Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Asher
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477

Posted 8/25/2009 1:01 AM (GMT -6)

1) How do pacifists handle violence against animals? Eating of meat, use of force to defend against animal attacks, etc.

2) I know people probably ask you all the time about scenarios that will likely never happen (annoying, huh?), but I did think of a scenario I am interested in hearing parsed by a pacifist (there you go, a good title for a blog):

It's late and my mind is not cooperating to come up with some specific situation, but imagine a state of affairs in which someone is about to do something accidentally, with no intentionality, that will very likely result in your death. No time for rational discussion...seconds away from your death...only quick use of force on your behalf will save you (Your use of force is obviously not intended to harm the person, only forestall the accidental event from happening...and it is very unlikely that that person would be seriously hurt...but you never know for sure) Do you use force to save yourself? I realize that many pacifists say upfront that they are pacifists and hope they would follow through with their pacifism whatever the situation, but that during some specific event they cannot now say with fixed certainty that they would...and I appreciate the honesty of that...but my question is more about the theory. What does pacifist theory say about a situation like this? Cause it seems really difficult to me...

If you wouldn't use force in this situation, then that baffles me. I just do not get it. You seemingly hold everyone else's life in such high regard, but a use of force that the victim will most likely understand and have no problem with, that will save your own life...you will not do?

If you would use force in this situation then that seemingly puts you in a scenario in which you WOULD use force to defend against someone's UNINTENTIONAL threat to your life, but you WOULD NOT use force to defend against someone's INTENTIONAL threat to your life.

Rob

Post Edited (Asher) : 8/25/2009 1:04:34 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 2:19 AM (GMT -6)

To end up seeing oneself as a pacifist or a non-pacifist, identifying oneself so much with a cognitive stance...misses the whole friggin point of what being "in Christ" is about.

My opinion.

"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 8/25/2009 8:07 AM (GMT -6)

One Love,

"To end up seeing oneself as a pacifist or a non-pacifist, identifying oneself so much with a cognitive stance...misses the whole friggin point of what being "in Christ" is about."

It's a word used to describe a position on a particular topic. Much like Open Theism. Should we throw out all theological labels? They are fairly helpful in creating meaningful dialogue concerning our ideas and beliefs about the world, to throw out all descriptions of our own ideas would made communication incredibly difficult. The word itself signifies a position, and anyone who attempts to make generalizing comments about that position will likely find that everyone defines it differently.

Much like the differences within any theological camp (or any field for that matter). The terms themselves are merely starting points.

Hey Asher,

1.) The Noahic Covenant

Pacifism has to do with relationships between image bearing creatures. Animals are not image bearing creatures. It certainly can impact our relationships with the whole of creation, and perhaps in the eschalon there will be no need for destruction in order to sustain ourselves. In all seriousness, whats the theological difference between destruction of an animal and a plant? They are both forms of creation. Death to plant is just like death to an animal. Either way, both are destroyed.

One of the purposes we were created for was to be stewards. I'll eat beef, but I don't think we should be cruel towards animals in the sense of needless pain. So, in many cases the farming industry (and I'm using that term very broadly) needs some reform. But I don't think killing an animal for sustenance informs the pacifist position one way or the other. Perhaps for secular pacifistic arguments, but not, in my opinion, christian pacifism.

I'll get to your second question later today. I gotta head to class.

Asher
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477

Posted 8/25/2009 2:30 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the reply Daniel.

A few years ago I probably would have agreed with everything you said regarding animals...and I'm not saying that I definitely disagree now...but I'm not so sure as I once was.

What does it mean to be an image bearer? What specifically about an animal makes it impossible for it to be an image bearer?

"whats the theological difference between destruction of an animal and a plant?" well...consciousness for one. Secondly, far less blood to deal with from a plant.

"The Noahic Covenant" To disclose upfront, the Bible, most likely, has far more authority in your estimation than in mine. I know I do not absolutize it as the Word of God...but neither is it NOTHING to me, I have and continue to encounter God in the Scriptures. But, I once held a more traditional Christian view of the Bible as the Word of God, studied it as such, and can operate in those waters quite well. So, I know there are likely scriptures that will back up your claims, but let me at least throw out a few ideas from Scripture that are in opposition:

1) Prior to the Fall...animals were neither food sources nor the source of clothing materials. Something about an animal makes it possible for it to be possessed as the serpent was by Satan in his tempting of Eve (and many other animals experienced similar possession throughout Scripture)

2) After the Fall but prior to the Flood...there seems to be indication from Genesis chap 9:1-17 that animals, though used as sacrifice to God were still not used as food sources verse 3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

3) After the Flood...using the same passage in Genesis...verses 4-5 God will demand an accounting of men that shed the blood of men...and it also says that God will demand an accounting from every animal...so there is some responsibility that animals hold even if it is not exactly the same as humans. And when God establishes the aforementioned Noahic Covenant it does indeed say that animals were to now be used for food, but it is interesting that this covenant was also established by God "with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals"

4) Leviticus gives all kinds of injunctions about when an animal is to be put to death...not with regards to the sacrificial system nor to food preparation...but with regards to transgressions. Something that the animal did that was wrong, that animal is now responsible for with the penalty of death.

