revolutionist90

Yes the death of my little Cassie made me question some things and made me look at the large amounts of animals who are euthanized: some out of a sense of compassion (animal is dying), some out of convenience (population control and such) and some really out irresponsibility ("It is just an animal and no one wants it sooo"... type of thought"). The problem is that even though many think of animals as being on a different level as humans the way we treat animals does seem to characterize our personalities. There just seems to be more of a connection. Also think of the people who would willfully save their dog and pays thousands to save their life while not giving a penny to a human. At the same time there are those who torture and kill animals (because they don't cherish the life) and they will willfully do the same to others they deem unworthy of life (the unborn/elderly- easily dominated victims).There is something special about animals (at least pets) that pervades human society and plays a role in how we treat each other.

I can see that it is compassionate to euthanize an animal if it is suffering. I'm equating those who would abuse an animal (kill it painfully) can abuse another human being if they see no difference. While I know animals and humans are on the different playing field we are called to have dominion over them with mercy and kindness. There are things we cannot do with animals even though we have dominion over them. Also you interject suffering but I did not intend for my OP to focus on suffering but instead focuses on animals who are hungry, thirsty and instead of giving the animal food or water they are instead killed. It is easier to kill them then to help them. A person who uses dogs for fighting (pit fights) and allows them to be tortured in the fighting are deemed abusers. I think there is a connection with those who kill without any compassion (just for necessity or fun) and how they treat other life that is deemed unnecessary by majority of society.

But yours in actually out of compassion and respect for nature. Poachers and those who use animals for their own gain with no purpose of use except for sport is a different area imo. If a person can kill an animal and simply take it tusks and leave it out in the sahara to rot does that really not say anything about the person and how they probably see humans?

Shrugs...my point of view was from people who are actually non-compassionate. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if a person is able to torture and kill a dog without remorse is able to kill a person"? I am simply noticing a connection with people who truly are not compassionate with animals and thus have lower compassion for humans. Many animals would starve in the wild but yet it is not a good choice to euthanize them for starving if they can eat. I am not really sure what God intended for animals which is why I am asking for biblical quotes. Was it wrong for the couple to keep their cat alive for those months? You are right that death is not a bad thing but there is a problem when we interfere with natural death. All things will die but why do we make the decision when they are suppose to die? These questions are not to be rude. I just think many posters are not understanding the point of my OP. I do believe there is a connection between those that would harm an animal and those that would do so to humans. A compassionate person will be compassionate with all things, not just some. It makes perfect sense that one who is compassionate with animals would also be that way with humans. Do you think that prolonging the life of an animal though artificial means is interfering with natural death? I think that if the animal was surely to die (i.e) and the artificial means would only be prolonging agony then a euthanization would be okay. If the animal could be saved by artifical means like fixing a broken leg with a special cast or something like that then I don't really see a reason for euthanization. If there is a small chance of the animal dying with their illness or injury and artificial means are used then that is no interfering with natural death.

Shrugs...my point of view was from people who are actually non-compassionate. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if a person is able to torture and kill a dog without remorse is able to kill a person"? I am simply noticing a connection with people who truly are not compassionate with animals and thus have lower compassion for humans. Many animals would starve in the wild but yet it is not a good choice to euthanize them for starving if they can eat. I am not really sure what God intended for animals which is why I am asking for biblical quotes. Was it wrong for the couple to keep their cat alive for those months? You are right that death is not a bad thing but there is a problem when we interfere with natural death. All things will die but why do we make the decision when they are suppose to die? These questions are not to be rude. I just think many posters are not understanding the point of my OP.

If a baby has down syndrome then it is deemed to have an unworthy life and is frequently aborted. If a stray dog is found then it is deemed to have an unworthy life and is frequently euthanized. There is no true compassion to help. Maybe I did not make it clear but I did not intend to question those who euthanize out of true compassion but for those who don't have true worth of life in general and don't see a difference between unborn, animal and elderly. Also there is a difference between you and the people in my post: The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. Proverbs 12:10. If you are righteous you care for your animals and have the righteous dominion over them and ease their suffering out of true compassion. But those who are wicked could see an animal that could be saved and choose not to save the animal thus thinking they are doing a kindness but they are being cruel.

I am not talking about killing animals for food or for people who were very good to their animals. I am talking about people who see an animal on the side of the road and instead of helping the animal deems it is an inconvenience, cannot be helped and should be euthanized. Also though we are not given dominion over humans there are many who do believe they have dominion over humans i.e abortion and euthanize of the elderly. There is a difference between true compassion and killing for convenience.

