I’m sure you heard about the Seaworld trainer who was killed recently. A Christian organization has a different take on the death — they say if they only would have followed the Bible, it would have never happened:
Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture. [...]
The author then relates how this whale had killed two people previously, and continues:
What about the term “killer whale” do SeaWorld officials not understand?
If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone’s misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.
Says the ancient civil code of Israel, “When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable.” (Exodus 21:28)
So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. [...]
But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn’t kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, “the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:29)
Ah, yes — if only we followed that enlightened moral code of the Pentateuch! We would be going on witch hunts, buying and selling slaves (and our daughters), and putting to death homosexuals, naughty children, adulterers, polyester-wearers, and killer whales.
What a wonderful society we would be if we only followed God’s Holy Word.
“What a wonderful society we would be if we only followed God’s Holy Word.”
I can’t help but think that once you too Daniel used to think about this as the ideal society.
How did you rationalize the “putting to death naught children” part?
Well, apparently some concession is made to modern morality; modifying the Biblical commands somewhat:
“But Fischer doesn’t follow this passage to its logical conclusion as he does the first one. No, he is more generous than that. He writes that the family of Brancheau should “sue the pants off” Sea World, not kill its owners.”
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/major-christian-group-sea-world-death-result-ignoring-bible/
I said we were no longer under those laws. But I wasn’t consistent and it didn’t change the fact that God did say that should be done at one time.
Mmmh, ok.
I was interested in understanding how this people would rationalize that one part of the OT is good advice and another does not apply anymore.
I read that they end up with one set of laws that apply only to Jews, one that used to apply before the coming of Jesus and another one that we are expected to use now, but the discrimination criteria they used seemed fuzzy at best, eventually I ended up thinking that this God guy could have inspired a far clearer holy book…
FWIW, the Jews were among the first ancient people to get on board with the whole “progressive linear time” thing, and so even in the context of Judaism, some of the laws have become invalid due to interceding events; for example, the rules regarding temple ceremony and sacrifices are no longer observed because the temple no longer exists. It would be easy for Christians to extend that logic a bit and say that intervening events have changed the applicability of certain OT laws.
Still, I’ve never heard a good argument for how, at some period in the past, some of the really horrible commandments were justifiable or why they were necessary. Stoning disobedient children, killing homosexuals, allowing rape of women captivated in war – these commandments may not apply anymore, but how could one ever, at any period in time, reconcile such commandments with a god of superior morality?
Oh, I totally agree. The OT laws speak volumes about the so-called moral character of the deity that gave them.
Indeed. To me it suggests at least three possibilities:
1) Those commandments were not coming from God, because a moral god would never command such things.
2) The commandments were coming from God, which makes God a real dick, invalidating the claims of his superior morality as well as the claims of him being loving and just.
and of course
3) God does not exist in the first place.
Not to mention that she would have been safely at home having babies instead of sinfully working and talking in public. In a bathing suit!
they should check the whales belly… the trainer might still be alive in there chillin out like jonah. cause you know, that can SO happen.
LOL.
For what it’s worth, Jason, I’m pretty sure Jonah was supposed to be an ironic comedy.
But that doesn’t change the fact that some people think it was supposed to be literally true.
Despite their beliefs it is horribly insensitive for them to write something like that.
Yes let’s follow the bible. Damn, I’ll need to do a lot of reno’s on my house now. I’ll need to make an out house and carry a bag of rocks with me now, because there are SOOO many people who deserve to be stoned. I’m not without sin though so I can’t throw any of them, so I guess I can’t follow that… DAMNIT, this religion is too hard!
Wow, these people really ought to have the internet taken away from them…
Censorship FTW!!!!111
“What about the term “killer whale” do SeaWorld officials not understand?”
A timely warning from the Christians. I´ll no longer be listening to my copy of “Killer Beats” by DJ Leano.
do these nincanpoops even know where the term “killer whale” came from, or do they think their sky-master named them?
Sky-master! That’s a way better name for God! Kinda catchy.
Of course not, Adam did. It’s all there in the buybull.
“buybull”
good one
Not quite. Adam named “every beast of the field and every fowl of the air”. Still, it must’ve been a busy day for Adam.
Silly me I thought it was an Orcinus orca…
But what do I know?