5) Balaam's donkey recognized the presence of the angel when Balaam did not. The donkey was more attuned to the spiritual than the man. Then the Lord opened the donkey's mouth. Now you may want to interpret this as God using the donkey as a ventriloquist dummy, but here's the verse "Then the Lord opened the donkey's mouth, and SHE said to Balaam, 'What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?' Balaam answered the donkey, ' You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.' The DONKEY said to Balaam, 'Am I not your own donkey..."

Moving from the Bible to the sciences...Are you familiar with Dr. Temple Grandin? She works in the field of animal science. She herself is autistic and one of her main messages is that autistic people think very similarly to animals. She has said, "I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right. We've got to give those animals a decent life and we've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect." So, she does agree with you, but her work is interesting to show that there is not such a great divide between humans and animals as most people think. Here's a small part of a review of one of her books "People with autism can often think the way animals think, putting them in the perfect position to translate "animal talk." Grandin is a faithful guide into their world, exploring animal pain, fear, aggression, love, friendship, communication, learning, and, yes, even animal genius. The sweep of 'Animals in Translation' is immense and will forever change the way we think about animals." I read that book and it does change the way you think about animals. The account of the parrot with a vocabulary of a couple thousand words that was learning to spell was dumbfounding!

Check out this documentary from PBS

www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/killers-in-eden/introduction/1048/

I was fascinated by this when I watched it. Killer whales cooperating with whalers to kill other species of whales. The Killer whales herded the other whales to the whalers, and then took their portion, the tongue, after the whalers finished off the other whales.

There was another documentary I saw about monkeys, can't remember the name. The researchers gave one monkey some food item in his area, but that he could not reach yet. Another monkey was given a rope that allowed him to pull the table towards himself and eat the food. When the other monkey did this, the first monkey was outraged at the "stealing" monkey. However, if the researchers placed the food similarly in the first monkey's area...then, came back, took the food and gave it to the second monkey...the first monkey was not outraged at the second monkey...IT WAS NOT HIS FAULT, it was the fault of the researchers...is this not eerily like an ethical system?

Rob

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/25/2009 3:15 PM (GMT -6)

We have to eat something don't we?

T

Asher
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477

Posted 8/25/2009 4:08 PM (GMT -6)

Dwayne,

"To end up seeing oneself as a pacifist or a non-pacifist, identifying oneself so much with a cognitive stance...misses the whole friggin point of what being "in Christ" is about.

My opinion. "

So...your opinion is that being "in Christ" is about having NO cognitive stances? Or maybe I can have them, but just not very strongly? What if I end up seeing myself as "in Christ" as opposed to "not being in Christ", identifying myself so much with "being in Christ"...what point am I missing then, Dwayne?

Look, I've been thinking about our different viewpoints, the ways in which we clash so many times and here's what I've come up with. Maybe this will help in seeing that the "cognitive stance" you are so intent on defending and the "cognitive stance" I am so intent on defending aren't actually at odds. I hope that's what it does anyways...this may make it worse, who knows...

Anyways...here's what I am not saying and what I am saying...

I am not saying that people are metaphysical, ontological hardline monad individuals. In the same way that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit do all their self-definition with reference to the Others...I, and everyone else, find ourselves constituted as beings...first, with reference to God, the ground of that very being...secondly, with reference to our parents, family, and an ever widening circle of humanity (and even animals) There is just no way to put up any walls to keep the "sand" of other people's lives distinct from our own. In this sense, on a metaphysical level, we all are always perichoretic beings. This seems to be the pole you are always defending against me...but, hey, news flash! I ain't against it!

But now, moving away from metaphysics and ontology...we move to the territory I am always defending against you...I'll lay it out there and then you can say whether or not you are against it or not...maybe in our strong defense of one pole over against the other we are missing that we are actually in agreement on the constitution of the pole in totality...maybe we actually are against one another in how we see reality...you tell me Dwayne...

starting with the libertarian concept of "methodological individualism" and invoking the concept of "inalienable rights"

I am saying that on the methodological level we are all individuals, uniquely distinct from one another. Methodologically, I am alone. Yes, I do, even in my methodological aloneness, realize that there are Others. Yes, I can take account for them in my methodology. Yes, I can pattern the use of all my faculties in an I-Thou individualism, an individualism that recognizes the existence and rights of other individuals. Given that I (and everyone else) are methodologically individual does not mean that I must absolutize myself against everyone else. It just means that we are all methodologically distinct...whether we like it or not...we simply do not have any other option! And that does mean that on a methodological level "I own myself" as much as that statement grates on you.

What does inalienable in inalienable rights mean? That's the question that rarely gets asked...or answered for that matter...say "inalienable rights" and everyone starts listing them...life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property...then your Christian sensibilities get uneasy...it seems these things are being absolutized, and there are counter Christian principles that seem to contradict a strong stance on any one of those four things...so you cringe and protest against egoism and the illusion of self-ownership...

Inalienable MEANS that these four things (property is a special instance that I will have to explain further) cannot be alienated from my self on a methodological level.