Did any of you read the article? I am talking about those who do not see the difference between an unborn child, a dog and an elderly person. There is a belief they are suffering to the point that they need to be euthanize but it is how the person rationalizes. A dog suffering from bleeding and cannot walk from cancer is different from a dog who is starving (can eat and drink) but is still deemed to much trouble to save. It is the idea that something can be thrown away.

After reading this article:http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_grim_effects_of_liberals_death-obsession.html(the political correlation is not the focus for this OP) I have to ask the question: Is euthanization really an act of compassion? A few weeks ago my dog, who brought me joy for 11 years, was euthanized. The topic of euthanizing something was never really brought to my attention nor did I think about it much until the day my dog passed. I was taught, by t.v and the media, that killing an animal for being a stray or for any resemblance of pain was better than allowing it to live. I took that by killing the animal it would relinquish suffering but I question that now. If I did it all over again I probably would fought against familial pressure and kept her with me until she passed away naturally. The questions of could she have been saved if I took her to the vet, was it really so serious to euthanize her and most importantly does God support euthanizing animals plague my thoughts from time to time. I think there is a problem with the increasing desire to euthanize animals for the sake of convenience or to stop assumed suffering because the reasons for euthanization can easily be used to support the death of other groups. The reason being is that many people in today's world frequently equate anything they do not want to unwanted animals. Stray dogs are seen as an inconvenience and are automatically assumed to be in pain. The elderly are an inconvenience, they are ushered into homes, forgotten about and are frequently seen as a suffering group. Unborn children are an inconvenience, they are blobs of tissue and would probably suffer more if brought into this world. The support for euthanization is suffering and convenience which though may sound like empathy I believe it is quickly becoming a tool of arrogance and a desire to dodge responsibility or guilt. Why not just simply adopt the dog or take the dog to a no-kill animal shelter? How do we know the dog will not recover and be happy and healthy? What is wrong with taking care of the elderly since we will all become old? Why not just have the child and place it in an adoption center? The assumption of suffering seems to override the response to do something about the situation and instead get rid of the thing causing the situation to ease their suffering (or our suffering?) Many would hopefully still cringe at euthanizing an older person even if they are in pain and dying from cancer. For some the concept of God being in control of death and when a person is suppose to go still overrides the desire to euthanize older humans in most circles. But this concept of death being controlled by God seems to be almost completely overriden for animals or for unborn children in some circles. There is a growing movement for the death of the elderly. Why are such trends growing? Is the ability to kill a dog, the unborn or the elderly about control of the concept of life and death? Does God believe it is compassionate to euthanize an animal who are strays or even who are sick? Would he prefer we take care of them until they passed? Is there biblical support that God would want humans to humanely euthanize the animals if it were in severe pain and if so why is that rationale not for humans who are equally in severe pain? I feel that there is a correlation between the euthanization of animals, of the unborn and the growing trend for the elderly since they can all be seen as: potentially suffering, an inconvenience and thus disposable. Am I looking too far into it? This is not to insult those who have euthanized their animals just a look at how euthanization of animals can quickly cause rationale for other groups.

Did I state the scripture wrong? I used the King James version

Matthew 10:32-38 32. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword 35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father , and daughter against mother, and daughter in law against her mother in law 36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. From this statement it sounds like for there to be peace at this time everyone must think alike so those who walk with Christ would have to give up their cross for the notion of peace with the world. But this is provocative statement imo because for my friends who do not believe in the Bible and even claim that the Bible is full of hatred they claim they are Christians by stating that they love Jesus and Jesus was only about love. But from this scripture, Jesus had a different version of love. Those who take up the cross and follow him will be at odds with friends and family. But at the same time those who put down the cross to make peace with those who are ungodly is not worthy of him. I read an article which stated that a mother cannot simply tolerate their child being gay or choose their faith in God over their child because that would be cruel. But here it says that those who love their child (or parent) enough to turn away from Jesus are not worthy of him. So the idea of the love that Jesus had is distorted by modernity. In today's time Love=peace and for there to be peace there must be acceptance for there to be acceptance one must forget all connections toward Jesus and follow the world. The Christian life is not easy nor is it meant to be peaceful in terms of worldly standards but we must be content. Do I have this correct about the scripture? What do you think about this scripture? I really like it. It provides a different aspect of Jesus rather than the worldly view of sexual love.

