Differing Views of God

[Susma Rio Sep]

Namaste all.


All together now:
__________________________________

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all.

Something like that, forgive me for the misquotes.

________________________________


About cockroaches, I feel sorry for them; for they are slated for extinction even though they can survive radiation from nuclear holocausts.

Because people from Dow and other chemicals manufacturers have produced a cock bait that can really kill them all in due time.

It works this way, according to the instruction in one sachet:

Cockroaches find the bait irresistible, will ingest it and go home to their common lair. They will die from the poison in the bait. Their fellow cockroaches will eat the dead siblings and die in their turn. The death chain will continue indefinitely as cockroaches as their wont eat up dead roaches killed by ingesting the bait.

Unless they develop an antidote within their system -- which takes millions of years; what a loss, as they have survived millions of years antecedently to us.

And please don't denigrate the cockroach as inferior to us. It is as evolved as necessary for it to survive all these millions of years to be even immune to radiation ravages; but to be extinguished by the most wickedly destructive of creatures, man.

Susma Rio Sep

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Namaste all.

And please don't denigrate the cockroach as inferior to us. It is as evolved as necessary for it to survive all these millions of years to be even immune to radiation ravages; but to be extinguished by the most wickedly destructive of creatures, man.

I only meant to say that cockroaches where inferior mentally, and if they can't figure out that they are dieing from eating their dead comrades before their entire species is destroyed then they are. I've already stated their superior survival skills.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Greeting go with you as well Vaj,

Well yes...but at least I have a better than 50/50 chance of sitting down to dinner that night, instead of being dinner

Namaste Quahom,

thank you for the post.

perhaps you have that chance.. though it's really hard to say. if the animals were quite hungry and you were just wandering around, i suspect that you would be dinner that night eh... but this is, of course, just a thought and a perspective.

And after I'm dead, the "house" is up for grabs to all bidders...except cockroaches (I'm makin' certain that is in my will).

Seriously, I just don't think we are that low on the scale in comparison to God, and here is why. Scripture describes man as being a little lower than Angels, and angels (like the former Archangel Lucifer) were described as being second only to God. Finally, it seems, that God has invested alot of time and effort into this troublesome, rebellious creation called man. But for some reason, God appears to think we are worth it.

it's not that we are lower than other creatures or above them. rather, that all creatures want to be happy and not to suffer and in that respect, we are all equal. despite what some folks would assert, animals do feel pain and aniexity and know, to a relative degree, what is going on around them.

That I am a flawed creature, a sinner, that on their own merit my greatest accomplishment are the equivelent of filthy rags to be burnt to cinders...I can accept that. I just can't consider myself lower than what I am, a human being.

well... i'll presume that this opinion is held due to your religions teachings. i would certainly not veiw it in that manner eh... but whatever works for you is what i'm in favor of!

my tradition has a completely different view of all beings, not just humans in any event... if it works for you and and causes you to progress along the spiritual path, then i will support you 100%.

viva la difference!

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks Vaj, for the paragraph below; it's been my spiritual reading for the day, very edifying.

______________________________________

it's not that we are lower than other creatures or above them. rather, that all creatures want to be happy and not to suffer and in that respect, we are all equal. despite what some folks would assert, animals do feel pain and aniexity and know, to a relative degree, what is going on around them.
_________________________________________

That's one of the saddest things I find in Christianity and in Islam and in Judaism, they don't have a place for animals, unlike Buddhism. Correct me if I am wrong.

If you keep a dog at home, and they are man's best friends, you will realize that they can smell fear, worry, anger, sex, whatever in you. Have you noticed that the neighborhood dogs howl when there is death in the vicinity, and they don't have to see it -- they can smell the dying process.

Susma Rio Sep

[arthra]

My good friend Susma Rio Sep wrote:

"That's one of the saddest things I find in Christianity and in Islam and in Judaism, they don't have a place for animals, unlike Buddhism. Correct me if I am wrong."

My reply:

I don't think that's entirely the case though I will concede there is a very strong emphasis in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism on not disturbing animal life...