I cannot give, trade, or sell you my life. Even if you agreed to buy it, we are both fostering a sham transaction. Even if you did purchase my life...I still retain my life after the transaction. It is inalienable. You can kill me, but then there is no life there. It's not like you can kill me, then take possession of my life!

I cannot give, trade, or sell you my liberty. A large part of what it means to be free is the free expression of our will. Let's say you bought me, and I am now your slave. My liberty is still retained. Yeah, there is an illusion that you control my liberty, but look closer. When I think, who is thinking...you or me? When I will, who is willing...you or me? When I do, who is doing...you or me? Sure, you can threaten to kill me and I will most likely do what you say to do...but it is still me that has to do the thinking, willing and doing of carrying out your plans. That is what is so dehumanizing about slavery...I am the means to your ends...against my own thinking and my own will...I must still engage those very faculties as the means to your ends...it's me that still engages those faculties...even though I would rather be doing differently. Your threat of harm or death to my person forces me to use my faculties against myself! My liberty is inalienable!

My pursuit of happiness is inalienable from myself. You can affect it, but you cannot alienate it from me. I can't give, trade, or sell you my pursuit of happiness. My pursuit of happiness takes account of my entire development and the type of person that I am. You can look at the instantiation of my pursuit of happiness and you may be able to see flaws and defects in my character. You may see specific ways in which I could better myself. You may even endeavor to educate me about these very things...and I may see the light, I may adopt your more fuller idea of what it means to be a human being made in the image of God...my pursuit of happiness may now take into account the happiness of others around me...I may become quite the philanthropist...but unless I "own" that more fuller viewpoint it still is not my pursuit of happiness. You can guilt me into making many changes about what I choose to do, but unless I see those things as better and "own" them, they do not make me happy! My pursuit of happiness is uniquely my own. My qualia is no one else's, even God.

Property is a special case. As a category it is slashed. In self ownership I am my own property. That property is my own life, my own liberty, my own pursuit of happiness, my own faculties of thinking and willing, through ownership of my own body I also own the faculty of being able to do. Self-ownership, or holding myself as my own property, puts me (and everyone else) in a unique position of management and labor being the same person. My self becomes like capital property...I own the means of production...my thinking faculties, my willing faculties and my doing faculties. As the labor, I am not alienated from the means of production. These all are internal property...internal to my self...and cannot be alienated from me.

The fruits of my labor are now also my property legitimately (assuming of course, that I did not use someone else's property to make a product). I have legitimate property rights over these fruits. This property, however, can be alienated from me. I can give, trade or sell it to you. Or you can even steal it! That would not be legitimate, but it would alienate my property from me. There is even the interesting transaction in which I can give, trade, or sell you one of my kidneys or some other body parts. Or you can knock me unconscious and steal my kidney. Some body parts are alienable from me and there still remains a me.

Who owns my life? Well, on a metaphysical level you can say God owns us...I don't think it necessary to say that...but I can't dispute it if you are adamant about it. But, methodologically, I just do own my own life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and some instances of property in an inalienable way. (Personally, I don't see how there can be a split between the metaphysical and methodological, which means we own ourselves all around and that's the way God intended.) You just cannot alienate them from me and there still be property left there for someone else TO own. To say someone has inalienable rights is not to say that they have rights and it is wrong for you to take them...it is to say, they have rights and it is impossible for you to take them...your act of taking them destroys them...I am left without them or retain them under duress (like a slave) and you have not gained them.

So call me egoistic, say I am under the spell of the illusion of self-ownership...but there is just no denying my inalienable rights.

Dwayne?

Rob

Post Edited (Asher) : 8/25/2009 5:02:56 PM (GMT-5)

Asher
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477

Posted 8/25/2009 4:15 PM (GMT -6)

"We have to eat something don't we?"

Hey Tom! We can eat plants.

I'm not even saying that I am convinced or that I practice vegetarianism. I'm just saying it is not so clear cut for me anymore. And I do question myself about becoming a vegetarian. And maybe my laziness wins out but the logistics of becoming a vegetarian seems exhausting to me and I just want to go have a burger to recuperate.

Rob

Chaz Finney
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102

Posted 9/22/2009 6:40 PM (GMT -6)

I don't like the mis-treatment of animals, especially the way the corporate farms do it. I think an animal should have a little time to live and enjoy life before we eat them. The Lord tells us that a righteous man is kind to his animals.

I am becoming more of a vegetarian for health reasons; additionally I don't even like to fish anymore because I don't think I should get my jollies from an animal fighting for his life on the end of my pole. But I am not nor will I become an activist for animal rights and I still give in to temptation and thow a line in the lake behind my house when I see the bass jumping...

Here's a point that many PETA people miss: in Arizona a mountain lion will eat two deer a week; the deer will usually be alive for the first 1/2 hour of the meal - ouch! Shooting adult bucks during hunting season is a very humane act of mercy. I can't stand to watch the Animal Channel because of the cruelty of nature; lions, alligators, pytons all eating each other. The animal kingdom is very cruel to its own and man killing animals for food is really nothing when you consider that animals will ultimatey be eaten alive if they are left to themselves.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual