Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The bible , both OT & NT , hates dogs
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality vs Skepticism
Lt_Ripley
Why Doesn't The Bible Like Me?



Americans, in general, are very fond of dogs. Most families have at least one dog. They will lavish lots of money on their dogs, and truly grieve when their pets die. This is not unusual because dogs have been much admired and even loved by people of most cultures going back to prehistoric times.

This admiration of dogs is not, however, universal. At least one ancient culture detested dogs. That was one of the peculiar characteristics of ancient Hebrew culture in both the Old and New Testaments. But many modern Jews are quite fond of their dogs. In ancient Judah and Israel, dogs were wild inhabitants of the streets. Hiding by day, they roamed in the open at night, running through the streets of every town seeking food and howling to one another. Although not admired, they were tolerated as scavengers.

This lack of admiration, or even understanding for dogs is quite evident in the bible. The scriptures contain a total of 41 references to dogs. Not one is favorable to dogs at all in any way. (Cats are not even mentioned in the bible, and I like that!)

When the Old Testament lists animals that the Jews must not eat because they are unclean, it does not specifically mention dogs. But we are included among the unclean animals as follows: "And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even" (Leviticus 11:27). Of course, I am glad the Jews were forbidden to eat my kind, but I resent being called unclean. We dogs are much cleaner than cows, sheep, or goats.

The ultimate sign of disrespect was to allow a dead body to lie out at night and be eaten by dogs. "And the dogs shall eat Jezebel . . . and there shall be none to bury her." These were the words of the prophet Elisha in II Kings 9:10. To see what contempt the bible god had for dogs, read Deuteronomy 23:18: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Not only did this incompetent god detest dogs, he also completely misunderstood them. "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly" (Proverbs 26:11). This proverb of the Old Testament is repeated in the second epistle of Peter 2:22. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows they can easily regurgitate their food. A puppy will lick you in the face, as he would do to an older dog. That is a signal for the older dog to regurgitate some food for the puppy. A poor dog that is not well fed will gorge himself when food is available, then regurgitate and hide some of it to eat later. That makes sense.

How strange, then, that the bible says the clean animals are those that have cloven hooves and "cheweth the cud." (Leviticus 11:3). What this god did not know is that the cud is food the animal has previously eaten. It is regurgitated and chewed as a step in the process of digestion. All of the so-called clean animals do this, including cows, sheep, and goats. Understand that I have nothing personal against cows, sheep, or goats. However, those animals are so stupid that many dogs are employed just to herd them around. Someone who herds sheep is called a pastor. I understand that some humans also have to be herded by a pastor who fleeces them whenever possible.

The most disturbing of the dog references in the bible are those in which humans are called "dogs" as a term of contempt or scorn, and also those in which a person humbles himself by calling himself a dead dog. "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, . . . Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough . . ." (Isaiah 56: 10-11). "What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?" (II Samuel 9:8).

The New Testament references to people as dogs are even more outrageous. The Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 3:2: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers . . ." Revelation 22:14-15 includes dogs among the wicked to be kept out of heaven: "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers . . ." So what? What thinking mortal would want to be near a god who would throw any sentient creature into flames for eternal torment?

Jesus freely refers to people he doesn't like as dogs, as well as referring to them as swine and as vipers. In the Sermon on the Mount he does this by saying: "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. . ." (Matthew 7:6).

Most disgusting of all is his conversation with the Syrophenician woman who came to him pleading for him to heal her daughter. He said to her, "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26). He was, in effect, calling her little daughter a dog right to the mother's face. This cruel and immoral pronouncement is repeated, with only slightly softer wording, in Mark 7:27. There is no rational way for a thoughtful person to read these wicked words and think of Jesus as a moral teacher.

Before ending this little doggie essay, I must note that someone might object to the statement that the bible is entirely negative about dogs because of Proverbs 30:29-31. That passage starts, "There are three things which go well, yea four are comely in going." The next two verses tell of those four things whose gait the writer admires. One of them is a greyhound, according to the King James and also in the revised versions. Along with other doggie scholars, I disagree with this translation of the ancient Hebrew which is zar-zir-mathnaim. This literally means "one who is slender in the loins" or "one who has his loins girded." This almost certainly refers to trained human runners who ran ahead of the chariots of kings. These runners were selected for endurance and speed, and they did have their slender loins girded. The greyhounds are wonderful dogs, but actually the bible does not compliment even them.

don't understand how any human can think that a book which doesn't like dogs is sacred.