But an orca is not an ox. The Bible is quite clearly talking only about oxen in that passage. Why is the AFA putting words in God’s mouth? If He had meant it to apply to orcas, He damn well would have said so.
Wait, so *this* time we’re supposed to interpret the Bible instead of taking it literally? I’m so confused.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Thunder-stealer… :^)
Wow you beat me to it. I just posted the same thing. I feel stupid now :)
I suppose this is a bit off-topic, but I guess I’m not surprised that the people who want to pick and choose which “ye shall stone them to death” gets taken literally want to turn around and repeat that “this whale has previously killed two people” even after it turns out that’s not true. One of those two previous people died (to all appearances) from hypothermia after climbing into the cold water. Yeah, the body was scraped, but apparently the worst thing the whale did in that case was play with the corpse.
Absolute Stupid.
“Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture”
I guess the deaths of people trapped in rubble due to natural disasters were actually the fault of the rescue workers. According to scripture if they had the faith of a mustard seed they could have moved mountains. Stupid, faithless, rescue workers.
One has to wonder why there aren’t any deeply believing Christians assisting the rescue workers with their awesome telekinetic powers.
Well, I am confused, again. Umm, at least partially. The national park service has longstanding regulations which require that an animal (nonhuman) be put down when that animal is responsible for the death of a human. Many states have similar laws, even when the animal kills another animal. So, while I am loath to agree with almost anything the bible has to say, contemporary law is in general agreement with the first part of the quote being slammed.
Moreover, many states, while not advocating the death of the owner of a dangerous animal, do call for criminal charges in cases where the offending animal’s owner is aware of the ‘demonstrated danger’ posed by the offending animal. Additionally, civil litigation in these cases most often results in severe penalties for the owner of a dangerous animal.
My guess is that the vast majority of our citizen would agree (excluding the far, far right wing religious) that it is good that our society as a whole has gone well beyond the ‘kill all knowing offenders’ mentality. Yet, our society does punish the offending person.
Now, here is where my confusion arises. Has it not been widely reported that Sea World officials knew that the animal in question had previously killed a human? Even knowing that the animal had killed previously, the animal was not put down and these same officials (and government officials) allowed humans to directly interact with the animal.
So, please, enlighten this old brain. Where lies the most morally offensive action? The silly writings of persons who lived two thousand years ago which are supported by even sillier contemporary humans. Or, the Sea World officials who, anticipating significant monetary losses, did nothing to provide sufficient safeguards for humans working with a known dangerous animal.
It’s not a contest. Both can equally repugnant.
Don’t forget the shrimp – God Hates Shrimp! Now, we know that he hates whales too.
Actually not anymore. Ever since I went to a Red Lobster and tried their coconut fried shrimp, yum yum.
Unfortunately I can’t change the laws I inspired with those goofy desert wanderers way back when. So while I don’t hate shrimp myself, it is still an abomination to me for you to eat them.
Yahweh, I have been meaning to talk to you about this whole giving my mom cancer thing….can you give me a call sometime?
It’s really satan you want to talk to. He’s everywhere. At least that’s what my most zealous fans believe anyway. I’ve given up trying to keep track of him. I’m just not as omnipresent as I used to be.
In fact, I just decided I would go into hiding for a couple of thousand years. I’ve only recently come out of hiding to participate in this blog.
Just tell Taylor what you told Job: “Quit your whining. Who are you to question me?”
Smart move, more for you this way.
No, certainly the officials at Sea World screwed up big time. I don’t think killing the whale is necessary, but once it had killed someone I don’t think it should have been having any more human contact.
The thing is, it’s not because they disobeyed some quote about oxen in the Bible that makes their actions wrong. It’s that they knowingly put people in harm’s way. We don’t need a book of bronze-age mythology and tribal customs to tell us that that is a bad thing to do.
Austin. A killer whale is not just any animal in national parks. A killer whale is worth around 2 million bucks. I suppose that’s the difference. In any case, they said it was probably only “being curious” with the trainer’s pony tail. It just grabbed it and “tried to play with it”.
Anyway, I think many other Christians would also regard this sort of bible interpretation as silly. The thing is no Christian will speak up, thus unwittingly and indirectly condoning and supporting it.
Where in the OT does it refer to witch hunts? I suspect you of having made that up.
