Animals must not be scapegoats

[Guest guest]

Well, I was asking about something else. Is that OK?

 

 

-

peter VV

Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:57 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

 

 

What about them? I wasnt asking about them, I was refering to the ones that werent , from invertibrates to fish to animals ( yes even dinosaurs )

 

The Valley Vegan..............Carolyn H <wordwerks (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

What about the animals that may not have become carnivores at all? Like our mostly vegetarian, 98% genetically identical cousins, the mountain gorillas....

 

 

-

peter VV

Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:02 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

 

 

Doesnt fossilised evidence contradict that , I mean werent there predators/carnivores before mankind came along?

 

The Valley Vegan...............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

 

 

 

I suppose they would have become carnivores and predators when man did, and for the same reasons.

 

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators?

 

The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

 

 

 

Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life."

 

peace,

sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

str8 from the bible

Genesis

"21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

 

 

jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat.

 

Jo

 

-

peter VV

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways.........

 

The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote:

 

 

 

I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals.

 

Jo

 

-

Shhhhh

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace.

 

But it is a good book, a worthwhile read.

 

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all......

 

The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

 

 

 

I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals.

 

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ's birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries.

 

 

 

 

 

What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that "the ox knows its owner and the ass its master's crib". Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: "Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy."

The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ's birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the "wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them" (xi, 6). God's kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. "Hence," wrote St Thomas, "it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever." But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive - indeed it flourished - in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God's other creatures, calling them "brothers" and "sisters" because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God's creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the "dominion" over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny

Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts - the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity - once judged to be the cornerstone of "speciesist" and "supremacist" attitudes - in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals.

 

 

 

 

 

Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity.

 

 

The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com

Peter H

 

 

 

All New Mail - Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

 

 

 

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business.

Peter H

 

 

 

Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail.

 

 

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

 

Peter H

 

 

 

Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" - The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher

 

 

 

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Peter H

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

 

 

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it now.

Peter H

 

 

 

All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

 

Peter H

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Jainism is older than Hinduism.

 

and the likely root of Budhism as well.

 

it is documented to be 5,000 years old but it possibly much older.

 

Jains are the original Vegans.

 

-anouk

 

 

, " jo " <jo.heartwork wrote:

>

> I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian.

>

> Jo

>

> -

> peter VV

>

> Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:50 PM

> Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

>

>

> Tell me about hinduism & siehkism and vegetarianism?

>

> The Valley Vegan..................

>

> Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:

> And don't forget the Hindus.

>

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> As you seem to be the oracle, what about muslims? what are

their views on vegetarianism?

> Buddhists are easy, I understand where they are coming from.

>

> The Valley Vegan..................

>

> fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

> just like x-tians, some do

> the torah is basically the x-tian old testament...

> same basic tenents

> there are a number of jewish writings on the course of

vegetarianism

> i have a book..somewhere..on the jewish tenents of vegetarianism

>

>

>

>

> peter VV

> Dec 12, 2006 11:02 AM

>

> Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

>

>

> Thanks for that, Do Jews believe the same I wonder?

>

> The Valley Vegan.............

>

> Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:

> Of course there is much disagreement on this subject.

About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave

man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is

tied into the fact that man fell from grace.

>

> But it is a good book, a worthwhile read.

>

> peace,

> sharon

>

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the

subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the

arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and

another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or

theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all......

>

> The Valley Vegan................

>

> Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:

> I think " Dominion " by Matthew Scully is about the

best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals.

>

> peace,

> sharon

>

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>

> In my never ending quest to try and understand

various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this

christian article, what do you all think?

>

> We should treat all creatures with

respect, as the early Christians did

>

>

> Nothing is more orthodox, one might

think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox

and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable.

> Few realise that this much-loved scene

has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew,

Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed

there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ's

birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a

compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an

older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on

sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the

fifth and sixth centuries.

>

>

> What we appear to have, then, is a

non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in

Habakkuk iii, 2) that " the ox knows its owner and the ass its master's

crib " . Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant.

> In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a

voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly

different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of

Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on

a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James

(2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught

up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of

unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: " Now

carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may

find mercy. "

>

>

> The significance of these gospel hints and

apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly

tradition within Christianity. Christ's birth and ministry are

understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in

fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the " wolf shall live with the

sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them " (xi, 6).

> God's kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial,

co-operative relations between species.

> This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the

instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as

Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here

for our use. " Hence, " wrote St Thomas, " it is not wrong for man to

make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever. "

> But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive -

indeed it flourished - in the lives of many saints of East and West.

St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St

Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St

Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he

was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God's other

creatures, calling them " brothers " and " sisters " because they had the

same origin as himself.

> Many commentators have dismissed these stories of

saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a

strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must

involve communion with all God's creatures. Attitudes of wonder and

celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist

perspectives on animals.

> Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out

with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in

the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against

cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the " dominion " over

animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human

beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is

difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny

> Although most think that human salvation alone is

Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of

salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is

part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are

uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts -

the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and

Behemoth (chaps 40-41).

> Last month more than 100 academics (including 40

theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics,

an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our

treatment of animals. Christianity - once judged to be the cornerstone

of " speciesist " and " supremacist " attitudes - in fact comprises

resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations

with animals.

>

>

> Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with

Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of

the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the

heart of Christianity.

> The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the

Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com

>

>

>

> Peter H

>

>

> -----------------------------

> All New Mail - Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons?

Let our SpamGuard protect you.

>

>

>

> -------------------------------

> Want to start your own business? Learn how on

Small Business.

>

>

>

>

> Peter H

>

>

>

> Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane.

Get the new Mail.

>

>

>

> --

> Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more

powerful email and get things done faster.

>

>

>

>

> Peter H

>

>

> ----

> All new Mail " The new Interface is stunning in its

simplicity and ease of use. " - PC Magazine

> History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher

>

>

>

>

> Peter H

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends

http://uk.messenger.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Peter H

>

>

>

>

 

> Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage

with All New Mail.

>

[Guest guest]

yet,

the bible does suggest that creation is spontaneous,

 

god created man. period.

 

no slow process of change over time or

survival of the fittest or genetic mutations over time

or adaptations to climates etc.

 

no room for a single celled organism to improve and turn

into something else, something with an advantage over

others, something stronger.

 

it was just Poof! man. There you are.

 

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

 

>

> Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist?

[Guest guest]

If god made man in his image

 

then God must look very Apelike.

 

Cause them first dudes were ugly, little and hairy.

plus they grunted, did not have the same voice box as us.

 

-anouk

 

 

, peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>

> I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or

primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing

argument between creationists and evolutioneries?

>

> The Valley Vegan...............

>

> Peter <metalscarab wrote:

> Hi Peter

[Guest guest]

yet,

the bible says,

god created man,

not

god created amoebas

 

The more scientist dig up old bones

from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked

like at the beginning,

 

the more the bible does not make any sense.

 

I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do I

think God is a woman.

 

Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression

until a later period, then why does it make sense that Males

where made first.

 

I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think that

god humanlike.

 

-anouk

 

 

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Peter

>

> >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or

primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing

argument between creationists and

> > evolutioneries?

>

> But why does God making the animals automatically mean that those

animals can't evolve?

>

> The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher who

decided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothing

before then had existed - that is the basis of the " creationist "

viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes

evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings which

may or may not be given the ability to evolve.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Anouk

 

> the bible does suggest that creation is spontaneous,

> god created man. period.

> no slow process of change over time or

> survival of the fittest or genetic mutations over time

> or adaptations to climates etc.

> no room for a single celled organism to improve and turn

> into something else, something with an advantage over

> others, something stronger.

> it was just Poof! man. There you are.

 

But it doesn't say that evolution can't occur from that moment on. And I

don't think you'll find that all biologists agree that humanity has

developed fom single celled organisms anyway - the process of evolution that

has been observed would be way too slow for that to have occcurred within

the currently popular view of the age of the universe.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

it's all in how you look at it...