But consider:

In Numbers 22:23-30 you have the charming story of Balaam's ass and Exodus 23:4-5: "If you come on your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you must lead it back to him. If you see the donkey of a man who hates you fallen under his load, instead of keeping out of his way, go to him to help him."

Even though there was a sacrificial system developed using animals in the Temple consider Psalm 50:13:

"If I were hungry, I should not tell you,
since the world and all it holds is mine.
Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink goat's blood?"

And in the Gospels, Jesus says:

"And yet not one (sparrow) falls to the ground without your Father knowing." - Matthew 10:29

I've speculated that that when Jesus drove out the money changers and traders of animals from the Temple He was was also by His actions attacking the system of animal sacrifices. See Matthew 21:12-13.

In the Qur'an is the story of the She-Camel:

"Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a sign unto you: so leave her to graze in Allah's earth and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment....

Then they hamstrung the she-camel and insolently defied the order of their Lord..."

- Surih 7:73-77

In the Baha'i Faith, Kindness to Animals is a principle:

"Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel."

-Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 1978), 159-60.

Hunting for sport is also forbidden for Baha'is.

- Art

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanka, Anthra, for more spiritual readings.

What about this injunction from Exodus 23, 19:

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

Is that an instance of kindness to animals?

Know of any explanation against the practice.

In this connection but not in a religious context, I have never come across any recipe where fish and meat from pork or beef or chicken are cooked together.

Do you know of any explanation for this non-usage?


Susma Rio Sep

[arthra]

Susma Rio Sep wrote:

"What about this injunction from Exodus 23, 19:

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

Is that an instance of kindness to animals?

Know of any explanation against the practice."

Reply:

I'm not an expert on Torah, but apparently there was a Canaanite practise of seething a kid in it's mother's milk, and this practise was therefore forbidden. So to the extent it is a prohibition, I suppose you could argue it is a "kindness". You will find the same injunction against the practise in Exodus 34:26 and in Deuteronomy 14:21, so it must have been a widespread practise in Canaan that was forbidden in the Torah.

Susma wrote:

"In this connection but not in a religious context, I have never come across any recipe where fish and meat from pork or beef or chicken are cooked together.

Do you know of any explanation for this non-usage?"

My reply:

I'm unsure here to what you are referring as these laws in Torah always by definition have a "religious context".... certain fish, pork were forbidden. There is a site that details what was forbidden in the Torah:

http://www.torah.org/learning/halach...chapter28.html

I think there were reasons for these prohibitions at the time they were made. Certain meats were disease carriers and methods of sanitization were unknown for centuries so various requirements made sense.

As to "kindness to animals" in the context of these regulations to appreciate them you must also be aware of the context they were given and what kinds of practices were common in thse days, such as the Canaanite practse I mentioned above.

- Art

[veritasamat]

Greetings,

Kindness to animals is taught in Islam. Here is a link to a short article, if anyone is interested to read it....

http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/id188.htm

In Islam, man is considered the one earthly creature who received from Allah the responsibility of free-will, meaning we don't operate on instinct alone as other animals but can learn and program ourselves. We are the only creatures capable of willfully complying or violating nature's order. In the Qur'an this is called a trust. The Islamic understanding of man's role on the planet is one of khalifa, which means steward or viceregent, the one who holds responsibility in place of the ruler. We are supposed to use our free will not as one who dominates and owns but one who cares for creation with the creator's interests in mind. This includes the treatment of animals and the environment.

In Islam, it is taught that in the judgment, animals will be given the ability to speak and testify against those who have abused them. This clearly implies that they are sentient. Although people may not be aware, animal rights are something clearly delineated in Islam.

Although vegetarianism is not mandated, neither is eating of meat. It is recognized that the cycle of life and death is part of this existence, and men are allowed to eat animal flesh, but there are protocols to ensure that in their life and death they are treated with kindness and respect. There are many observant muslims here in the west who eat a vegetarian diet because they cannot verify if the meat at the market came from a properly cared for animal. It's also worth noting, that mad cow disease is spread by the abhorrent practice of feeding dead cow parts back to the cows, something that is against the nature of the cow. In Islam, this practice is considered haram, or forbidden.