That aside, all good rebuttals to a silly blog post. You could swap witch hunts for planting different kinds of crops side by side, Jed Bartlett style, and still get the job done.
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Rich, its Exodus 22:18 (King James Version)
‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’
I’m confused about the position of the Rightly Concerned people. They argue that the bible should have been the guide for the Sea World folks, but do they think the bible should be followed now that the animal has killed again? Are they seriously suggesting that the owners of Sea World should be stoned to death now?
This is our story too…let’s put it in context, this provides a more thorough understanding of this “witchcraft” issue that you don’t yet understand. “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. (1 Samuel 15:23)
This was spoken to King Saul who is a type of us, represents the natural, God-resistant man of the flesh who would be King (in his own mind) the one the “people” chose as their King, ie themSelves (and so it is with you also, you have rejected the “word” of the Lord, ie Christ to rule over you). Saul is the rejected King but the chosen/anointed King in waiting was David who is symbolic of Christ. Remember, as I have told you previously the Lord speaks poetically, allegorically, in parables and stories, ie the language of the heart.
If you follow it a little further you will see verses like 2 Samuel 3:1 saying “Now there was a long war between the house of Saul (flesh nature) and the house of David (the spiritual man) but David waxed stronger and stronger while Saul waxed weaker and weaker” and then finally in vs 10 (this is what he would do in us, establish His kingdom within) “To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul (the natural man of the flesh nature) and to set up the throne of David (spiritual man)”…
In you all, David (Christ) is still in waiting. This is speaking of an inward condition in man as he transitions from the self governed, rebellious, natural man to the spiritual, Christ- governed man.
Here’s another, topic related verse although the word witchcraft is not in there, it means essentially the same. Psalms 107:11 (NIV) For they had rebelled against the words of God and despised the counsel of the Most High”.
Hope this helps a little to clear up the witchcraft fuss, all the best.
Hm, is this supposed to explain how the decree “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is morally justified? Or is it an explanation of something else?
The “witch” (ie rebellion) that is not to be allowed to “live”, is speaking of a certain nature that is not of man’s original nature (ie made in God’s image) that needs to die in us.
Uh huh, and the Jews and Christians just misinterpreted for all those centuries? That’s one of thousands of interpretations if you want to interpret it metaphorically.
and don’t forget those “harry potter” book burnings.
and dungeons and dragons.
the hunts by christians against witchcraft haven’t stopped anytime recently.
So in Exodus 22, in the middle of a list of specific instructions about how a court shall decide on such matters as theft of livestock, adultery, dowry, and economic responsibilities, we find witchcraft mentioned as an allegory about man’s spiritual nature?
That’s some creative reading, pardner.
My thoughts exactly. I fail to see how a verse in Exodus could possibly be related to a verse in Samuel considering they were written at completely different times in completely different places by completely different authors about completely different subjects in completely different styles. And neither makes any clear reference to the other whatsoever.
Sometimes the straightforward interpretation is the most reasonable.
I’m speaking generally as to how God views witchcraft, is as “rebellion”. Rebellion is that which has mankind in the very condition he is today, so…it must die, in us.
God is not limited, as we are by time, there is no such thing as time in the spirit and so time periods don’t limit God, spirit is outside the bounds of time. Btw…the “Author” of Exodus and 2 Samuel is One and the same…
How… unfortunate… that God, omniscient that he is, didn’t think to explain such an essential issue in a more straightforward manner, but rather chose to put that analogy about witchcraft in the middle of a list of secular commandments, thereby causing people to misunderstand it, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocents being tortured and executed as witches through the centuries.
Do you know the end from the beginning TRJ? Is He accountable to you? Has He not already told you how you can know Him and His ways? Have I not told you myself, certainly I have many times in love and in the truth. Has Christ not come? Surely He has and have you not spurned Him, not heeded Wisdom’s counsel, rejected His love and reconciliation? He bids you daily to come unto Him. But that rebellion, that other nature you stubbornly cling to opposes your emancipation, even yourself, keeps you in dis-belief, makes a mockery of Christ and causes you to appear as wise in your own eyes. Oh friend, surely there is a Remedy, a great and terrible Remedy.
To whom much has been given, much is required. A decision is required of us all, choose ye life (Christ) or death (Self), choose ye this day He says.