Foundation member Bob Truett, a former director of a municipal zoo, lives in Alabama with his wife, Lisa, and their five dogs

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/janfeb/truett.php


who couldn't love this little guy ? darn now I need a tissue. crying.gif

linked-image
RipeFRuit
Lets wait for some die hard christian to come up with some crazy conclusion that doesn't make sense, like always.
Bluefinger
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 20 2008, 09:09 PM) *
Why Doesn't The Bible Like Me?



Americans, in general, are very fond of dogs. Most families have at least one dog. They will lavish lots of money on their dogs, and truly grieve when their pets die. This is not unusual because dogs have been much admired and even loved by people of most cultures going back to prehistoric times.

This admiration of dogs is not, however, universal. At least one ancient culture detested dogs. That was one of the peculiar characteristics of ancient Hebrew culture in both the Old and New Testaments. But many modern Jews are quite fond of their dogs. In ancient Judah and Israel, dogs were wild inhabitants of the streets. Hiding by day, they roamed in the open at night, running through the streets of every town seeking food and howling to one another. Although not admired, they were tolerated as scavengers.

This lack of admiration, or even understanding for dogs is quite evident in the bible. The scriptures contain a total of 41 references to dogs. Not one is favorable to dogs at all in any way. (Cats are not even mentioned in the bible, and I like that!)

When the Old Testament lists animals that the Jews must not eat because they are unclean, it does not specifically mention dogs. But we are included among the unclean animals as follows: "And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even" (Leviticus 11:27). Of course, I am glad the Jews were forbidden to eat my kind, but I resent being called unclean. We dogs are much cleaner than cows, sheep, or goats.

The ultimate sign of disrespect was to allow a dead body to lie out at night and be eaten by dogs. "And the dogs shall eat Jezebel . . . and there shall be none to bury her." These were the words of the prophet Elisha in II Kings 9:10. To see what contempt the bible god had for dogs, read Deuteronomy 23:18: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Not only did this incompetent god detest dogs, he also completely misunderstood them. "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly" (Proverbs 26:11). This proverb of the Old Testament is repeated in the second epistle of Peter 2:22. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows they can easily regurgitate their food. A puppy will lick you in the face, as he would do to an older dog. That is a signal for the older dog to regurgitate some food for the puppy. A poor dog that is not well fed will gorge himself when food is available, then regurgitate and hide some of it to eat later. That makes sense.

How strange, then, that the bible says the clean animals are those that have cloven hooves and "cheweth the cud." (Leviticus 11:3). What this god did not know is that the cud is food the animal has previously eaten. It is regurgitated and chewed as a step in the process of digestion. All of the so-called clean animals do this, including cows, sheep, and goats. Understand that I have nothing personal against cows, sheep, or goats. However, those animals are so stupid that many dogs are employed just to herd them around. Someone who herds sheep is called a pastor. I understand that some humans also have to be herded by a pastor who fleeces them whenever possible.

The most disturbing of the dog references in the bible are those in which humans are called "dogs" as a term of contempt or scorn, and also those in which a person humbles himself by calling himself a dead dog. "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, . . . Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough . . ." (Isaiah 56: 10-11). "What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?" (II Samuel 9:8).

The New Testament references to people as dogs are even more outrageous. The Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 3:2: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers . . ." Revelation 22:14-15 includes dogs among the wicked to be kept out of heaven: "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers . . ." So what? What thinking mortal would want to be near a god who would throw any sentient creature into flames for eternal torment?

Jesus freely refers to people he doesn't like as dogs, as well as referring to them as swine and as vipers. In the Sermon on the Mount he does this by saying: "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. . ." (Matthew 7:6).

Most disgusting of all is his conversation with the Syrophenician woman who came to him pleading for him to heal her daughter. He said to her, "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26). He was, in effect, calling her little daughter a dog right to the mother's face. This cruel and immoral pronouncement is repeated, with only slightly softer wording, in Mark 7:27. There is no rational way for a thoughtful person to read these wicked words and think of Jesus as a moral teacher.

Before ending this little doggie essay, I must note that someone might object to the statement that the bible is entirely negative about dogs because of Proverbs 30:29-31. That passage starts, "There are three things which go well, yea four are comely in going." The next two verses tell of those four things whose gait the writer admires. One of them is a greyhound, according to the King James and also in the revised versions. Along with other doggie scholars, I disagree with this translation of the ancient Hebrew which is zar-zir-mathnaim. This literally means "one who is slender in the loins" or "one who has his loins girded." This almost certainly refers to trained human runners who ran ahead of the chariots of kings. These runners were selected for endurance and speed, and they did have their slender loins girded. The greyhounds are wonderful dogs, but actually the bible does not compliment even them.

don't understand how any human can think that a book which doesn't like dogs is sacred.