I love animals and this topic has always been of special interest to me. I hope this helps.

veritasamat

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by arthra

Susma Rio Sep wrote:

"What about this injunction from Exodus 23, 19:

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

Is that an instance of kindness to animals?

Know of any explanation against the practice."

Reply:

I'm not an expert on Torah, but apparently there was a Canaanite practise of seething a kid in it's mother's milk, and this practise was therefore forbidden. So to the extent it is a prohibition, I suppose you could argue it is a "kindness". You will find the same injunction against the practise in Exodus 34:26 and in Deuteronomy 14:21, so it must have been a widespread practise in Canaan that was forbidden in the Torah.

Susma wrote:

"In this connection but not in a religious context, I have never come across any recipe where fish and meat from pork or beef or chicken are cooked together.

Do you know of any explanation for this non-usage?"

My reply:

I'm unsure here to what you are referring as these laws in Torah always by definition have a "religious context".... certain fish, pork were forbidden. There is a site that details what was forbidden in the Torah:

http://www.torah.org/learning/halach...chapter28.html

I think there were reasons for these prohibitions at the time they were made. Certain meats were disease carriers and methods of sanitization were unknown for centuries so various requirements made sense.

As to "kindness to animals" in the context of these regulations to appreciate them you must also be aware of the context they were given and what kinds of practices were common in thse days, such as the Canaanite practse I mentioned above.

- Art

Milk, anykind of milk should never be boiled (seethed) to begin with. It can be warmed, but boiling releases lactic acids and other toxins that can kill a man outright, let alone cause kidney and renal failure, overtax the liver, and a slew of other biological problems.

Pork of the past carried a varied number of diseases, including Triginosis. (spelling is wrong) Nasty stuff. People tended not to cook the meat of the pig enough.

Seafood. Any fish (true fish) with a vertebrate, that was not a "bottom dweller", was fair for food. Crusteaceans (sea life with exoskeletons), were considered bottom dwellers and scavangers, therefore not safe to eat.

There was also something about cloven hooved animals, carrying more parasites, because they were usually not domestic animals.

Avians. Birds that scavenged carcasses were considered parasite carriers (still are).

I agree that feeding cows processed beef products is stupidity and greed at its finest. We just turned our food animal into a carcass scavenger.

According to Genesis, it is implied that man did not eat meat before the "flood". This makes sense, considering that though we have a combination of teeth in our mouths comparable to an herbavor, and a carnivore, our digestive tract is better suited to that of an herbavor. We do however, need a little bit of flesh, for certain fatty acids, enzymes and proteins, that no plant can provide.

This could explain why the majority of our teeth are designed for chrushing seeds and vegetable fiber, and are quite dominant in their design. Our bicuspids, canines and incisors however, are a bit recessed in their development. They are also in the minority, concerning ratio of types of teeth we possess.

As far as kindness to animals, Scripture states that man was given dominion over the Earth and all animal and plant life. Thus animal Husbandry was invented. Basically, not only are we all our brothers' keepers, we are also the keeper of this biosphere that keeps us alive.

In Michigan a few years back, the deer population grew so large (due in great deal to successful animal rights lobyists, curtailing hunting), that deer populations by the tens of thousands starved to death, and destroyed thousand of acres of winter corn before dying. (deer cannot digest corn, but that was what available, so they were found dead of malnutrition, yet had full stomaches of corn). Was that kindness, to let the herds proliferate to such a large population? No. It was good intentions gone terribly wrong, resulting in damaged crops and dead carcasses everywhere.

This had never happened before in Michigan's history, though the state is well known for being a hunter's paradise. It seems that hunters make the best animal husbandry advocates, and not the animal rights activists. There is strong historical support to back this up, and the State rescinded much of the hunting ban. Hunters have a vested interest in coming back each season and having healthy prey to catch. and in plentiful numbers. Activists have a let it be attitude, which does not work with society encroaching upon wild lands.

