Tag Archives: Animal Rights

Polemics

Does the Bible say thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder?

5 Comments

Here is an article on it by a prominent Jewish professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary.

His qualifications are here. He is an expert in Hebrew language.

Excerpt:

Those of us who are familiar with the original Hebrew text of the Bible find frequent occasion to whine about inaccuracies and misleading expressions in the translations that are in use among non-Jews. Many of these discrepancies arose out of patently theological motives, as Christian interpreters rewrote passages in the “Old Testament” so as to turn them into predictions or prefigurations of the life of Jesus. Some of the mistranslations, though, are harder to account for.

For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

Indeed, “kill” in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb “harag.” However, the verb that appears in the Torah’s prohibition is a completely different one, ” ratsah” which, it would seem, should be rendered “murder.” This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Those ideologies that adduce the commandment in support of their gentle-hearted causes are compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.

Not that I don’t agree with this guy about his comments on abortion. I think abortion IS murder, and that Jews always considered it murder. Consider this post at Reason to Stand.

Excerpt:

“The law enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.” -Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian

Regarding the KJV and its translation of the text as “Thou shalt not kill”. The KJV is a poor translation of the Bible. If you know the history of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, you’ll know it was a rush job done in 1611, and that newer and more manuscripts have emerged since 1611.

Get an NASB. That’s the most literal translation available, except for the original Koine Greek itself. Here’s the relevant verse from Exodus 20 in the NASB. If you want something readable, go for an NIV or and ESV. But to make your case, use an NASB.

News

Why do pro-abortion people have no compassion for the unborn?

2 Comments

Good post from Suzanne at Big Blue Wave.

Excerpt:

When it comes to cats and dogs, people will go to enormous lengths to find them new homes or help them medically. And when they do “terminate” them, it’s usually because they’re sick anyway.

Unborn children? They are killed with no questions asked.

I know that some animal rights types *do* feel some affinity for the unborn; feminists however, feel none. They simply do not care if the baby dies, and will never admit the slightest amount of pity for him. Because they know their movement rests on dehumanizing the unborn…

What abortion is about is the freedom to engage in a risky recreational activity and to terminate the life of a separate, distinct human being who is a victim of the irresponsible choices of grown-ups who ought to know better. It’s about killing the weak and helpless so that the strong are not inconvenienced by additional mouths to feed, which diminishes their selfish pursuit of pleasure. (And secular leftists complain about greedy capitalists – but at least capitalists don’t murder innocent children out of greed).

What moral relativism means

ECM sent me a brilliant post from David Thompson, that made me think of what secular leftists do after jettisoning real moral rules like “don’t kill innocent people without justification”. Read the post, then reflect on how moral relativists try to cover up their selfish hedonism in front of others by agonizing over fashionable causes and moral dilemmas. It’s just an example of screaming “me too!” to religious people, even though morality is not rationally grounded without God.

People who reject the objective morality that comes from God will go on to invent a new morality that they find easier to accept. Typically it will involve embracing things like animal rights, recycling, vegetarianism or yoga. But if you ask a leftist to curtail their sexual desires to protect children, (born and unborn), then you can forget about it – they won’t do it. The whole point of atheism is to pursue pleasure apart from moral obligations.

Commentary

NYT writer worried that vegetables – not unborn children – feel pain

4 Comments

Story here in the New York Times. (H/T Weasel Zippers via ECM)

Excerpt:

But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.

Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl… It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive.

So, plants are people, too, and we shouldn’t do violence to them by eating them. Interesting… But you know who doesn’t deserve protection from violence, according to the secular left? Unborn children, that’s who. I don’t see them mentioned in this NYT article.

In fact, the left wants to use government power to stop conscience rights for pro-life doctors, and even the public expression of pro-life convictions. (H/T Lex Communis)

Don’t forget all the pro-life clubs that are banned across Canada. But maybe plants have a right to life, because maybe they feel pain.

People on the secular left like recreational sex, but they don’t like having unexpected mouths to feed. They want the pleasure of sex, but not the work of taking care of innocent little babies. To feel less guilty about killing babies, they have to invent a new morality that blesses something else they want to do as morally good, like recycling, animal rights activism or vegetarianism. It’s idolatry – inventing a god of your own that you can appease just by doing anything you want.