“how God views witchcraft,”
You mean, “how the Bible views witchcraft”?
You’re going all Job on me now, John.
Your lovy-goody appeals to authority don’t change the vacuousness of your interpretation about witchcraft.
But let’s for a moment disregard that your question is retorical, and let’s also disregard that I’m simply using the inconsistencies of scripture to point out why your idea of a God that is the ultimate source of morality is absurd. Let’s pretend I believe God exists.
HELL YES, God is accountable to me, and to every other human being! Any being of intelligence is accountable for his actions. That includes a being of ultimate intelligence. I’d expect God to explain why he has routinely acted as an immoral bastard, if I am to believe the OT, and I’d expect him to explain how it’s moral that billions of humans should be cast into everlasting torture for the simple reason they don’t believe in his existence, if I am to believe the NT. To me, the behaviour and the dictates of God makes him look like the champion of immorality.
Ah, the so your’e saying the bible is a metaphor, meant to be interpreted.
Accept for when its not.
Ha, Job, yea I don’t get that way very often do I, gotta keep you on your toes man, lol. Job is the instance type and figure of humanity today, has lost ‘all’ is a pitiful figure but have you ever read how the story ends? His story is our story. And who are Job’s ‘friends’, who do they represent?
So let me ask you a question TRJ, how is it that you insist on holding to the OT (which you and few believers truly understand) when ‘Christianity’ is all about this Christ, the one manifested (physically) in the NT and who Himself said that the OT was only a shadow, not the fulfillment, the He was the literal fulfillment and perfect, exact mold/expression of the Father even going as far to say that ‘when you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father’. I think its because it makes for an easy target, is convenient for your (distorted) lens/perspective, serves your (unbelieving) purposes? I’m just being candid TRJ, we’ve corresponded here countless times and I am very grateful for you, our many discussions, but I’m asking the question, are you sure you’re being intellectually sincere with yourself here my friend by continuing to pursue OT verse as your justification for unbelief, is that really fair…to you? Christ IS Christianity, the OT is only a shadow, God’s true nature is found in the ‘true vine’, ie Christ. Now, you will surely respond by saying that you ridicule the OT (and its ‘God’) because believers point to it, etc. But again, what did CHRISTianity Himself say about it? Yes, Christ is in the OT, but one needs to have journeyed far and steep to see into the red thread weaved there, most believers have not yet reached those heights, so unbelievers are even at less an advantage of ever seeing God truly from the OT text, so why in the world, at this stage in your own journey would you ever hold to it (in any form, negative or positive) friend? Leave it be, it does you no good at this juncture.
Regarding accountability, God being accountable (He calls it love, fellowship, relationship) to you…’God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them’ (2 Cor 5:19). I’d say He was being pretty ‘accountable’ to you there eh? The cross was love and is misunderstood.
Regarding morality, as I’ve said before, morality is a fallacy, is not in the spiritual realm, is a (fallen) attribute of man in his latent memory, the faint residue of his true and original, higher state, is a poor substitute, is man’s attempt at being ‘religious’, is a self-righteous thing. There are no ‘positions/opinions/morals’ in the spirit, only One glorious truth and brilliant, shining, liberating Light that lights the Way. Morality is still factious, divisive, is ‘of’ the fallen self and nature.
You said, speaking of what you call immoral OT acts that it “makes him look like”. But stop right there, what if, instead of being mere ‘immoral acts’ as you call them, what if in truth they were more the fury of Gods intense love to free you, to reclaim TRJ, His son in the truth, in the light but you viewed them thru a distorted, yes even ‘moral’ lens? Would that not skew things a bit? And what if that distorted view was that very thing which held you down though you knew it not, seemed perfectly ‘reasonable’ to you from your (severely limiting) perspective (respectfully intended), just asking.
But as JC says since we say we see (on our own, apart from His light) so our sin (that false nature we cling to and claim as our true selves but is not in the image of God, is as witchcraft, ie rebellion) remains…its insidious huh? Remember the Serpent was more subtle/crafty/clever than any beast of the field (we are Gods field). Who then can be free when he knows not his true plight or condition? Ahh…
All the best TRJ
You’re right that OT with its draconian laws is an easy target. But actually, in a grander perspective, I find NT even more reprehensible. At least in OT when God killed someone in one of his countless hissy fits, those people just stayed dead. In NT we learn that the majority (more than three quarters, according to Revelation) of the human race is to be tortured for eternity for not paying enough respect to God. In this way NT makes God look more immoral, callous, and narcissistic than even OT does.