It isn't that the hunters are destroying the wildlife, or that the activists are negligent in maintaining a ecological balance. The point is extremism in either direction is cruel to animals.

We live here, we are dominant, I guess that makes us responsible for that which we dominate.

I am a hunter. The bow is my weapon of choice. I live in the woods, by a beautiful river that provides water to the city 15 miles up stream. I am an advocate against any company that attempts to pollute that river. I feed the local deer population throughout the year with wild herbs (like dill), and provide mineral blocks for nutrition. I also ensure their foot paths to the river are kept clear and clean.

I do not hunt the deer near my house, though I have no problem hunting them in the cornfields several miles from home. If I wound a deer, I will track it until I find it (took me two days once). I take the entrails and spread them for other wild life. I grind the antlers and spread that for calcium for other wild life (rodents, polecats, etc.). I ship the hide to my brother who's wife turns it into winter clothing. The bones are ground and put in my garden. Nothing goes to waste.

There is honor between the hunter and hunted. There is a respect. sometimes I lose and the deer wins, sometimes it is the other way.

I think this is kindness.

I'd go nuts if I didn't have meat in my diet, or fish, or poultry, or pork, or wild game. Some folk want trophies, I want to fill my freezer with healthy nutrition. I give back to nature in the way of managing my land and providing food and safety for the wildlife throughout the year. It is a good relationship.

That to me is being kind. Most "hunters" think along the same lines. Some are idiots (but then you can find that kind in all the world's governments as well).

I had to deal with animal rights activist group (about 6 people) who attempted to rig vietnam style booby traps around our hunting area once. They forgot one small detail. There are children living in these woods as well. That is not kind, that is insane. Not all are that way, not even a good number. But they have idiots in their ranks as well.

Human nature. My dad gave me the best advice I've heard to date. KISS (keep it simple, stupid). I like that philosophy.

I'll stop here before I exceed the bandwidth.

[bananabrain]

And please don't denigrate the cockroach as inferior to us.

oh, for feck's sake. show me some cockroach culture or intelligence - although, sometimes i'd settle for human. this argument is such a waste of breath.

That's one of the saddest things I find in Christianity and in Islam and in Judaism, they don't have a place for animals, unlike Buddhism. Correct me if I am wrong.

*rolls eyes*
you're wrong. why do people automatically assume that the abrahamic faiths lack things when it is in fact the result of people not having taken the trouble to ask or find out? is it my fault people have a sunday-school conception of them?

In Numbers 22:23-30 you have the charming story of Balaam's ass and Exodus 23:4-5: "If you come on your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you must lead it back to him. If you see the donkey of a man who hates you fallen under his load, instead of keeping out of his way, go to him to help him."

firstly, the story of bala'am's ass is far more about bala'am being a pigheaded fascist - the donkey comes out of it rather better by going with its instinct. secondly, exodus 23:4 is about ethical behaviour being correct and operative regardless of one's personal feelings and not about animals at all - they are given as a for instance. the following verse is a further clarification that even where no contractual relationship exists, you are particularly bound to assist if there is an animal, because it does not understand the relationships involved. the overall thrust of the halacha is to oblige us to avoid causing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals. the parental bond is particularly protected, because animals certainly feel it - this is reflected in the prohibition of taking eggs in sight of the mother bird. in fact, this principle is so strongly supported that it is respected even after the death of the mother - the seethed lamb being the prime example of this. the fact that the "seven nations" used to do this is considered evidence that they respected the parental bond not at all, as evidenced by their immoral behaviour in relation to child sacrifice and incest.

Even though there was a sacrificial system developed using animals in the Temple consider Psalm 50:13: "If I were hungry, I should not tell you, since the world and all it holds is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink goat's blood?"

a sacrificial system is *not* evidence of a lack of respect for animals. plenty of animal-respecting societies had one of these. ours is unique in that it was instituted specifically to show that it was not acceptable to sacrifice human beings. what the psalm is saying (and the Tanakh says this in numerous places) is that G!D Is not literally sitting up there inhaling the smoke and that we shouldn't kid ourselves thinking that sacrifices can influence or appease the Divine when our own conduct is lacking. it would be like buying your wife chocolates to make up for cheating on her - indeed this relationship is proverbial. sacrifices are the flowers and chocolates, not the commitment and hard work.

