Poll: Is recreational hunting immoral?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
12
0%
0 0%
36
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Recreational hunting
#41
(07-31-2011, 03:54 AM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote:
(07-31-2011, 03:35 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(07-22-2011, 06:10 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-22-2011, 06:07 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Animals are godless.  If they do have souls....they are all damned to Hell. 
They do have souls, of course, but not immortal souls, Thus, they can neither be saved nor damned.

Going hunting is a blessing for mind and soul.  I have a Colt .22 caliber cowboy pistol for that purpose.

Gonna rustle up some squirrel with that peashooter?  :P


My friends use shotguns.  That's easy.  They kill a lot of animals.  The trick (or merit in my case) is to do it with a .22 caliber cowboy Colt pistol.
Reply
#42
Habitual_Ritual Wrote:Animals do indeed have souls or an animus.Its what gives them their get up n go. Its a matter of some debate as to whether their souls are immortal or not.

Debate?
Can you cite a single theologian in good standing that claims animals possess immortal souls?

Man is made in the image of God by virtue of his intellectual or rational soul. The immortality of the soul is by virtue of it being created in the image of God. Animals (or brutes as Aquinas refers to them) are not created in the image of God and thus their souls are mortal and they possess neither a will or an intellect. If they did, in what way would they differ from man? In addition animals are not afforded the rights of man due to their subordinated status beneath man (the only earthly creature to possess an immortal soul), as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Quote:In order to establish a binding obligation to avoid the wanton infliction of pain on the brutes, it is not necessary to acknowledge any right inherent in them. Our duty in this respect is part of our duty towards God. From the juristic standpoint the visible world with which man comes in contact is divided into persons and non-persons. For the latter term the word "things" is usually employed. Only a person, that is, a being possessed of reason and self-control, can be the subject of rights and duties; or, to express the same idea in terms more familiar to adherents of other schools of thought, only beings who are ends in themselves, and may not be treated as mere means to the perfection of other beings, can possess rights. Rights and duties are moral ties which can exist only in a moral being, or person. Beings that may be treated simply as means to the perfection of persons can have no rights, and to this category the brute creation belongs. In the Divine plan of the universe the lower creatures are subordinated to the welfare of man.

Our Lord and His Church has always granted man the right to slay and consume animals for either nourishment or materials (such as leathers, furs, etc). If animals were to possess immortal souls (and thus a will, intellect, and culpability for sin) then any man who seeks to kill an animal would be guilty of violating the 5th Commandment. In addition, if someones believes that animals possess immortal souls and yet acknowledges his right to kill and eat them (as afforded by God Himself), on what theological or moral grounds then could someone object to that person killing and eating another human being?

This is total theological insanity and it completely undermines the very nature of man and the order of creation. It is absolutely heretical.

Reply
#43
This does not directly address whether animals have souls, but it does the define the proper relation of and between men & animals in the order of Creation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

Cruelty to Animals

But while these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering — a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves — God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a manner conformable to their nature. We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful. This principle, by which, at least in the abstract, we may solve the problem of the lawfulness of vivisection and other cognate questions, is tersely put by Zigliara:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

With more feeling, but with no less exactness, the late Cardinal Manning expressed the same doctrine:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).

While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who loved his dog and hated his kind.
Reply
#44
(07-31-2011, 05:08 AM)Joshua Wrote:
Habitual_Ritual Wrote:Animals do indeed have souls or an animus.Its what gives them their get up n go. Its a matter of some debate as to whether their souls are immortal or not.

Debate?
Can you cite a single theologian in good standing that claims animals possess immortal souls?

Man is made in the image of God by virtue of his intellectual or rational soul. The immortality of the soul is by virtue of it being created in the image of God. Animals (or brutes as Aquinas refers to them) are not created in the image of God and thus their souls are mortal and they possess neither a will or an intellect. If they did, in what way would they differ from man? In addition animals are not afforded the rights of man due to their subordinated status beneath man (the only earthly creature to possess an immortal soul), as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Quote:In order to establish a binding obligation to avoid the wanton infliction of pain on the brutes, it is not necessary to acknowledge any right inherent in them. Our duty in this respect is part of our duty towards God. From the juristic standpoint the visible world with which man comes in contact is divided into persons and non-persons. For the latter term the word "things" is usually employed. Only a person, that is, a being possessed of reason and self-control, can be the subject of rights and duties; or, to express the same idea in terms more familiar to adherents of other schools of thought, only beings who are ends in themselves, and may not be treated as mere means to the perfection of other beings, can possess rights. Rights and duties are moral ties which can exist only in a moral being, or person. Beings that may be treated simply as means to the perfection of persons can have no rights, and to this category the brute creation belongs. In the Divine plan of the universe the lower creatures are subordinated to the welfare of man.