Foundation member Bob Truett, a former director of a municipal zoo, lives in Alabama with his wife, Lisa, and their five dogs

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/janfeb/truett.php


who couldn't love this little guy ? darn now I need a tissue. crying.gif

linked-image


So......you're upset because dogs aren't God's best friend?
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (Bluefinger @ Jun 21 2008, 12:27 AM) *
So......you're upset because dogs aren't God's best friend?


no ,, just amazed that the bible thinks God doesn't like them ... and yet has the arrogance and audacity to claim to know God , to be the word of God.
darkmoonlady
Does this make the dog whisperer a satanist? hehe..great post Lt. Ripley...
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (darkmoonlady @ Jun 21 2008, 01:07 AM) *
Does this make the dog whisperer a satanist? hehe..great post Lt. Ripley...


I love the dog whisperer. I should get him here for my dog !! I also like on Animal Planet - It's Me or the Dog .
Something Like Laughter
What did you expect from a Mid East culture?
momentarylapseofreason
QUOTE (RipeFRuit @ Jun 21 2008, 03:51 AM) *
Lets wait for some die hard christian to come up with some crazy conclusion that doesn't make sense, like always.




If so many animals are considered unclean by god, then why did he have Noah bother bringing them on the Ark ? tongue.gif
momentarylapseofreason
QUOTE (Something Like Laughter @ Jun 21 2008, 06:25 AM) *
What did you expect from a Mid East culture?


No, you mean what did we expect from an all knowing powerful god ? Alot more, actually tongue.gif
Abecrombie
This simply states that if a dead animal is laying around you should not touch the dead carcus due to it beung contaminated. bacteria. if skins are o be removed then they need to be washed in the waters and then the water is tend to be unclean therefore the person should be set apart from others who are not in the same senario due to diseases being spread about.

dogs are scavengers back then and wild and therfore have tendencies to eaT POOR QUALITY FOODS THEMSELVES. gOD WAS SIMPLY GIVING MOSES DETAILED INFORMATION TO BEST BENEFIT HIS PEople at that particular time in history. We still go by the laws of what is to be considered clean to as unclean. we dont drink and bathe in waters where a dead carcus has been wading in right ?

If we touch a dead carcus of a animal in the dessert lying there for a day or two , would we not be jeopordizing our own health if we didnt take measures to prevent that from happeeneing?

Lets not make this look like God hates dogs because he doesnt. He created all life and knows when a sparrow falls to the ground and considers us just as valueable if not more valueable than a sparrow. Laws for clean and unclean issue on the planet are the warnings and precautions taken for that time period and we still use them today. Now if a dog vomits and goes back to eat what it vomits we find that to be vile right? Would you eat your vomit? not if yopu didnt have to. thus proves that dogs in those days were a product of its enviroment to be scavengers even moreso than today therefore if having to resort to eating its own vomit it does so in due to the need for food . Us humans would have to consider just how important our vomit would be fir us to eat it if it inly meant for us to stay alive or feed our children.

you get the idea i hpoped.
dog also means enemy in the NT referring to the greek language of its time of the scriptures being written. the OT was in hebrew and i believe it means scavenger.

LETS SIMPLIFY THIS TOPIC AND REVIEW....GOD DOESNT HATE DOGS !!!

And cats by the waY HAVE FOUR PAWS AS WELL SO IT MAY BE REFERRING TPO ANY FOUR LEGGED CREATURE IN THAT DAY THAT EAT OR SCAVENGE FOOD .IT REALY DOESNT SPECIFY THEREFORE AGAIN MY POOINT IS ...WERE DOGS EVEN MENTIONED , NO IT SAID A FOUR FOOTED CREATURE THAT HAS PAWS.
danielost


Unclean only means not safe to eat. This includes all carnivores.


If you look at the animals that are clean they are all herbivores except fish. The none scaled fish, fill the same role as pigs do on land. Not saying that all herbivores are clean.
Mr Walker
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 21 2008, 03:24 PM) *
If so many animals are considered unclean by god, then why did he have Noah bother bringing them on the Ark ? tongue.gif

Because even animals which should not be eaten have an important place in an ecosystem. Noah only brought a breeding pair of the uncleam animals but a lot more of the animals required for eating. True!

