Is Squirrel hunting sinful ?

[justvisiting]

A squirrel in defense of himself.

 

[justvisiting]

Stop! No more squirrel hunting!

 

[jasoncran]

a coworker rehabilitiates those that injured and releases them into the woods behind him. he does that with coons,armidillos, and also opussum. all of which are edilble to some.

jason

 

[justvisiting]

a coworker rehabilitiates those that injured and releases them into the woods behind him. he does that with coons,armidillos, and also opussum. all of which are edilble to some.

jason

Right on Jason! I'm just having some fun helping the squirrels.

 

[RND]

Genesis 1:29 God says "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you ; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"
Genesis 9:3 God says, "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

Please show me the texts between these two statements of God that shows that man ate the sacrifices that he offered to God.

I guess I will right after you answer my question: "Can you show me where animals were eaten "without" sacrifice? "

In other words were things eaten without a sacrifice?

 

[handy]

Sorry, RND, but I'm going to bail on this discussion. But before I go, I'll just explain why I believe what I do:

I believe firmly that one should read the Bible pretty much as written, and if there is any confusion, let the scriptures determine the interpretations. For understanding God's truths, this simple approach, that God's word says what it says and we need to take what it says with as little assumptions as possible, works for me.

So, when I read in Genesis 1:29 "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you ; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"

And then I read in Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

And since there is nothing regarding any kind of eating of meat in between these verses, unless someone can show me some compelling reason to believe otherwise, I believe that the only reason animals were killed prior to Genesis 9:3 is for sacrificing but that after Genesis 9:3 the Lord gave all the animals, clean ones that were to be used for sacrifices and unclean ones as food for Noah, his family and subsequently, the rest of mankind.

As for eating without sacrifice, yes, there are plenty of scriptures that show folks eating meat without sacrificing it. One example would be Genesis 18:1-8, in which a pre-nativity incarnation of the Lord ate a calf which Abraham prepared for Him.

To assume that the only times that an animal was ever eaten was after it was sacrificed to the Lord as an offering is nothing more than that, an assumption.

 

[RND]

Sorry, RND, but I'm going to bail on this discussion. But before I go, I'll just explain why I believe what I do:

I know why you believe the way you do. You believe the word of God gives you the freedom to eat whatever you want in spite of the fact that your body isn't your own and doesn't belong to you. That's presumption giving license to permissiveness.

You wouldn't accept such a belief from your 17 year old daughter regarding premarital intercourse with a boy she hardly knows yet you expect others to accept your presumption.

I believe firmly that one should read the Bible pretty much as written, and if there is any confusion, let the scriptures determine the interpretations. For understanding God's truths, this simple approach, that God's word says what it says and we need to take what it says with as little assumptions as possible, works for me.

I believe that myself. Where we might differ is that if there is any confusion we should stand on what God said in faith. God said don't eat it, don't eat it.

So, when I read in Genesis 1:29 "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you ; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"

So does that include oleander and hemlock?

And then I read in Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

Again I have to ask. From the minute God declared something "unclean" what transpired to make the unclean edible?

And since there is nothing regarding any kind of eating of meat in between these verses, unless someone can show me some compelling reason to believe otherwise, I believe that the only reason animals were killed prior to Genesis 9:3 is for sacrificing but that after Genesis 9:3 the Lord gave all the animals, clean ones that were to be used for sacrifices and unclean ones as food for Noah, his family and subsequently, the rest of mankind.

Even if your assumption were true, did not God later say not to eat unclean animals?

As for eating without sacrifice, yes, there are plenty of scriptures that show folks eating meat without sacrificing it. One example would be Genesis 18:1-8, in which a pre-nativity incarnation of the Lord ate a calf which Abraham prepared for Him.

Yes, there are plenty of verses that show man eating animals without a sacrifice. Yet all were consecrated.

To assume that the only times that an animal was ever eaten was after it was sacrificed to the Lord as an offering is nothing more than that, an assumption.

I think there is enough evidence to show that much of the eating of meat in the Bible involved some sort of ritual prior to it's consumption.

 

[JoJo]

Concerning Peter's vision in Acts 10:

Acts 10:9-15

9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Is it figurative? Is it literal? Is there any reason why this vision couldn't be both?