Although, I freely admit that there are many interpretations of Hell. You seem to subscribe to an interpretation where Hell is a failure to reunite our spiritual essence with God, incurred of our own volition because we refuse to accept God. Something like that, I think. This puts NT God in a considerably better light. Unfortunately, to justify this interpretation you have to jump through hoops, explaining away all the uncomfortable things God has commanded and done and plans to do, according to the Bible. As you’ve no doubt surmised, I think you’ve stretched your explanations well beyond the limits of credibility on many occasions.
Revisiting accountability, God sacrificing himself on the cross was not God being accountable to us, but God appeasing himself. That’s something completely different.
You say morality doesn’t make sense when talking about God. I say, morality or no morality, why would God ever issue a commandment saying homosexuals should be killed for the sole reason that they’re homosexuals? It is simply wrong. It is not Truth, the way you like to use the word. It is the very antithesis of the perfect loving God you extol, and I’m personally utterly unable to reconcile such vileness with your image of God. I don’t know how you do it.
Thanks TRJ for your thoughtful response, I thought it was excellent in many ways, was wholly sincere, much appreciated friend.
You ask a great and poignant question, you said, speaking of how/why I can believe in this ‘God’ saying “How do I do it”? Here’s exactly how: Because I see Him in a true light, ie His not my own. And that very thing (seeing in our own light or in His) is the whole issue here. Consider David’s comments on the topic for a second (a man like you and I although a figure and type of Christ…ha like you and I) saying contemplatively in Ps 36:9 “in thy light we see light”. Think of that for a second, what if its true, that its really only a matter of which light you choose to live by, who’s light is the true light, is trustworthy, ours or Christ’s? Take care.
To me that sounds like a non-answer. It sounds very much like you choose to simply ignore the problem.
The ‘problem’ is not on God’s side. As long as we insist on seeing God in our own light we will never see in truth.
If seeing God in my own light entails holding God up to a certain minimum standard of decency and consistency, I see no problem in doing so. That he fails such a simple test suggests to me that God isn’t all he’s cracked up to be.
Let me ask again: What does it say about God that he would command us to kill homosexuals purely for being homosexual? (And yes, I know this no longer applies, except to stupid fundies, but it used to). In what possible way is this not in complete contradiction of a perfect, loving God?
John C
Soooo, the spiritual man, David, does he still hide on his roof peeping at the neighbors’ wives? Because I know I want my spiritual role models to be adulterous murderers.
The ‘spiritual man’ is a progressive state, a culmination Gwenny girl. I said that David was a ‘type’ not the original, perhaps you overlooked that in your earnest desire to slamaroo me, lol. So who is the Gwenny a ‘type’ of? Who does she emulate, resemble?
I don’t need to TRY to slamaroo you. Your earnest efforts to twist the Bible into some New Age Christian non-sense that attempts to turn a bunch of old stories about brutal, self interested men bent of ruling the world in the name of their petty, misogynist desert war god with an ego problem into metaphors for spiritual growth does that for me. I just get to mild jokes at you and giggle.
Oh, and Gwenny emulates NO ONE and never has in five decades of life. But nice way to try to diminish my standing in the eyes of the men here by using patronizing language to ridicule what I say. It’s a tactic I’ve seen used with almost zero success by Christers over the last 20 years of posting in forums online. Seems that, for the most part, atheist men don’t consider women’s intellect inferior.
Love is not ‘new age’, its ancient in fact. Hope that spillage made you feel better tho, lots better. Love ya still…always will.
I recognize that spirit, you’ve gone by another name here on UF no? All the best.
You don’t love me. You don’t know me. You insult me. More patronizing. It’s very offensive.
And I have never gone by anything but Gwenny (the Pooh). For 20 years. Google me.
