what it should. I don't believe an atheist can have a standard that is TOO HIGH... I even stressed the important words... My communication skills are sufficient... However, I would like to point out that as a self-confessed Disciple of Peace / CHRISTIAN / Peace, your comments are caustic, rude, unnecessary, and unwelcome... Keep to the discussion at hand, if you please...