Hunting for sport is also forbidden for Baha'is.

and us, because the slaughter wouldn't be kosher. i'm pretty sure the same goes for halal.

In this connection but not in a religious context, I have never come across any recipe where fish and meat from pork or beef or chicken are cooked together.

you can't cook fish and meat together, but you can eat them during the same meal, just not off the same plate. there is a strong injunction to separate distinct categories.

I think there were reasons for these prohibitions at the time they were made. Certain meats were disease carriers and methods of sanitization were unknown for centuries so various requirements made sense.

yeah, a lot of people believe that, but it always turns into an argument that "we don't need to do that sort of thing nowadays because we're so advanced". this is effectively subjecting jewish law to the validation of scientific knowledge, which i think is antithetical to the purpose of it. jewish law is not obliged to conform to modern (and extremely fickle) notions of logic and rationality - that is eurocentric imperialism. quite apart from the fact that there are a whole load of laws (such as the prohibition on linsey-woolsey garments) that appear completely nonsensical on that basis - which is usually considered a good reason for people to ignore them. on that basis, judaism very soon ceases to be recognisable.

It's also worth noting, that mad cow disease is spread by the abhorrent practice of feeding dead cow parts back to the cows, something that is against the nature of the cow. In Islam, this practice is considered haram, or forbidden.

as it is in judaism.

According to Genesis, it is implied that man did not eat meat before the "flood". This makes sense, considering that though we have a combination of teeth in our mouths comparable to an herbivore, and a carnivore, our digestive tract is better suited to that of an herbivore.

i believe that current thinking is far from in unanimous agreement with this - although some opinions hold that judaism considers vegetarianism to be de rigueur for advanced spiritual development, the famous mystic rav kook being a significant proponent of this.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bob x]

"there is a strong injunction to separate distinct categories."
I've noticed that: a lot of the Torah comes across like "Thou shalt not let the mashed potatoes touch the green beans, for that is an abomination to Me, neither shalt thou mix peanut butter and ice cream, for that is just plain gross."
bananabrain, do you have a rationale for the "linsey-woolsey" etc. laws, or do you just say "G-D said it, so that is how it is" or perhaps "It is a mystery but surely we will know the reasons in the 'Ulam ha-Ba"?
In Gen. 18, Abraham feeds his angelic guests a pita roll stuffed with roast beef and cottage cheese. Isn't that unkosher? Was this OK because those laws had not been given yet (like his marriage to a half-sister), or am I simply misunderstanding what the meal consisted of?

[bananabrain]

neither shalt thou mix peanut butter and ice cream, for that is just plain gross.

hur, hur hur. yes, sometimes the categories aren't very clear without a lot of Talmudic wrangling. linsey-woolsey (or "sha'atnez" as it's called) is just one of that really weird category of laws called a "KhoQ". and yes, the best reason people seem to be able to find for it is that we'll understand it in the 'olam ha-ba. rav kook explains it rather well: http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/r...KEDOSHIM58.htm

however, not all category-mixing concerns this type of law, although milk and meat, i believe, is also a khoq. as for abraham's guests, i noticed this a while ago, so you've just reminded me to look it up and it seems that my first reaction - "he must have served the milk before the meat" (which is OK as long as they waited an hour) is also the basic traditional reaction. it is the Talmudic discussion arising from this that allows scoping of the various rules and limits about how long you have to wait between milk and meat, which is rather more technical, as well as affecting the halacha about what constitutes mar ukba (the end of a meal), which then affects rules about starting birchat ha-mazon (grace after meals). as usual, the written Law is simply the hook on which the oral Law relies.
more strangely, there is also a contradictory opinion (Shabbat 88a and Shabbat 88b) that state that the only reason we received the Torah is that the angels ate meat and milk together! this is taken to show that 'the Torah speaks in human language' and angels are obviously not human, so they're not subject to these laws. alternatively, as the angels are also not jewish, by extension, this turns into an argument for the applicability of the 613 commandments to jews alone.

as for the half-sister thing, this is generally explained by the general usage of the term "sister" to refer more generally to "a female relative" (there are other examples of this but i forget where at present) given that she was a cousin, as i remember.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bob x]

How do you read Gen. 20:12 then? "And yet indeed [she is] my sister; she [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother" sounds explicit that she was a half-sister.