I might be reading more into this than it should be but in regards to Luke 16:27-31: 27. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28. For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment 29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. The whole story begins at 16:19 My question is in regards to those who are non-believers and I guess what one would call lukewarm Christians. We do not really know if the rich man was a believer or not but I do want to focus on the last phrase in regards to the ability of a person to change. 1. Could the phrase be saying that if a person does not believe and closes their ears (thus not hearing Moses or the prophets) that even the rising of the dead will not work? 2. Because a person needs faith to be able to believe in the unseen the viewing of the dead person coming back to life would not have any affect because they would right if off as a anomaly? 3. I think about this in terms of atheist who sees everything from a scientific format or basically whatever they can see. I would think the rising of a dead person would be pretty convincing but they could right it off as a hallucination- a scientific anomaly. 4. So basically nothing can scare or persuade a person into faith because it is up to the person to believe So the final question: God can do all things of course but when I pray for God to open the ears/eyes of those who frequently deny his existence is it actually that I must pray for the person must open their own ears? Could it be that God is always standing with arms outstretched, whispering words and some people just plug their ears, stamp their feet and sing really loudly to block things out? Thus the weight is on us to accept him. We could pray to God to unplug their ears but God gives them freewill so he does not unplug their ears. He could poor out many trials and raise a person from the dead but if their ears are plugged they will not listen. A person has to believe in God to be saved so the first thing we have to do is accept him fully. He gives us free will to not do believe in him. Since the rich man might have been a casual Christian or lukewarm Christian could it be that one can have partially blocked ears in that they choose to hear some words and not others? What of the fate of the lukewarm Christian? Are my thoughts correct? Am I thinking this straight.

Marriage has not ever really needed government except for financial stuff. During times of slavery, blacks had no official recognition of their marriages. They literally were before God with their vows. There marriage certificate was the "jumping of the broom" where they literally jumped over a broom. They did not have a marriage license or any type of governmental interference in terms of their finances. Their marriages were even recognized by anyone except for themselves. So to answer your first question I do believe that the church has the authority on marriage so a priest is good to have since they are Shepherds to the flock.I don't believe a couple who were married before God need a marriage license. All that they need is God's blessing. A social marker such as rings can help since others will know the person's status. I say this because there were times even before slavery where there were no marriage licenses and the church kept up with marriage and deaths. In terms of your situation, since you still had an actual wedding (the ceremony was not necessary like I said before maybe a couple of witnesses and a pastor/priest is all that is needed imo) your wedding does constitute as biblical. Personally, I think it depends on the state of you and your wife's heart during the ceremony of the justice of the peace since it is up to God to decide a marriage. Two adulterers can find a pastor to marry them (probably by lying) and have the ceremony and everyone but God will not consider their union to be a marriage since they are sexually immoral. Did you devote yourselves then to the matrimonial union? Did the justice of the peace have any reference to God when marrying you two thus recognizing his place in the unionizing of two people? The recognition of God in marriage for two sexually moral people is important which is why a church wedding is normally preferred (pastor will reference to God). Personally, I do believe marriage itself (should be between man and woman) should be left up to the church and should not any governmental influence whatsoever...but that is off the topic.

I agree that a certain lifestyle choice does not make one holier than others but the decision might be better than others. We have soaring STD rates, teenage pregnancies and children being born to unwed mothers with disappearing fathers. I don't think this community is forcing others but I do believe pressure is not a bad thing when it is for good decisions. Many have long stop pressuring teens to stop having sex and there has been less pressure on males to take care of their children once they father them. Once upon a time virginity was expected and celebrated for both man and women so there was societal pressure and I don't think that was a bad thing. There is a balance of pressure and expectation- it cannot be too high nor can it be too low. It was seen as pure and while I don't think one who is a virgin is necessarily holy I do believe it is a much better choice than an alternative. The "Well it is not good for everyone" notion though it true for some cases has been the push for things like teen sex, casual sex or promiscuity- the term seems based in moral relativity. The problem with that notion is that no one is expected to do good decisions because the concept of a better decision is lost in that morally relative notion. The concept of a good decision (like waiting till marriage to kiss or have sex) is not expected and there is no pressured applied. By pressure I mean a parent expressing happiness and encouragement for their child's -decision and have an expectation- a trust- that their child will keep their vows. If they are sticking their noses up at people then that is bad but if they simply are happy with themselves for not falling others bad choices then that is not a bad thing- that is not arrogance that is them giving a pat on their backs. There is a difference between the sin of pride and being proud of oneself in this dazed world. If kissing is how far they want to take it too prohibit any sticky situation then that is good. If their community applies a good amount of pressure of encouragement and have an expectation of the people because they trust the people to do what is right then that is okay. There is no more good pressure in this society. No more pressure for a man to take care of his child, for a woman to not abort her child after a casual sex night, for teenagers to wait until having sex (or at least wear contraceptives) and there is no more expectation for anyone to do anymore. And even today even Christians have molded the gospel to accommodate modernity and maybe even slipped into moral relativity in which nothing is absolute and the decisions of others is good even if they have horrible outcomes. And I say all this as a person who is waiting till marriage and maybe even waiting until marriage to kiss.