As a dog lover i appreciated the story. There are lots of funny comments i could make (like having to understand things in context), but i think the story is amusing, and was intended to be so. I f it was written as alllegorical and somehow intended to have a serious criticism of biblical principles, then that went right over my head.
Abercrombie replied to some of the points i might have, if i really thought it was more than a humorous piece..

Sometimes we need bits like that after experiencing a dog day afternoon. In scotland when kids take a day off, playing hookey, they call it dogging off for the day.
Kazahel
I just think its funny that if God doesnt like dogs, and they are mans best friend, then what does He think of man.
Belle.
God hates all manner of strange things; figs, homosexuals, dogs, shrimp, wizards and transvestites, even dishonest scales earn his ire. Who doesn't have random dislikes I suppose?
Closed
The article came from the "Freedom from Religion Foundation", so it has zero credibility.

Dogs are unclean animals...well, because they do unclean things. They like to get into things they shouldn't no matter how cute they are.

Also, in this article sometimes scriptures are used that are metaphorical and don't refer to literal "dogs".

Anyway, the article belongs in the trashcan.

Apparently it's the Freedom from Religion Foundation that has something against dogs and is trying to pawn it off on God.
Closed
Saying something is unclean doesn't mean God hates it. It means to be wary of it. There may be some sort of health risk if handled or consumed.

Also, remember that in Acts God later cleanses all animals during Peter's vision on the rooftop.

Acts 10:13
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

Acts 10:14
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Acts 10:15
And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Darkwind
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Jun 21 2008, 01:45 PM) *
The article came from the "Freedom from Religion Foundation", so it has zero credibility.

Dogs are unclean animals...well, because they do unclean things. They like to get into things they shouldn't no matter how cute they are.

Also, in this article sometimes scriptures are used that are metaphorical and don't refer to literal "dogs".

Anyway, the article belongs in the trashcan.

Apparently it's the Freedom from Religion Foundation that has something against dogs and is trying to pawn it off on God.



If it came from a Christian site it would be more credible. Just because the site is not pro religion doesn't mean it has no credibility. I notice in the article does point out the metaphorical scriptures as metaphorical.
Closed
QUOTE (Darkwind @ Jun 21 2008, 10:16 AM) *
If it came from a Christian site it would be more credible. Just because the site is not pro religion doesn't mean it has no credibility. I notice in the article does point out the metaphorical scriptures as metaphorical.


Nowhere does the Bible say God literally hates dogs.

That website has no credibility whatsoever.
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Jun 21 2008, 10:28 AM) *
Nowhere does the Bible say God literally hates dogs.

That website has no credibility whatsoever.


I think your opinion has no credibility whatsoever.
Closed
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 21 2008, 12:14 PM) *
I think your opinion has no credibility whatsoever.


That's okay. original.gif
hetrodoxly
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 21 2008, 03:09 AM) *
Why Doesn't The Bible Like Me?



Americans, in general, are very fond of dogs. Most families have at least one dog. They will lavish lots of money on their dogs, and truly grieve when their pets die. This is not unusual because dogs have been much admired and even loved by people of most cultures going back to prehistoric times.

This admiration of dogs is not, however, universal. At least one ancient culture detested dogs. That was one of the peculiar characteristics of ancient Hebrew culture in both the Old and New Testaments. But many modern Jews are quite fond of their dogs. In ancient Judah and Israel, dogs were wild inhabitants of the streets. Hiding by day, they roamed in the open at night, running through the streets of every town seeking food and howling to one another. Although not admired, they were tolerated as scavengers.

This lack of admiration, or even understanding for dogs is quite evident in the bible. The scriptures contain a total of 41 references to dogs. Not one is favorable to dogs at all in any way. (Cats are not even mentioned in the bible, and I like that!)

When the Old Testament lists animals that the Jews must not eat because they are unclean, it does not specifically mention dogs. But we are included among the unclean animals as follows: "And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even" (Leviticus 11:27). Of course, I am glad the Jews were forbidden to eat my kind, but I resent being called unclean. We dogs are much cleaner than cows, sheep, or goats.