 

most fables, myths, morality tales, from a culture's past can be construed as

evil, especially when you look at it thru the eyes of the 21st century

(especially a Western culture lens)

look at the Greek myths, look at the Illiad and Odyssey, jason and the argonauts

 

ok...i am not meaning this to offend anyone, please don't take it like that

but, in both x-tian and jewish progressive societies, the old testament is

downplayed

in progressive x-tian, it leans heavily toward the teachings of Jesus

in progressive judaism, it leans very much toward the later rabbinical teachings

 

 

remember, when the old testament was written, the isrealites were just one

" barbarian " semitic tribe trying to at first over throw the cities of the more

civilized folks, the Canaanites...so you have basic tribal law being passed down

 

again, no disrespect toward anyones belief, be they x-tian, judaic, or muslim..

but..the old testament god, who is full of wrath and brimstone, isn't

technically the same god of later tradition or the new testament

the early old testament god, YWH, and earlier incarnations, is probably a

volcano god

his name means basically " fire on the mountain " , and look at the early ways he

showed himself..he spoke on the mountain, he spoke thru fire..etc an so forth

 

 

fraggle

 

 

>flower child <zurumato

>Dec 14, 2006 5:37 PM

>

> Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

>

>

>well I think the bible is EVIL.

>

>sorry, the god in there is much too violent for me.

>The funny thing about it is that as a child,

>I truly and with all of my precious tender little heart...

>believe in it.

>

>but as Adult, none of what is written in there make logical sense to

>me and because

>I live in the South..

>It is constantly being shoved down my throat.

>

>but my (opinion) is that they had to be vegetarian because

>Methusaleh and were aged hundreds of years and recent

>research has proven the people who eat animal-heavy diet

>have the shortest lifespan.

>

>-anouk

>

>

>

>

> , peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>>

>> ???????????? so did they wipe out any species by eating them, or

>were they still vegie then?, and surely after the flood it would have

>taken a few months to reproduce just one offspring for say a

>cow/goat/pig? so they must have eaten quite a few by then?

>>

>> Sorry about my brain...........or lack of it!

>>

>> The Valley Vegan............

>>

>> Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:

>> Seven pairs, actually.

>>

>> peace,

>> sharon

>>

>> Peter <metalscarab wrote:

>> Hi Peter

>>

>> >If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on

>this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of

>some species? I mean if they were

>> > eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways.........

>>

>> According to the bible, there were two of some species, and seven

>of other species....

>>

>> BB

>> Peter

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Peter H

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

>to use " – The Wall Street Journal

>>

>

>

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

[Guest guest]

just remember that everyone has different beliefs..........

 

 

>flower child <zurumato

>Dec 14, 2006 6:10 PM

>

> Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

>

>yet,

>the bible says,

>god created man,

>not

>god created amoebas

>

>The more scientist dig up old bones

>from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked

>like at the beginning,

>

>the more the bible does not make any sense.

>

>I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do I

>think God is a woman.

>

>Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression

>until a later period, then why does it make sense that Males

>where made first.

>

>I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think that

>god humanlike.

>

>-anouk

>

>

>

> , " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>>

>> Hi Peter

>>

>> >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or

>primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing

>argument between creationists and

>> > evolutioneries?

>>

>> But why does God making the animals automatically mean that those

>animals can't evolve?

>>

>> The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher who

>decided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothing

>before then had existed - that is the basis of the " creationist "

>viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes

>evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings which

>may or may not be given the ability to evolve.

>>

>> BB

>> Peter

>>

>

>

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Anouk

 

> I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do I

> think God is a woman.

 

Considering that we're discussing the deity of the bible, who clearly is an

anthropomorphised male being, it would seem silly not to use the appropriate

male adjectives when discussing him. I doubt you'd complain if I used the

term " him " when talking about Hades, or the term " her " if talking about

Bidget, so why complain when use " him " when talking about Yahweh?

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

It says God created everything, but now how. While I do believe evolution to be a theory with plenty of room for questioning in its own right, there is nothing in the Bible that absolutely prevents that method of creation. I do note that the order of creation would fit in pretty well with the order set forth by the theory of evolution. And as for the time span ... the Bible says that with God a thousand years is as a day, so seven creative days are not necessarily 24 hour days. peace, sharonflower child <zurumato wrote: yet,the bible does suggest that creation is spontaneous,god created man. period. no slow process of change over time orsurvival of the fittest or genetic mutations over timeor adaptations to climates etc. no room for a single celled organism to improve and turninto something else, something with an advantage over others, something stronger. it was just Poof! man. There you are. , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:> > Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist?