"It is a disaster that the decision to cross the line that will eventually lead to a eugenic designer baby market should be taken on the basis of an utterly biased and inadequate consultation." The pride and other sins that are so prevalent within humanity and have lasted longer than recorded history makes this statement true imo. People want to be perfect and they want their children perfect. They want perfect lives, perfect bodies, perfect health and perfect genes for perfect children. That is what started the eugenics program and that is what plagues many people today in terms of self-esteem and the perception of beauty. They state that there is no evidence of danger from this type of procedure but the problem is that they are only working with mice and rats. Once humans start having this procedure I think it will have large societal and health implications. "This will give women who carry these diseased genes more reproductive choice and the opportunity to have children free of mitochondrial disease. I am very grateful to all those who have supported this work." And again with the reproductive choice! If this turns into another "woman's right" type of thing I will be so annoyed. It is also a choice to adopt. Maybe God did not want the woman to have children of her own. Maybe His plan for her was to save a child who needed a loving mother. Not every woman was meant to bear children some were meant to save children who have no mothers. But I guess reality is too cruel and contentment to hard of a pill to swallow so we decide to do what we always do: try to circumvent God to perfect our lives for our own happiness.

Yep. Its July, so it must be time for another "Christmas/Easter is pagan and therefore evil" thread. Yeah, I just got through reading an article and decided to post. I don't think Christmas/Easter are evil because they have pagan roots...I was just asking a question.

stuff like this worries me. There will now be many gay couples who want to adopt and it will take many adoptions and subsequent fall outs such as this one before people start to open their eyes. Even now there is little population data on the current children who were raised by gay parents because there are so few so it takes many cases before a trend can be created but even then I wonder if people will even bat an eyelash at pedophilia then since homosexuals groups have always been tied to NAMBLA... What is NAMBLA? If you don't mind me asking. North American Man-Boy love association (it is exactly what it sounds like). Harvey Milk and some of the first gay advocates who started the gay pride thing were apart of the group.

stuff like this worries me. There will now be many gay couples who want to adopt and it will take many adoptions and subsequent fall outs such as this one before people start to open their eyes. Even now there is little population data on the current children who were raised by gay parents because there are so few so it takes many cases before a trend can be created but even then I wonder if people will even bat an eyelash at pedophilia then since homosexuals groups have always been tied to NAMBLA...

"If yoga is a religion and has religious aspects, it doesn't belong in the public schools," said Dean Broyles, who represents Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock, whose two children opted out of yoga for physical education. "There is a consistent anti-Christian bias in these cases and a pro-Eastern or strange religion bias." I think to be fair and limit the influence of any religion that the public schools are trying so hard to accomplish the judge should have prohibited the yoga. Let the children do normal gym class stuff instead of something that has roots from an eastern religion. The fact that it has a root whether or not it it deemed secular is an important connection. People also believe the confederate flag, the christian cross and other symbols have no meaning also but they still can be banned for having roots in historical importance. If the parents want their children to do yoga then have the yoga class be an extracurricular...the same as any other course wanting to teach something that has religious connections. Personally my school is equally implementing many Eastern religious cultures and greatly encourage the expression of some so I can understand how some people can be bothered by the introduction of another Eastern culture element especially with the way the public schools are today. But I guess as long as the children are able to opt out of the class based on parental reasons then it is okay.

I agree, WillowWood in that it is seen in this case where Christians are repeatedly mocked without any type of shame. I think that is another sign though. No one really mocks Allah, Buddha or any one type of religion but they mock Christianity. This "Hail Satan" thing is really scary. Not only are they mocking Christians they are also chanting the son of darkness. The fact that Christians can be mocked so openly (as seen with abortion and gay marriage) and that there is a dwindling empathy for Christians in general, even in great signs of distress, in a creepy sign. But honestly when I look at the pictures of the "Hail Satan" thing...I mean not to judge a book by its cover...but they looked like they be on his side.

Split from this thread: ------------------------------------ Not to intending to derail the thread but this has always confused me. If God has chosen only Israel then where does that leave the rest of the world? Aren't we all his children even though some chose to not believe in him and for those who do follow him aren't we also chosen? Is there a difference?

