how do christians justify sex acts on farm animals

Am I the only one whose thought of this?

Right, you know how you have to get the sperm out the males and put it in the females in order to breed animals for meat? They essentially give the males a handjob which surely is unholy in the eye's of those mega-Christians you get in parts of the USA. I mean how can it not be if they think its wrong to perform handjobs on humans.

I know a US-based forum rife with those serious christians and I'm going to start a thread to ask them what they think about it.

I don't know what to call the thread in order to get the most response, and also I was thinking about posting a link to the Rebecca Loos incident and various other molestation clips but I don't know whether it will make them think of the thread as a joke. What is the best way to label and word the thread to get the best answers?

It will be interesting to find out how meat eaters justify it. Next time someone questions my veganism I'll be like do you agree with sex with animals??

Mmm you have a good point! I'm sure they could whip up a justified answer that satisfies themselves and sits in line with their beliefs.

I would also compare it to "playing god". Most Christians oppose IVF, genetic modification in humans, abortions, sperm donation and all that so why can they play god with animals, I don't see how that's any different regardless of animals being the "lesser" species that We hold "dominion" over

I'll hazard a guess ...

Animals don't have souls so you can do what you want with them.

In strict biblical terms you can do pretty much what you want with women also. I know the story from the Book of Enoch but I am pretty sure it is in the regular bible also: Enoch, when a visiting angel attracted the attention of a crowd (who's primary interest was in gaining group carnal knowledge of said angel) threw his virgin daughters to the crowd to entertain themselves with this so as he could continue his chat with the angel uninterupted.

I have only two things I ever say to non veg-head Christians:

1. By what interpretation of 'dominion' does the word mean "make the b'stards suffer"?

2. If God did intend animals to be food then what kind of a-hole would make food that suffers in the first place anyway?

I usualy find those two to be quite good conversation starters :)

I grew up in the church and have in past year or two become agnostic, still attend church every now and then, I'm dying to ask those questions in conversation there when someone comes up with the usual "god made them for food". Specially the second one.

Quote:

---

Lars

I would also compare it to "playing god".

---

'Lo Lars :)

It has often occured to me that God appears everyone who believes in God in their own image.

Nasty b'stards tend to have a God who is a nasty b'stard. Sexists have a god who is sexist. Racists have a god who is racist and so on and so forth ..

Christians who are imbued with a thing buddhists call the 'four immeasurable hearts' (those being Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity) always have a God who is compassionate, loving, sympatheticaly joyfull and equanamous.

Those Christians are the only true Christians, imho. A God imbued with the qualities of the four immeasurable hearts is the 'new' nature of God that Jesus actualy taught.

Quote:

---

I grew up in the church and have in past year or two become agnostic, still attend church every now and then, I'm dying to ask those questions in conversation there when someone comes up with the usual "god made them for food". Specially the second one.

---

Check for guns first matey!

The above reference to the four immeasurable hearts btw:

It may be coincidence or not but the new nature of God that Jesus taught is so close to how buddhism defines the qualites of 'buddha nature' that it is virtualy indistinguishable.

You have to be pretty well read on both buddhism and NT Christianity but there is a brilliant 'wind up' that goes along the lines of "Jesus was a buddhist" if you have the balls to pull it off.

I guess it's not a problem.

As anybody knows, animals are only automatons that react to stimuli, so if you give a bull a hand job you are just pushing a trigger to get an expected reaction. God wanted it that way so that the species can proliferate, everybody in his right (christian) mind will tell you that sex is not a sin as long as it is not for fun, but for multiplication :-)

Best regards,
Andy

PS: I guess I don't have to put a number of 'smiley faces' for forum members to get my intention here, correct?

Cupid stunt, I have to admit the majority of your post went straight over my head

I like your thoughts about gods image

Andy - "god wanted it that way" he wanted people to step in and to the reproducing for them? Ditto for strapping an extraction machine to a cows mammary glands? And everything else

Baaah like Cupid mentioned before, we all have different ideas of a god, haha something like that will very likely never be agreed upon

I think one of the issues is that the bible isn't consistent. See link for details http://www.compassionatespirit.com/bible-verses.htm

I think the artificial insemination side of things is probably not considered an issue as the human is not gaining sexual pleasure from it and it's all to produce further offspring.