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that would fall under "life that swarms in the water," which is the first of all living things listed in creation. peace, sharonflower child <zurumato wrote: yet, the bible says, god created man, not god created amoebasThe more scientist dig up old bones from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked like at the beginning, the more the bible does not make

any sense. I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do Ithink God is a woman. Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression until a later period, then why does it make sense that Maleswhere made first. I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think thatgod humanlike. -anouk , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Peter> > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa orprimeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standingargument between creationists and> > evolutioneries?> > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that thoseanimals can't evolve?> > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher whodecided that God

created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothingbefore then had existed - that is the basis of the "creationist"viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makesevolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings whichmay or may not be given the ability to evolve.> > BB> Peter>

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

More to the point, I don't think anybody figures that God creating man in his own image meant a physical image. peace, sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: just remember that everyone has different beliefs..........>flower child <zurumato (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>>Dec 14, 2006 6:10 PM> > Re: Animals must not be scapegoats>>yet, >the bible says, >god created man, >not >god created amoebas>>The more scientist dig up old bones >from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked >like at the beginning, >>the more the bible does not make any sense. >>I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do I>think God is a woman. >>Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression >until a later period, then why does it make sense that Males>where made first. >>I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think that>god humanlike. >>-anouk >>>> , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>>>> Hi Peter>> >> >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or>primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing>argument between creationists and>> > evolutioneries?>> >> But why does God making the animals automatically mean that those>animals can't evolve?>> >> The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher who>decided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothing>before then had existed - that is the basis of the "creationist">viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes>evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings which>may or may not be given the ability to evolve.>> >>

BB>> Peter>>>>>>>To send an email to - >

[Guest guest]

My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.

Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of God

as a male.

I was speaking of God as a general term.

No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.

 

God is a male is most religions here in america no matter what the sect.

 

I know that Paganism recognizes females as Goddesses, but

unfortunatley Pagans are a minority.

 

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Anouk

>

> > I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do I

> > think God is a woman.

>

> Considering that we're discussing the deity of the bible, who

clearly is an

> anthropomorphised male being, it would seem silly not to use the

appropriate

> male adjectives when discussing him. I doubt you'd complain if I

used the

> term " him " when talking about Hades, or the term " her " if talking about

> Bidget, so why complain when use " him " when talking about Yahweh?

>

> BB

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

yes and I was expressing mine.

 

, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

>

> just remember that everyone has different beliefs..........

>

>

> >flower child <zurumato

> >Dec 14, 2006 6:10 PM

> >

> > Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

> >

> >yet,

> >the bible says,

> >god created man,

> >not

> >god created amoebas

> >

> >The more scientist dig up old bones

> >from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked

> >like at the beginning,

> >

> >the more the bible does not make any sense.

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Anouk

 

I respect your resentment which you have a right to express - but it does

not make you right.

 

To put it in your perspective - my friend believes that god is female and

calls her 'her'. Would you accept that as the truth just because another

person states it? You would not. And just because you believe in a god - I

do not accept it as truth - just as your own personal truth.

 

Jo

 

> I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do I

> think God is a woman.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Anouk

 

> My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.

 

Because the Babylonian deity from which he came (Yahweh) was male. There is

some suggestion that earrly Judaism recognised a goddess as well (Asherah),

but with the highly patriachal society that developed, the female side of

divinity was suppressed.

 

> Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of God

> as a male.

 

God is the name for a particular deity, who happens to be male - it would be

nonsensical to talk of that deity as female, as much as it would be

nonsensical to talk of Hades or Odin as female. They just aren't! I think

the more important question would be why the feminine side of divinity is

not recognised at all in some religions (although Catholicism does have

Mary, so that can't really be a criticism of all Christian sects)

 

> I was speaking of God as a general term.

> No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.

 

That depends on what circles you move in.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

While it can be interesting to discuss these old texts it must be remembered that they are only stories written by men.

 

Jo

 

-

Shhhhh

Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 AM

Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that would fall under "life that swarms in the water," which is the first of all living things listed in creation.