Perhaps God was showing Peter that He could make both animals and Gentiles clean. If not both animals and Gentiles, why the reference to animals at all? Why the instruction to "kill and eat?" And why did God respond to Peter's refusal with "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."?

 

[JoJo]

By the way, I might add (so that no one thinks I am making an argument for clean meats simply to support my love for ham sandwiches and pork chops) that I have asked the Lord to show me His truth regarding this matter. If He doesn't want me to eat pork, I'll never eat it again. I am open to obedience to HIM.

 

[AAA]

If you read Genesis, we were put here as master of the animals. Hunting animals for trophies has been a tradition that been around for thousands of years. Despite the current liberal ideology that animals have "rights", there no biblical concept to that assertion. Only people have rights... Animals have no "extra" inherent value compared to any other natural resource. The only life that matters is human life because we were made in the image of God and not animals. Everything else is put here for our benefit.

Armor of god,

I think it is pretty clear that you have argued on biblical grounds that it is acceptable to kill animals solely as trophies. Please correct me if I've gotten that wrong.

If I've gotten that right, then allow me to ask, given what I have quoted above, whether it's acceptable to torture animals? Also, what is the relevant scripture that directs us to consider animal torture acceptable or unacceptable?

 

[follower of Christ]

a coworker rehabilitiates those that injured and releases them into the woods behind him. he does that with coons,armidillos, and also opussum. all of which are edilble to some.

jason

If he sees anyone out back in hunting gear its not me ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

Concerning Peter's vision in Acts 10:

Acts 10:9-15

9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Is it figurative? Is it literal? Is there any reason why this vision couldn't be both?

Perhaps God was showing Peter that He could make both animals and Gentiles clean. If not both animals and Gentiles, why the reference to animals at all? Why the instruction to "kill and eat?" And why did God respond to Peter's refusal with "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."?

Good points, JoJo.
My guess is that you are spot on....its about both.

.

 

[follower of Christ]

So does that include oleander and hemlock?

Can you prove that those werent fit for consumption at THAT point by whatever means ? Were they even in existence post flood when God said what He did ?

Even if your assumption were true, did not God later say not to eat unclean animals?

And then later seemingly changed the rules again.
Are you claiming that Jesus, aka GOD, did not eat meat ?

I think there is enough evidence to show that much of the eating of meat in the Bible involved some sort of ritual prior to it's consumption.

So you are claiming that Peter and the other fisherman then were simply gathering up fish for the day for some ritual ?
Can you provide anything for that thought, if that is the case ?



.

 

[follower of Christ]

I guess I will right after you answer my question: "Can you show me where animals were eaten "without" sacrifice? "

In other words were things eaten without a sacrifice?

Easy enough.

Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.
Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.
Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine.
And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
(John 21:10-15 KJV)

"dine"
G709
á¼€ÃÂιÃĀάÉ
aristaÃ…Â
ar-is-tah'-o
From G712; to take the principal meal: - dine.

Come and dine....not come and join Me in some ritual...
And lets not try to demand something from the OLD covenant when WE live under the NEW. ;)


.

 

[follower of Christ]

unless one has a compelling reason to kill an animal, it is wrong to do so.

Such as....I dont know...demanding their life and blood for payment of sin....then later saying that that life and blood couldnt take away sin to begin with ?
Scripture doesnt say we have to have a 'compelling' reason. Not that I take animal life without a reason, but your definition of 'compelling' and someone elses might not be exactly the same...nor that of Gods.

 

[follower of Christ]

Well here's a question that can't possibly offend anybody: do you think that animals can experience pain and suffering, and some sense of well-being?

Does nobody have an opinion, or does nobody think its relevant to the OP's question?

Ive raised rabbits for years and I know very well that they experience pain and suffering and even have their own brand of emotions. All creatures that Ive observed have a self preservation instinct, as we humans do.

The Hebrew in Genesis shows that they do have something similar to man in their makeup.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(Genesis 2:7 KJV)


And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(Genesis 1:21-24 KJV)


Underlined in all cases is this;

H5315
נפש×Â
nephesh
BDB Definition:
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
1a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
1b) living being
1c) living being (with life in the blood)
1d) the man himself, self, person or individual
1e) seat of the appetites
1f) seat of emotions and passions
1g) activity of mind
1g1) dubious
1h) activity of the will
1h1) dubious
1i) activity of the character
1i1) dubious

It would seem that animals do have something beyond being programmed puppets.


.