The actual meaning of Christmas and Easter (Christ's birth and resurrection) seem to be frequently clouded by pagan practices such as the Easter bunny/Easter eggs which were derived from pagan fertility. Santa Claus (St. Nicholas) is also derived from paganism. These different practices of paganism were intertwined within Christian theology so the pagan people could gradually accept Christianity instead of forcing the people to accept. My question is should we still celebrate such holidays with telling kids about Santa or the Easter bunny? Though they can still be joyous occasions should we attempt to strip away the pagan characteristics and leave out the mythology while still celebrating the real meaning of the holidays? Or do the pagan elements matter?

They really do not get it. God is unchanging. How we are to live is dependent on what the Lord has to say. Not the advancements in knowledge. The devil tempted eve with that same lie (advancements in her knowledge if she eats the fruit). Genesis 3:5 for God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Both "Side A" and "Side B" are wrong. They are just continually trying to find any crack of darkness from God's light to justify their attraction and behavior. And they are really confused if they state the Bible (God's word) was just not advanced enough to understand something that has been going on since Sodom and Gomorrah- its like saying they know better than God.

I don't think veganism in itself is evil but the reasons that people become vegans can be based in evil. I do know vegans and they are generally exactly how you describe. They are normally atheist, militant, all for animal rights, gay rights, women's right (i.e abortion) and have an extremely judgmental view of Christians. In my little college I have sort of come to the conclusion that the majority of those who are vegan do so in pride. They want to separate themselves so much from the ones they dislike because they truly believe they are better. By becoming a vegan (and sometimes a vegetarian) they believe they are taking the high ground and being morally superior (even though they are usually moral relativists) but they are actually looking down their noses. I have definitely heard the "Your brainwashing your kids so I'm going to force my kids to know the evil of your kind" argument so many times. And it is always from atheist/agnostics. It is like they don't understand that parents are meant to be a moral guide and sometimes a strong force to direct their child because it is in love. Also they don't understand that parents teach the children the way they were taught or what the parents believe is the best way. Since they they're so prideful they just see themselves as being morally superior and doing the best for their children even though they are doing the same thing that all parents do. I've actually listened to conversations where an atheists asks " How can you force your child to go to church and force your religion down their throat?! That is simply slavery" yet they do not understand that they too force their atheism/agnosticism and other characteristics on their children. So when I hear those arguments from atheist and from vegans I simply have pity because they have a strong case of Pride. They claim they are moral relativists( I personally don't believe moral relativity works) but they have their own type of moral authority: themselves. Not that Christians do not suffer from Pride or arrogance but I take comfort in knowing that I believe that it is a sin and wrong. An atheist does not believe in sin and thus believe their Pride and arrogance are justified. Personally I believe veganism and even vegetarianism is extreme. It is difficult to find all the of the required nutrients and nutrient deficiency is a major problem which to me is a sign that they were not suppose to occur. It is also very difficult to find food that fits the lifestyle...well financially sane food. I will also note that the vegan/atheist on my campus are also very adamant about animals rights but can be quite cruel in regards to humans...especially when dealing with abortion.

I agree. But I don't understand why we can't seem to elect legislators who will do the will of the people. Most of us don't support any of that stuff and yet the Congress and S.C. do whatever they wish. From reading more into the Doma problem I think it is obvious that the supreme court pretty much thumbed their noses at the people. That decision basically said "we don't care how the people vote". Since gay activists have worked tirelessly to turn this into a civil rights issue maybe the S.C judges actually bought into the lies and truly believe gays were being discriminated against the same as blacks. As for our Congress there could be many options. I think people do elect those who say they are going to support the chosen values but then the person elected decides to go off course and we don't have to power to directly kick them out of office. There could also be fear from the gay lobby. They have no problem picking and harassing people in their contorted view for "equality". With their mindset they believe harrassing a person for having a different viewpoint is okay because they don't believe that person should be respected. I remember a person telling me that they do not respect someone against gay marriage because they are hurting others (I don't know how I am hurting another person). So since there is no respect there is no limit to what a person can do. So either the elected Congress officials decides to "evolve" like Obama in office or they become to afraid to do anything. It takes a really strong person to stand up for morals in this country and unfortunately not all congress has that. For change to happen people would actually have to get together (a large group) and continuously protest in front of the white house or at least at the state level. It would have to be on the same level as occupy wall-street then maybe some congress members would grow a backbone and follow the people. Having a small minority against you (gay activists) is one thing but having a large majority stating what they want will actually do some change. This is a sad moment because these types of sexual deviations will do nothing but divide the country but then again I don't we were meant for peace and unity because that would mean we would have to bow down to sin. Christians were not meant to do the same as those in the world even though we are of the world. “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law” Matthew 10:34-35\