Our Lord and His Church has always granted man the right to slay and consume animals for either nourishment or materials (such as leathers, furs, etc). If animals were to possess immortal souls (and thus a will, intellect, and culpability for sin) then any man who seeks to kill an animal would be guilty of violating the 5th Commandment. In addition, if someones believes that animals possess immortal souls and yet acknowledges his right to kill and eat them (as afforded by God Himself), on what theological or moral grounds then could someone object to that person killing and eating another human being?

This is total theological insanity and it completely undermines the very nature of man and the order of creation. It is absolutely heretical.


This.
Reply
#45
(07-31-2011, 10:16 AM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: This does not directly address whether animals have souls, but it does the define the proper relation of and between men & animals in the order of Creation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

Cruelty to Animals

But while these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering — a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves — God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a manner conformable to their nature. We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful. This principle, by which, at least in the abstract, we may solve the problem of the lawfulness of vivisection and other cognate questions, is tersely put by Zigliara:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

With more feeling, but with no less exactness, the late Cardinal Manning expressed the same doctrine:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).

While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who loved his dog and hated his kind.

Hooray for bullfights in Mexico City which has the biggest bullfighting ring in the world. (seats comfortably 50,000).
Reply
#46
(07-31-2011, 10:16 AM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: This does not directly address whether animals have souls, but it does the define the proper relation of and between men & animals in the order of Creation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

Cruelty to Animals

But while these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering — a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves — God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a manner conformable to their nature. We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful. This principle, by which, at least in the abstract, we may solve the problem of the lawfulness of vivisection and other cognate questions, is tersely put by Zigliara:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

With more feeling, but with no less exactness, the late Cardinal Manning expressed the same doctrine:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).

While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who loved his dog and hated his kind.


I love cowboys who kiss their faithful horses.
Reply
#47
(07-21-2011, 08:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:19 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I think it is unnecessary. I try to live like Native Americans in only using or consuming based on need. Fun isn't a need, but a desire, and there are more appropriate and productive ways to have fun. I love animals and nature, and we have done a shitty job as stewards of both. Maybe people will give a damn when their oxygen supply runs out, fresh water must be manufactured, and the sun is so damaging to cells that one cannot venture outside.

Yes I am a tree hugger.

Do you eat meat? I've always felt that those who eat meat but are morally opposed to hunting  are simply transferring the onus of the killing on to someone else. :) :)

Well said
Reply
#48
(08-04-2011, 08:21 AM)matthew_talbot Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:19 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I think it is unnecessary. I try to live like Native Americans in only using or consuming based on need. Fun isn't a need, but a desire, and there are more appropriate and productive ways to have fun. I love animals and nature, and we have done a shitty job as stewards of both. Maybe people will give a damn when their oxygen supply runs out, fresh water must be manufactured, and the sun is so damaging to cells that one cannot venture outside.

Yes I am a tree hugger.

Do you eat meat? I've always felt that those who eat meat but are morally opposed to hunting  are simply transferring the onus of the killing on to someone else. :) :)

Well said

There's nothing wrong with hunting provided the meat is eaten (or the animal is used for some other practical purpose).
Reply
#49
(08-04-2011, 10:53 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 08:21 AM)matthew_talbot Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:19 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I think it is unnecessary. I try to live like Native Americans in only using or consuming based on need. Fun isn't a need, but a desire, and there are more appropriate and productive ways to have fun. I love animals and nature, and we have done a shitty job as stewards of both. Maybe people will give a damn when their oxygen supply runs out, fresh water must be manufactured, and the sun is so damaging to cells that one cannot venture outside.

Yes I am a tree hugger.

Do you eat meat? I've always felt that those who eat meat but are morally opposed to hunting  are simply transferring the onus of the killing on to someone else. :) :)

Well said

There's nothing wrong with hunting provided the meat is eaten (or the animal is used for some other practical purpose).


I don't like rattlesnake meat and I can't find a practical use for rattlesnakes.  What do I do?  Stop killing rattlesnakes?
Reply
#50
(08-04-2011, 04:32 PM)wulfrano Wrote: I don't like rattlesnake meat and I can't find a practical use for rattlesnakes.  What do I do?  Stop killing rattlesnakes?

Well, I like rattlesnake meat, but I think dangerous vermin fall under another category! :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)