 

peace,

sharonflower child <zurumato wrote:

 

 

yet, the bible says, god created man, not god created amoebasThe more scientist dig up old bones from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked like at the beginning, the more the bible does not make any sense. I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do Ithink God is a woman. Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression until a later period, then why does it make sense that Maleswhere made first. I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think thatgod humanlike. -anouk , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Peter> > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa orprimeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standingargument between creationists and> > evolutioneries?> > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that thoseanimals can't evolve?> > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher whodecided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothingbefore then had existed - that is the basis of the "creationist"viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makesevolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings whichmay or may not be given the ability to evolve.> > BB> Peter>

 

 

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

stories probably passed down from generation to generation, spiced up with artistic liscence and then written down.To me that means nothing more than folklore. Purely personal dont you know, dont want to offend ........... The Valley Vegan.................. jo <jo.heartwork wrote: While it can be interesting to discuss these old texts it must be remembered that they are only stories written by men. Jo - Shhhhh Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 AM Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that would fall under "life that swarms in the water," which is the first of all living things listed in creation. peace, sharonflower

child <zurumato (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: yet, the bible says, god created man, not god created amoebasThe more scientist dig up old bones from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked like at the beginning, the more the bible does not make any sense. I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do Ithink God is a woman. Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression until a later period, then why does it make sense that Maleswhere made first. I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think thatgod humanlike. -anouk , "Peter"

<metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Peter> > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa orprimeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standingargument between creationists and> > evolutioneries?> > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that thoseanimals can't evolve?> > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher whodecided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothingbefore then had existed - that is the basis of the "creationist"viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makesevolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings whichmay or may not be given the ability to evolve.> > BB> Peter> Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H

 

All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

[Guest guest]

Good last point Peter. Every body knows that nature is female?................mother nature? from whom all life springs? The Valley Vegan...............Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Anouk> My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.Because the Babylonian deity from which he came (Yahweh) was male. There issome suggestion that earrly Judaism recognised a goddess as well (Asherah),but with the highly patriachal society

that developed, the female side ofdivinity was suppressed.> Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of God> as a male.God is the name for a particular deity, who happens to be male - it would benonsensical to talk of that deity as female, as much as it would benonsensical to talk of Hades or Odin as female. They just aren't! I thinkthe more important question would be why the feminine side of divinity isnot recognised at all in some religions (although Catholicism does haveMary, so that can't really be a criticism of all Christian sects)> I was speaking of God as a general term.> No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.That depends on what circles you move in.BBPeterPeter H

 

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

[Guest guest]

Actually, it must be remembered that some people believe they are

stories insired by God.

 

peace,

sharon

 

, " jo " <jo.heartwork wrote:

>

> While it can be interesting to discuss these old texts it must be

remembered that they are only stories written by men.

>

> Jo

> -

> Shhhhh

>

> Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 AM

> Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

>

>

> Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that

would fall under " life that swarms in the water, " which is the first

of all living things listed in creation.

>

> peace,

> sharon

>

> flower child <zurumato wrote:

> yet,

> the bible says,

> god created man,

> not

> god created amoebas

>

> The more scientist dig up old bones

> from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked

> like at the beginning,

>

> the more the bible does not make any sense.

>

> I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him.

Nor do I

> think God is a woman.

>

> Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal

expression

> until a later period, then why does it make sense that Males

> where made first.

>

> I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think

that

> god humanlike.

>

> -anouk

>

> , " Peter " <metalscarab@>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Peter

> >

> > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not

protezoa or

> primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing

> argument between creationists and

> > > evolutioneries?

> >

> > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that

those

> animals can't evolve?

> >

> > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher

who

> decided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that

nothing

> before then had existed - that is the basis of

the " creationist "

> viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes

> evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of

beings which

> may or may not be given the ability to evolve.

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

> >

-

-----------

> Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful

email and get things done faster.

>

[Guest guest]

The male pronoun has been generally used as inclusive of everybody

in general usage for generations ... mankind, for example. " He " is

generally used when speaking in general terms, without a specific

personal assignment. It may be right or may be wrong, but even

though there are some small changes being made in this regard in our

day and age, it is not to God alone that this applies.

 

peace,

sharon

 

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Anouk

>

> > My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.

>

> Because the Babylonian deity from which he came (Yahweh) was male.

There is

> some suggestion that earrly Judaism recognised a goddess as well

(Asherah),

> but with the highly patriachal society that developed, the female

side of

> divinity was suppressed.

>

> > Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of

God

> > as a male.

>

> God is the name for a particular deity, who happens to be male -

it would be

> nonsensical to talk of that deity as female, as much as it would be

> nonsensical to talk of Hades or Odin as female. They just aren't!