The ultimate sign of disrespect was to allow a dead body to lie out at night and be eaten by dogs. "And the dogs shall eat Jezebel . . . and there shall be none to bury her." These were the words of the prophet Elisha in II Kings 9:10. To see what contempt the bible god had for dogs, read Deuteronomy 23:18: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Not only did this incompetent god detest dogs, he also completely misunderstood them. "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly" (Proverbs 26:11). This proverb of the Old Testament is repeated in the second epistle of Peter 2:22. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows they can easily regurgitate their food. A puppy will lick you in the face, as he would do to an older dog. That is a signal for the older dog to regurgitate some food for the puppy. A poor dog that is not well fed will gorge himself when food is available, then regurgitate and hide some of it to eat later. That makes sense.

How strange, then, that the bible says the clean animals are those that have cloven hooves and "cheweth the cud." (Leviticus 11:3). What this god did not know is that the cud is food the animal has previously eaten. It is regurgitated and chewed as a step in the process of digestion. All of the so-called clean animals do this, including cows, sheep, and goats. Understand that I have nothing personal against cows, sheep, or goats. However, those animals are so stupid that many dogs are employed just to herd them around. Someone who herds sheep is called a pastor. I understand that some humans also have to be herded by a pastor who fleeces them whenever possible.

The most disturbing of the dog references in the bible are those in which humans are called "dogs" as a term of contempt or scorn, and also those in which a person humbles himself by calling himself a dead dog. "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, . . . Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough . . ." (Isaiah 56: 10-11). "What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?" (II Samuel 9:8).

The New Testament references to people as dogs are even more outrageous. The Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 3:2: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers . . ." Revelation 22:14-15 includes dogs among the wicked to be kept out of heaven: "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers . . ." So what? What thinking mortal would want to be near a god who would throw any sentient creature into flames for eternal torment?

Jesus freely refers to people he doesn't like as dogs, as well as referring to them as swine and as vipers. In the Sermon on the Mount he does this by saying: "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. . ." (Matthew 7:6).

Most disgusting of all is his conversation with the Syrophenician woman who came to him pleading for him to heal her daughter. He said to her, "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26). He was, in effect, calling her little daughter a dog right to the mother's face. This cruel and immoral pronouncement is repeated, with only slightly softer wording, in Mark 7:27. There is no rational way for a thoughtful person to read these wicked words and think of Jesus as a moral teacher.

Before ending this little doggie essay, I must note that someone might object to the statement that the bible is entirely negative about dogs because of Proverbs 30:29-31. That passage starts, "There are three things which go well, yea four are comely in going." The next two verses tell of those four things whose gait the writer admires. One of them is a greyhound, according to the King James and also in the revised versions. Along with other doggie scholars, I disagree with this translation of the ancient Hebrew which is zar-zir-mathnaim. This literally means "one who is slender in the loins" or "one who has his loins girded." This almost certainly refers to trained human runners who ran ahead of the chariots of kings. These runners were selected for endurance and speed, and they did have their slender loins girded. The greyhounds are wonderful dogs, but actually the bible does not compliment even them.

don't understand how any human can think that a book which doesn't like dogs is sacred.

Foundation member Bob Truett, a former director of a municipal zoo, lives in Alabama with his wife, Lisa, and their five dogs

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/janfeb/truett.php


who couldn't love this little guy ? darn now I need a tissue. crying.gif

linked-image

Why keep this to one species of Animal and one type of religion? unless this is just a feeble attempt at Christian bashing? someone right now is eating dog, what do you think of these people.
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (hetrodoxly @ Jun 21 2008, 05:20 PM) *
Why keep this to one species of Animal and one type of religion? unless this is just a feeble attempt at Christian bashing? someone right now is eating dog, what do you think of these people.


this isn't about diet ( which I think is disgusting ) but about religious belief and culture. Christian bashing ? with what the truth ?I didn't make this up .

it's about how man made and culturally influenced the man written book is. just as any so called holy text. it's an opinion about God ... not from God self. it's no more correct than any other holy text .
momentarylapseofreason
Of course Christians love their dog (s). We know this. And most are wonderful and humane in their treatment of animals. I have seen only good in this respect.

We are just examining some curious quotes in an old book.

Every time the bible is criticized it's called christian bashing.


Now who let the dogs out........woo hoo hoo ?
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 21 2008, 07:58 PM) *
Of course Christians love their dog (s). We know this. And most are wonderful and humane in their treatment of animals. I have seen only good in this respect.

We are just examining some curious quotes in an old book.

Every time the bible is criticized it's called christian bashing.


