Matt tells "PETA idiots" what's up!

[Bella79]

Originally Posted by Vizion

Well, if Matt is annoyed he is annoyed, I don't mean to annoy him, I mean to simply ask logical, rational questions in order to receive understanding ... which so far, I've not.

As God LOVES his CREATION (not Matt's creation, nor yours, nor mine), so do I.

Killing a bobcat for sport may be "sporting" and thus "good" in man's eye, but to God killing any of his creatures for sport is wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear some hermaneutical backup here, not just random impulse "feelings" on the subject which equate to zero in the end.

And for the record - if bobcat hunting is used to control exploding bobcat populations I'm OK with it. Don't prefer it, but sometimes it need be done. Any other reason is bunk.

I never spoke for Matt. Geeesh I will just hush and leave it alone.

[Bella79]

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

I dunno, that's not an issue I've had to address personally. My knee jerk reaction is that "purely for sport" (i.e. serial-killer-in-training torturing squirrels in the words) is no beuno, but I don't know where I would draw the line.

ROFL !!!

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

I dunno, that's not an issue I've had to address personally. My knee jerk reaction is that "purely for sport" (i.e. serial-killer-in-training torturing squirrels in the words) is no beuno, but I don't know where I would draw the line.

Meh - that's an extreme example and hardly more than the occasional exception to the rule.

Let me rephrase my question.

If an animal is doing nothing other than minding its own business in the woods, and is no threat to man whatsoever, nor is doing nothing outside of its natural design and in no exception is causing harm to the ecology, then answer that again.

Is it wrong to kill an animal (as mentioned above) purely for sport? Yes, or no.

[Llamafighter]

Originally Posted by Vizion

So, because development has killed more bobcats, certainly hunting makes no matter?

Not sure I get that logic. How does killing an animal NOT intended for food and not being a particular threat to humans, and not serving no intended purpose equate in the end to a Godly act?

Here is a link to everything about hunting in the bible
http://www.openbible.info/topics/hunting

[Vizion]

Do any of those have any relevance? There's waaaaay too much to read with what precious time I have tonight.

Point being, there is no real justification other than our own personal desires to hunt for sport. No Biblical passages I know allow for it, encourage it, or give justice to it.

I'm not a PETA person, but I am a Godly person and I love His creation. It is no less than cruelty to destroy the life of an animal simply for trophy purposes. Again, we all have our flaws - I have many myself - but I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon just because I happen to like that person.

God first, everyone else is so far behind him they are invisible, and rightly so.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by Vizion

Meh - that's an extreme example and hardly more than the occasional exception to the rule.

Let me rephrase my question.

If an animal is doing nothing other than minding its own business in the woods, and is no threat to man whatsoever, nor is doing nothing outside of its natural design and in no exception is causing harm to the ecology, then answer that again.

Is it wrong to kill an animal (as mentioned above) purely for sport? Yes, or no.

I don't think I'll be the best example for your case since I'm pretty uneducated about hunting, but in the extremely narrow, highly specified scenario you provided, I would not go hunting.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by Vizion

Do any of those have any relevance? There's waaaaay too much to read with what precious time I have tonight.

Point being, there is no real justification other than our own personal desires to hunt for sport. No Biblical passages I know allow for it, encourage it, or give justice to it.

I'm not a PETA person, but I am a Godly person and I love His creation. It is no less than cruelty to destroy the life of an animal simply for trophy purposes. Again, we all have our flaws - I have many myself - but I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon just because I happen to like that person.

God first, everyone else is so far behind him they are invisible, and rightly so.

The phrase you keep using over & over is "purely for sport", but that's a conclusion that you seem to have arrived at on your own. You brush aside any explanation for hunting bobcats in favor of your pre-determination that they are innocent victims.

As I have said multiple times, I know nothing of hunting or the population situation of bobcats, but it seems as though you don't either (if I'm wrong, I apologize). While I whole-heartedly agree that God must be first, there are many activities which the Bible never expressly endorses nor prohibits & we must each obey as God leads us. I'm sure that there are many who would never condone MMA because "It is no less than cruelty to [damage] the life of [a human] simply for trophy purposes", yet we all recognize it as a sport.

Clearly I'm not saying your a sinner for not hunting or not supporting hunting, but I am saying that I don't believe Matt is a sinner for hunting & supporting hunting.

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

but in the extremely narrow, highly specified and most probable scenario you provided and, I would not go hunting.

Fixed

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

The phrase you keep using over & over is "purely for sport", but that's a conclusion that you seem to have arrived at on your own. You brush aside any explanation for hunting bobcats in favor of your pre-determination that they are innocent victims.

Go and re-read my posts. I made it clear: if they are a MENACE, or need to be culled due to overpopulation I'm kosher with it.

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

As I have said multiple times, I know nothing of hunting or the population situation of bobcats, but it seems as though you don't either (if I'm wrong, I apologize). While I whole-heartedly agree that God must be first, there are many activities which the Bible never expressly endorses nor prohibits & we must each obey as God leads us. I'm sure that there are many who would never condone MMA because "It is no less than cruelty to [damage] the life of [a human] simply for trophy purposes", yet we all recognize it as a sport.

But it's not death, and it is electable. Therein lies a major difference.

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

Clearly I'm not saying your a sinner for not hunting or not supporting hunting, but I am saying that I don't believe Matt is a sinner for hunting & supporting hunting.

Well, not "for" being a hunter, but I believe it is an offense (i.e. a sin) to God when we trample on his creation as though it's here purely for our pleasure.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by Vizion

Go and re-read my posts. I made it clear: if they are a MENACE, or need to be culled due to overpopulation I'm kosher with it.

But it's not death, and it is electable. Therein lies a major difference.

Well, not "for" being a hunter, but I believe it is an offense (i.e. a sin) to God when we trample on his creation as though it's here purely for our pleasure.

Right, but the point I'm making is that you've already decided that Matt & the majority of other hunters are only in it for sick pleasure. You've completely dismissed the possibility that Matt's hunting a dangerous animal (Mark posted an article about how they've attacked humans) or an overpopulated one (HERE is the Wikipedia overview outlining the fact that their numbers & density are increasing).

I'm all for standing for God & what He teaches in his Word & I realize that typically means standing contrary to the world, but don't be contrary just for contrary's sake.

Originally Posted by Vizion

Fixed

Nope, perverted & falsified. That's what your opinion is. The links provided to you in this thread prove otherwise. Even when you try to pull the Bible in as support, Mark provides you with reference materials which you then glibly toss aside because you're "too busy". If you're going to ignore all evidence presented against you in favor of a single source document, I would think you'd like to know what that document actually states instead of just relying on your general impression of what you remember it seemed to suggest.