I think

> the more important question would be why the feminine side of

divinity is

> not recognised at all in some religions (although Catholicism does

have

> Mary, so that can't really be a criticism of all Christian sects)

>

> > I was speaking of God as a general term.

> > No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.

>

> That depends on what circles you move in.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

but more than 7 thousand years? The Valley Vegan.............Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: It says God created everything, but now how. While I do believe evolution to be a theory with plenty of room for questioning in its own right, there is nothing in the Bible that absolutely prevents that method of creation. I do note that the order of creation would fit in pretty well with the order set forth by the theory of evolution. And as for

the time span ... the Bible says that with God a thousand years is as a day, so seven creative days are not necessarily 24 hour days. peace, sharonflower child <zurumato (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: yet,the bible does suggest that creation is spontaneous,god created man. period. no slow process of change over time orsurvival of the fittest or genetic mutations over timeor adaptations to climates etc. no room for a single celled organism to improve and turninto something else, something with an advantage over others, something stronger. it was just Poof! man. There you are. , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>

> Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist? Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta. Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

I respect Jainism. The Valley Vegan............flower child <zurumato wrote: Jainism is older than Hinduism. and the likely root of Budhism as well. it is documented to be 5,000 years old but it possibly much older. Jains are the original Vegans. -anouk , "jo" <jo.heartwork wrote:>> I have some Hindu friends who are

vegetarian. > > Jo> > - > peter VV > > Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:50 PM> Re: Animals must not be scapegoats> > > Tell me about hinduism & siehkism and vegetarianism?> > The Valley Vegan..................> > Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:> And don't forget the Hindus.> > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote: > As you seem to be the oracle, what about muslims? what aretheir views on vegetarianism?> Buddhists are easy, I understand where they are coming from.> > The Valley Vegan..................> > fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:> just like x-tians, some do> the torah is basically the

x-tian old testament...> same basic tenents> there are a number of jewish writings on the course ofvegetarianism> i have a book..somewhere..on the jewish tenents of vegetarianism> > > > > peter VV > Dec 12, 2006 11:02 AM > > Re: Animals must not be scapegoats > > > Thanks for that, Do Jews believe the same I wonder?> > The Valley Vegan.............> > Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:> Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gaveman a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing istied into the fact that man fell from grace. > > But it is a good book, a

worthwhile read.> > peace,> sharon> > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:> Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on thesubject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all thearguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , andanother contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans ortheological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all......> > The Valley Vegan................> > Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:> I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about thebest read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. > > peace,> sharon> > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:> > In my never ending quest to try and understandvarious faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed thischristian article, what do you all think?> > We

should treat all creatures withrespect, as the early Christians did > > > Nothing is more orthodox, one mightthink, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the oxand ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. > Few realise that this much-loved scenehas no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeedthere are no references at all to the animals attending Christ'sbirth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, acompilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on anolder oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear onsarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of thefifth and sixth centuries. > > > What we appear to have, then, is anon-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed inHabakkuk iii, 2)

that "the ox knows its owner and the ass its master'scrib". Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. > In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of avoluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikinglydifferent perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel ofThomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes ona dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James(2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caughtup in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, ofunknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: "Nowcarry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too mayfind mercy." > > > The significance of these gospel hints andapocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendlytradition within Christianity. Christ's birth and ministry areunderstood as a harbinger

of peaceful creaturely relations infulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the "wolf shall live with thesheep . . . and a little child shall lead them" (xi, 6). > God's kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial,co-operative relations between species. > This is, of course, in sharp contrast to theinstrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such asAugustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put herefor our use. "Hence," wrote St Thomas, "it is not wrong for man tomake use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever." > But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive -indeed it flourished - in the lives of many saints of East and West.St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and StCuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. StBonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how hewas filled with overwhelming

piety when he contemplated God's othercreatures, calling them "brothers" and "sisters" because they had thesame origin as himself. > Many commentators have dismissed these stories ofsaints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry astrong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) mustinvolve communion with all God's creatures. Attitudes of wonder andcelebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalistperspectives on animals. > Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die outwith the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement inthe 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns againstcruelty to animals and children. Many think that the "dominion" overanimals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since humanbeings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it isdifficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for