[bananabrain]

How do you read Gen. 20:12 then? "And yet indeed [she is] my sister; she [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother" sounds explicit that she was a half-sister.

there are a number of explanations, depending upon the perspective of the commentator concerned:

1. that abraham's conduct *predated* the prohibition of marriage by degree of relation and, therefore, he was not at fault. this tends to be popular with people who like history.

2. that he was lying to avimelech to get himself off the hook for having put her in danger. this tends to be popular with the sort of commentators that like criticising the patriarchs and pointing out that they were humanly fallible too. the rashbam and the tosefot are very keen on this, as it means they get to be rude to their grandpa, rashi.

3. that as the prohibition only refers to the sister on the mother's side and not the father's side, no sin was committed. however, this also necessitates a later clarification in leviticus 18:11 - which is also an argument for a progressive view of the development of the Law. many commentators get out of this by deciding that abraham observed the *noachide* laws rather than the Torah, which hadn't been given. this, however, tends to argue against the idea that abraham could figure out all the implications of the stuff he knew. we can probably say, therefore, that whereas the milk/meat portion of the *pre-existing oral tradition* that had developed before and alongside the formal giving of Torah, perhaps the marriage prohibitions didn't till later, which would enable us to reconcile much of the patriarchal family's relationship behaviour (for example, the problem arising in connection with jacob marrying a pair sisters, in apparent violation of leviticus 18:18) with the halacha as given at sinai.

4. that there is a special category of person known as "wife-sister" (i believe some of the anthropologically savvy scholars support this) who is elevated above the mere "wife" - compare this with the "sister-beloved" of the song of songs. nonetheless, abraham may still come across as a bit of a weasel for arguing that his words were taken out of context!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[arthra]

Bill.

Thanks for your post and good to hear from your perspective! I think had you been involved earlier it would have corrected some misunderstandings and shed more light as the discussion progressed.

You wrote:

Regarding my note earlier

"....a sacrificial system is *not* evidence of a lack of respect for animals. plenty of animal-respecting societies had one of these. ours is unique in that it was instituted specifically to show that it was not acceptable to sacrifice human beings."

My reply:

I can accept that and the historical reason you give... however the reasons why something started though is not always how it turns out ultimately. My remark i think was responding to the issue of kindness to animals and that's why i cited Jesus as apparently disapproving of how things were run in the Temple precincts....that's just how i see it and i can appreciate where you are coming from at the same time.

Bill wrote:

"...firstly, the story of bala'am's ass is far more about bala'am being a pigheaded fascist - the donkey comes out of it rather better by going with its instinct. secondly, exodus 23:4 is about ethical behaviour being correct and operative regardless of one's personal feelings and not about animals at all - they are given as a for instance. the following verse is a further clarification that even where no contractual relationship exists, you are particularly bound to assist if there is an animal, because it does not understand the relationships involved.

Comment:

Again Bill I was drawing from scripture that there was an emphasis on kindness to animals and I can also appreciate your view also.

Bill wrote:

".... jewish law is not obliged to conform to modern (and extremely fickle) notions of logic and rationality - that is eurocentric imperialism. quite apart from the fact that there are a whole load of laws (such as the prohibition on linsey-woolsey garments) that appear completely nonsensical on that basis - which is usually considered a good reason for people to ignore them. on that basis, judaism very soon ceases to be recognisable."

Comment:

I have no argument with "Jewish law".

Being a Baha'i though, our belief is in a concept known as "Progressive Reevaltion" which accepts that G-d can revise the laws and requirements as He sees fit.

Good to read your post!

- Art