I think if someone questioned my veganism I would go with other arguments. :rolleyes:

This is a very very specific criticism but it still is subject to the base responses for any religion with limited literature and no exact central hub of control. The bible like any other holy book can only be re-translated and re-published to put emphasis on certain things and not on others. It can then be further re-read to help justify a certain point and there is no center of Christianity that keeps people readily updated on how the text should be reading. This leads to multiple versions of the bible with multiple readings and because nothing can be added or removed from the bible it can be used to justify anything they wish it to and it is essentially infallible to them. Then you have the sects of Christianity who have their own versions and their own readings and if they can't find justification in that they just convert without questioning the issue. It is not like being atheist for example where if you have certain literature that backs up your choices and opinions and that evidence is shown to be invalid then you have to readdress the issue and your position in relation to it they have a single book which is just correct and that is unquestionable.

Bit of a rant but you get my point. They can justify it numerous ways with just a different view of the good book, I could use the bible to justify anything I wanted it to I would just require the right version, the right reading and the right ideological back drop.

i dont think that anyone who is involved in what i would say are sexual acts with animals for reproduction would actually view it as that. if they did see it as that i dont think they would do it, i think it is seen as mostly a necessary step in the process. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if they would get really offended by the suggestion of it! i do think its an excellent point though and i think its a really sick part of the whole meat industry.

its always good to raise these interesting points, maybe somebody somewhere will pick it up and will start seeing things in a different light. the way i would say it would just be in the most honest and serious way i could, to give people an honourful way of responding and they can keep face. Thats always how i answer questions about veganism as well. Otherwise people just get angry and close themselves off i find.

Honestly, you're just going to get a load of a**holes who make up some bullsh*t excuse to justify what they do.
It's a necessary part of getting what they want, they'll find an illogical excuse that satisfies them and continue their day.
The thread will be a joke to them no matter what you do. And most likely it will get deleted and get you banned.
Not that I'm telling you not to do it, by all means do so if you wish, it might just hit someone where they need it.
Good luck, I hope it does work out well.

Quote:

---

ShadowTears

Honestly, you're just going to get a load of a**holes who make up some bullsh*t excuse to justify what they do.
It's a necessary part of getting what they want, they'll find an illogical excuse that satisfies them and continue their day.
The thread will be a joke to them no matter what you do. And most likely it will get deleted and get you banned.
Not that I'm telling you not to do it, by all means do so if you wish, it might just hit someone where they need it.
Good luck, I hope it does work out well.

---

Why would you imagine it will get the OP banned?. I would personally prefer if the title didn't have the word 'mega' in it, but other than that I think it's interesting............

I think it would be a valid thread. If 'Christians' who practice or agree with this aspect of the meat industry truly believe it is not wrong, they should have no reason not to engage in a civilised conversation about it.............shouldn't they? People should stop hiding from the truth.

well id certainly would be really interested in hearing how people respond to the thread if you decide to put it up. if you do, good luck!!

Quote:

---

The Queen

Right, you know how you have to get the sperm out the males and put it in the females in order to breed animals for meat? They essentially give the males a handjob which surely is unholy in the eye's of those mega-Christians you get in parts of the USA. I mean how can it not be if they think its wrong to perform handjobs on humans.

---

Christians who do this may just be glad it's the kind the "job" it is, and think "thank God that the word 'blow' isn't in there". :-)
Anyways, I haven't read the whole thread... but we do have members from various religions, atheists etc. so - as usual - please don't post stuff that may be insulting to other members. (What I posted above was surely not meant that way!) :-) Disagreements are of course totally fine.

Very good question,

I think that giving an animal a hand job is so gross...why not just let the animals get it in the natural way? I have never understood that....

I don't believe that questioning anything is offensive to any people of various backgrounds and religions. It's very healthy to question things, I don't believe in censoring this sort of questions. I feel sorry for the sort of people who would take offense, one always needs to question it's own actions and self I feel.

Quote:

---

Sgable84

Very good question,

I think that giving an animal a hand job is so gross...why not just let the animals get it in the natural way? I have never understood that....

---

Because being a farmer in this day and age is like being in control of a large number of robots. Everything has to be recorded, computerised and dated.

Also farmers can live anything to chance. The animals need to be pregnant at a certain time, he has numbers he must reach. Living things to nature goes against everything mass farming stands for!

and its because of all these processes that , as robert newman says, the food production ratio is now 2000:1 against. Farmers of all sorts are squeezing every bit of food out of animals and plants just to keep everyone fed requiring genetic breading, dangerous chemical fertilizers and artificial insemination.

I think people are killing themselves slowly with all these modern techniques needed to produce enormous quantities of food on a huge scale. They're void of nutrients and packed with things that makes people ill and unhealthy.

May I suggest to The Queen, some sneaky bait-and-switch?