John, you are just a foul example of love. You are patronizing and demeaning. Your attempts to make people see what you see in jesus are clumsy and awful. Sickening. Nauseating. What are you trying to accomplish, and how you are going about it, you are interpersonally repulsive on every level. You don’t relate to humans very well because you think you’re enlightened and we’re not, because you are deluded and we’re not. You have no idea how to talk to people without insulting them. And then you say you love them. Out of nowhere, with no regard and no genuine idea what that means in any language. Keep your warm fuzzy “love,” it’s creepy and insulting.
@Kodie
Well John C actually thinks we are a different species … I kid you not.
Actually Gwenny, there is no longer any male or female, all are one in Christ, in scripture, at the spirit level. That women hating rant is tied to some old dead religious perception, is not what Christ is about, there is no longer any separation, for all are known in the spirit, not the natural, fleshly gender specific way that’s why it says that “we no longer regard anyone according to the flesh” so you must have picked that up from some false stereotype, but I understand how you could arrive at that conclusion by looking at the “Church” externally speaking, its sad.
Yes, Christ in me loves you, He fills us up with His life, His love and lives through us, is actually the one doing the living in us (Gal 2:20) if we will get to that point. That’s why/how I can stay (unlike other believers) on UF for so long and endure all the hatred, the name-calling, accusations, ugliness, etc because its not me, its Him and yes He does love you very much.
All the best
Jabs/Kodie…Concerning the whole diff species talk: Man is essentially a container of sorts for a specific kind and quality of life, ie our fallen, lower created form or his higher, uncreated spirit form. Whichever one we live ‘from’ determines our nature and our identities in this life. In the same way an electric eel and a regular eel both look like eels, yet one has another internal ‘lighted’ component, makes him altogether different, hence the diff species analogy (which you will no doubt rip apart ha, that’s ok). Christ’s life within is that other ‘lighted’ Component. All the best
Actually, I find the jesus in you to be offensive and rambling. Who would accept that kind of love? Who wants to be treated the way you treat people? You sell jesus very poorly if that’s your goal here. You tolerate a lot of “ugliness” from people because you have a very insulting way about this “love” as you understand it. It bounces off you because you deny that it’s even you doing the communicating. How about you take responsibility for disgusting others? You are not filled with light. You are just a guy saying disturbing things with no social awareness of what words mean when you say them.
@Kodie
I agree with John C being offensive as he’s also admitted that he doesn’t really read posts just replies to them. If you look at his posts this shines through as he very rarely addresses the issues but just says wants to say and ignores questions put to him.
Why he thinks this is a strategy to convert people Allah only knows. In my opinion it just makes Christians look arrogant and somewhat stupid
It does make them look stupid. His last post was just ridiculous. He in no way has really addressed anything I said and then he blathers about some New Age Christian fantasy about the church of the patriarchy is no longer sexist and misogynist. :shrugs: I have better things to do than waste my time on someone who obviously needs his dosage upped.
The Bible aside – what’s so morally repugnant about killing an animal that killed a human being? I don’t get it.
The Bible aside…well, that’s the trick. Human exceptionalism has pretty much always been rooted in the whole “humans have souls” thing, especially in the West. Absent the clear dividing line provided by religious doctrine, it becomes obvious to anyone who spends even a little time around other mammals that their consciousness/sentience/sapience level places them somewhere clearly above zero on the moral significance scale.
Unless they’re tasty.
This was my thought as well. We’ve taken an extremely intelligent sentient creature, and made it jump through hoops for food, then we shoot it when it gets upset.
I think at this point the only exceptional thing about humans is that we have the guns.
Elemenope,
Let’s use another example. If a domesticated dog attacks a human being twice, most state’s laws would order that dog be put to sleep. I don’t find that morally objectionable. The dog is obviously a danger to other people.
I don’t think the bible, nor a discussion about a soul, is necessary in order to agree (or disagree) with that conclusion, is it?
I’m not advocating on behalf of killing this animal. I really don’t have an opinion about it either way. I agree that it’s very intelligent and sentient, as Ty observed. But, if the animals is killed, I won’t be morally outraged either. And honestly, the bible has nothing to do with my moral judgment here.
With the dog (I wrote god first!), there’s not much else to be done, is there? You can’t release it into the wild; it’s domesticated. And who would want to lock a killer dog up in a cage until it dies?
Not sure if a trained whale could be released either, but at least it’s a wild creature and danger is to be expected. The trainers knew this could happen.