tyranny > Although most think that human salvation alone isChristian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope ofsalvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, ispart of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans areuniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts -the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan andBehemoth (chaps 40-41). > Last month more than 100 academics (including 40theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics,an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of ourtreatment of animals. Christianity - once judged to be the cornerstoneof "speciesist" and "supremacist" attitudes - in fact comprisesresources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relationswith animals. > > > Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, withJesus surrounded by the

adoring animals, we should remind ourselves ofthe survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at theheart of Christianity. > The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of theOxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com> > > > Peter H > > > -------------------------> All New Mail - Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons?Let our SpamGuard protect you.> > > > -------------------------> Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. > > > > > Peter H > > > -------------------------> Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane.Get the new Mail.

> > > > -------------------------> Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a morepowerful email and get things done faster. > > > > > Peter H > > > -------------------------> All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in itssimplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine > History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher> > > > > Peter H > > Send instant messages to your online friendshttp://uk.messenger. > > > > > >

> > > > > Peter H > > > >-------------------------> Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storagewith All New Mail.>Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Sorry, thought youwere answering my question? The Valley Vegan..............Carolyn H <wordwerks wrote: Well, I was asking about something else. Is that OK? - peter VV Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:57 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats What about them? I wasnt asking about them, I was refering to the ones that werent , from invertibrates to fish to animals ( yes even dinosaurs ) The Valley Vegan..............Carolyn H <wordwerks (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote: What about the animals that may not have become carnivores at all? Like our mostly vegetarian, 98% genetically identical cousins, the mountain gorillas.... - peter VV Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:02 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Doesnt fossilised evidence contradict that , I mean werent there

predators/carnivores before mankind came along? The Valley Vegan...............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I suppose they would have become carnivores and predators when man did, and for the same reasons. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? The Valley

Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life." peace, sharonfraggle

<EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: str8 from the bible Genesis "21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals

would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat. Jo - peter VV Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean

if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV

<swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass

looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ's birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that "the ox knows its owner and the ass its master's crib". Interesting, one

might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: "Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy." The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ's birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah's

prophecy that the "wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them" (xi, 6). God's kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. "Hence," wrote St Thomas, "it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever." But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive - indeed it flourished - in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God's other creatures, calling them "brothers" and "sisters" because they

had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God's creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the "dominion" over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the

scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts - the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity - once judged to be the cornerstone of "speciesist" and "supremacist" attitudes - in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by

the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail - Tired of Vi@gr@!

come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" - The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it now. Peter H All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Very true - but it must also be remembered that many people believe Greek,

Roman, Celtic, Northern myths to be the truth, whereas others say they are

just stories.

 

Jo

 

-

" compassion2grace " <compassion2grace

 

Friday, December 15, 2006 7:28 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

 

> Actually, it must be remembered that some people believe they are

> stories insired by God.

>

> peace,

> sharon

>

> , " jo " <jo.heartwork wrote:

> >

> > While it can be interesting to discuss these old texts it must be

> remembered that they are only stories written by men.

> >

> > Jo

> > -

> > Shhhhh

> >

> > Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 AM

> > Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

> >

> >

> > Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that

> would fall under " life that swarms in the water, " which is the first

> of all living things listed in creation.

> >

> > peace,

> > sharon

> >

> > flower child <zurumato wrote:

> > yet,

> > the bible says,

> > god created man,

> > not

> > god created amoebas

> >

> > The more scientist dig up old bones

> > from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked

> > like at the beginning,

> >

> > the more the bible does not make any sense.

> >

> > I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him.

> Nor do I

> > think God is a woman.

> >

> > Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal

> expression

> > until a later period, then why does it make sense that Males

> > where made first.

> >

> > I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think

> that

> > god humanlike.

> >

> > -anouk

> >

> > , " Peter " <metalscarab@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Peter

> > >

> > > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not

> protezoa or

> > primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing

> > argument between creationists and

> > > > evolutioneries?

> > >

> > > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that

> those

> > animals can't evolve?

> > >

> > > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher

> who

> > decided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that

> nothing

> > before then had existed - that is the basis of

> the " creationist "

> > viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes

> > evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of

> beings which

> > may or may not be given the ability to evolve.

> > >

> > > BB

> > > Peter

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> -----------

> > Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful

> email and get things done faster.

> >

>

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>