Formulate your forum post as a legitimate moral dilemma, perhaps as a dog breeder... See what they say about your actions then :::gotcha:::

Definitely! Play it innocent!! :)

Why do you pst ths question in reference to 'Mega-church' Christians? Is there some religion anywhere in the world in which the use of animal products is prohibited? Not a aware of it. So in point of fact anyone who uses animal products is complicit by association

The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism do not 'prohibit' the use of animals, partly because they do not share the worldview of the west of good and evil, right and wrong. Rather, they suggest that there are karmic repercussions to all we do, and that by harming animals we harm ourselves. As with any religion, the adherents typically choose to pick out the parts of the teachings that reflect their own cultural programming and to leave off the difficult parts. It is within these two religions that you will find the most vegetarians and people who are sensitive to animal issues, but still the majority of practitioners will follow culture before religion. The evolution of Christianity has removed most of the teachings that would lead its followers to veganism, as it has been mostly a religion based on controlling the masses and upholding the power structure of western societies.

Quote:

---

NOLA Vegan

The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism do not 'prohibit' the use of animals, partly because they do not share the worldview of the west of good and evil, right and wrong. Rather, they suggest that there are karmic repercussions to all we do, and that by harming animals we harm ourselves.

---

Yup! That's it in a nutshell Nola :)

Lesser known of than Hinduism and Buddhism is Jainism and those guys are mega-strict about harming anything. They filter water before drinking, avoid root vegetables, won't eat food that has been standing .. in order to avoid harming more micro-organisms than is neccesary. According to Wiki they are lacto-vegetarians. Gandhi's family were Jains. It was Gandhis mother (according to his autobiography 'My experiments with Truth') who made him vow life long vegetarianism including abstension from milk. As a lacto-veggie diet without milk is .... errr ... well, veganism ... then it is reasonable to deduce that the even less 'less harm' benefits of veganism are known to and practiced by some Jains.

Quote:

---

pat sommer

May I suggest to The Queen, some sneaky bait-and-switch?

Formulate your forum post as a legitimate moral dilemma, perhaps as a dog breeder... See what they say about your actions then :::gotcha:::

---

Just in case anyone finds it amusing ...

Many moons ago on a multi-faith forum I got the hump with the general callous attitude people were showing whenever the matter of pest control arose so I started a 'pest problem' topic of my own.

Loosely: I described my problem as an infestation whereby the 'pests' were getting into my cupboards, stealing my food, leaving half eaten waste all over the place and generaly running amok all over my house leaving their mess behind them wherever they had been.

Many ingenious methods for trapping and exterminating my 'pests' were offered .. More importantly many clues as to what the pests actualy were were completely missed or ignored ..

That topic ran for post after post after post before some bright spark put all the clues together and realised that every one had been enthusiaticaly trying to help me exterminate my kids.

Ok this is a long time coming but I just found your post and I have been laughing so hard LOL Love it:)

LG

Quote:

---

Cupid Stunt

I have only two things I ever say to non veg-head Christians:

1. By what interpretation of 'dominion' does the word mean "make the b'stards suffer"?

2. If God did intend animals to be food then what kind of a-hole would make food that suffers in the first place anyway?

---

Well said.

Sadly there are christians who find excuses for animal cruelty and who might argue that as the eat animals then it is ok to do other things to them. But then do not the majority of meat eaters think like that? I can remember a long time ago when i worked in a place and i actually placed a bet on the grand national at the time i being a meat eater and non christian i gave it no thought. Perhaps this is how some christians respond to issuses relating to animal abuse? I am one of jehovahs witnesses and a vegan i am the only vegan in my congregation the others all eat meat and yes the say it is ok because God allowed us to eat meat after the flood of Noahs day.Genesis 9:1-29 1 And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. 2 And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given. 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. I find it hard to beleive that the God who made all the wonderful creation we see around us could ever condone cruelty or that he would ever want any of his true followere to do so. Mans original diet was vegan (some say vegetarian)
Genesis 1
29 And God went on to say: “Here I have given to YOU all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To YOU let it serve as food. 30 And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it came to be so.
Much as i dislike the fact that the rest of the christians in my congregation exersise their God given free will to eat animals i am thank full that i do not use my free will in this way.

That's really interesting hearing the quotes from the bible. I've often heard people say the bible tells us to eat meat and I don't know the bible, so never really know what to say. When I read your quotes, I can't help but think the quotes actually tell us not to eat meat, but to eat veg and that it does say we have power over all animals. But then again, I'm very biased against eating and using animals, so maybe it's just easy to read into this what I already believe. Thanks for giving us the quotes.