With the dog (I wrote god first!)
Heretic … err, blasphemer, I guess ;
Or occasionally dyslexic… ;)
The dog example is tricky, because the moral and practical issues are tangled up in the fact that the animal is domesticated. Whales, whatever else they may be, are not domesticated; human hands have not molded their species into something specifically suited for a human sociological or technological niche. Humans bear more responsibility for, and have more practical moral experience with, dogs, than we do with whales. When a dog misbehaves catastrophically, we understand it has fallen far outside its intended role; whale has no such role to attend, and so our moral criteria for punishing it for behavior is murkier.
Murkier, yes. But absolutely clear that it’s morally reprehensible to kill an animal that’s killed a human being? I just don’t see it.
The domestication part does affect it though, I agree completely. I’m not sure it’s clear how domesticated this whale is, although it certainly is to an extant.
To be clear, I’m not pro-kill this whale (or any other animal). I’ve never killed an animal that wasn’t for food (fish), except for a couple squirrels and a baby kitten, which I ran over. Taking sentient animal life is a serious moral matter, IMO.
I think a great deal of it comes down to why humans take life for killing. Is it primarily a punishment? Is it to permanently remove a menace? Is it for deterrence? Vengeance?
I think before we could really sink into whether it is morally right or wrong to kill some creature for killing, we need to know why we do it.
We don’t kill people who kill animals. Unless they are for food, we do have laws against animal abuse. We, in our “nature,” do treat some animals rather inhumanely while they wait to be slaughtered for food, and people get upset with people who are upset by it and try to expose this animal management to others.
I don’t know, I kind of like it when some asshole has to tease an elephant and an elephant follows his own morals there and tramples him. I hate the circus and animal shows in general, and I don’t think the animal should be put down for that. Why are we in charge of the elephants in the first place, here you are taking the “dominion over animals” side pretty clearly and saying it’s our job to keep animals from being animals instead of co-existing on the planet with them. If an animal happens to be dangerous, we should mind ourselves here, keep people safe from dangerous animals. Anyone who takes their chances should accept the risk of dying.
Personally, I think it is. I think it’s as morally reprehensible as sending a knowingly mentally handicapped human being to the chair because he’s killed someone. To demand behavior that’s contrary to the animal’s very nature, then kill it as it doesn’t respond is, in my view, morally reprehensible and absurd.
I do, however, accept it’s almost impossible for people to react otherwise. I could say a dog can be ressocialized, but a whale…
Add in that there is, as far as I know, no report of killer whales ever attacking humans in the wild. So they only kill us when we force them into captivity. Murkier and murkier it gets.
Also it says OX! It does not say killer whale. So in true fundamental mentality, that literally means OX. Or is that the part we are not supposed to take at face value?
For a excellent read on the concept and application of justice, I highly recommend: Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do, authored by Michael J. Sandel (2009).
For a more in-depth look at the topic of justice (and, upon which the Sandel’s book was based), you can view (online) videos of the entire course offered by Sandel at Harvard University (http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5). These twelve videos are recordings of Sandel’s actual course on this topic and, based on the high number of students in attendance, may be on the required course list for all Harvard students.
If you have the appropriate software (e.g., Real Player, etc.) you can download the videos and view them at you leisure.
Man oh man, yet another example of how full of hate and viciousness christians are! You’d think they’d use some common sense, and take cautions and care around God’s critters. Shitty stewards, they are. There are people, some with D.V.M. degrees and some without, who are better than God at knowing the risks and safety precautions around animals, and better than God and christians at caring for them.
Christians, it’s time to leave your hateful, vicious ways behind like a child puts away childish things, and learn the improvements people have made over God’s nasty ways.
Hailing from Alaska, I’d just like to remind folks how damned smart these whales are. Tilikum has figured out how to kill humans and make it look accidental, instead of just chomping them. The moral outrage is that the animal, which committed no crime against humans in the wild, has been unjustly imprisoned. Who doesn’t hate their warden?
“putting to death . . . polyester-wearers”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Perhaps there IS some wisdom in the Bible!
“What about the term “killer whale” do SeaWorld officials not understand?”
yeah, and what about those blue whales, or bottle nose dolphins? i bet they don’t even bother to coat the whales in dulux azore blue, or recycle the dolphins, the bastards!!