Now who let the dogs out........woo hoo hoo ?


yes ! I find it amazing cats are not mentioned at all !! but stories of talking donkeys and unicorns you get. blink.gif
momentarylapseofreason
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 22 2008, 01:52 AM) *
yes ! I find it amazing cats are not mentioned at all !! but stories of talking donkeys and unicorns you get. blink.gif



Yep, and I also have to wonder why cats were considered evil and conspiring with witches in the middle ages ? Where did this silliness come from ?


I think people were on drugs with the talking donkeys talking bushes bit..
Something Like Laughter
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 21 2008, 08:35 PM) *
Yep, and I also have to wonder why cats were considered evil and conspiring with witches in the middle ages ? Where did this silliness come from ?

The hellenistic cult of Isis. It was one of the most popular religions in the hellenistic and roman periods. It survived for a very long time after Christianity came about. Black cats were a sacred animal, and women who followed Isis kept them around. Western Christianity, in its zeal to crush the cult, accused everyone who had cats of being witches.
momentarylapseofreason
QUOTE (Something Like Laughter @ Jun 22 2008, 06:52 AM) *
The hellenistic cult of Isis. It was one of the most popular religions in the hellenistic and roman periods. It survived for a very long time after Christianity came about. Black cats were a sacred animal, and women who followed Isis kept them around. Western Christianity, in its zeal to crush the cult, accused everyone who had cats of being witches.



Thanks for that one SLL thumbsup.gif U know how one thing leads to another, neural wiring, ADD and all. original.gif
hetrodoxly
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 22 2008, 12:42 AM) *
this isn't about diet ( which I think is disgusting ) but about religious belief and culture. Christian bashing ? with what the truth ?I didn't make this up .

it's about how man made and culturally influenced the man written book is. just as any so called holy text. it's an opinion about God ... not from God self. it's no more correct than any other holy text .

Yes, the bible is written by men? if you look at early christian text just to find derogatory things to say about it, while ignoring similar text in other religions (some are still practised today, i.e. relevant) that's christian bashing.
hetrodoxly
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 22 2008, 02:35 AM) *
Yep, and I also have to wonder why cats were considered evil and conspiring with witches in the middle ages ? Where did this silliness come from ?


I think people were on drugs with the talking donkeys talking bushes bit..

It's suggested witches were on drugs, the concoction was smeared on the broom stick handle and absorbed through soft body tissue, that's why they thought they could fly.
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (hetrodoxly @ Jun 22 2008, 06:34 AM) *
Yes, the bible is written by men? if you look at early christian text just to find derogatory things to say about it, while ignoring similar text in other religions (some are still practised today, i.e. relevant) that's christian bashing.


it's not bashing if it's the truth !! and look at the title of this post !! your just angry and trying to justify your stance by crying like a two year old ' well others are just as bad.'

ok other religions are just as bad ........ make you feel better ?
danielost
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 22 2008, 01:03 PM) *
it's not bashing if it's the truth !! and look at the title of this post !! your just angry and trying to justify your stance by crying like a two year old ' well others are just as bad.'

ok other religions are just as bad ........ make you feel better ?



You keep using the old testiment in your christian bashing. I guess you have forgotten that the ot was written by isrealites who practiced what we call judiasm today.
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 22 2008, 02:08 PM) *
You keep using the old testiment in your christian bashing. I guess you have forgotten that the ot was written by isrealites who practiced what we call judiasm today.


guess you didn't read the title --- The bible , both OT & NT , hates dogs

and guess what ? Jews wrote the NT too !

and ps -- remember , Jesus came for the jews , not gentiles.
danielost
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 22 2008, 01:23 PM) *
guess you didn't read the title --- The bible , both OT & NT , hates dogs

and guess what ? Jews wrote the NT too !

and ps -- remember , Jesus came for the jews , not gentiles.



Then why are your negitive remarks reserved for christians.
Lt_Ripley
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 22 2008, 02:28 PM) *
Then why are your negitive remarks reserved for christians.


my remarks were about the bible !!! now I dare you to find where I haven't spoken about that ......... I didn't bring up christianity until you and another did.

I talk about the bible and you assume it's you. how paranoid. try reading the original post. it's both the old and new testament.

your accusing me of something I didn't do.

although I did remark that jesus came for the jews not for the gentiles because you accused me of

QUOTE
You keep using the old testiment in your christian bashing. I guess you have forgotten that the ot was written by isrealites who practiced what we call judiasm today.


well they wrote the NT too.
Closed
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed. All it is is flame bait. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God hates dogs.
Sparky777
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ Jun 23 2008, 09:32 AM) *
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed. All it is is flame bait. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God hates dogs.



I agree WWF
Beckys_Mom
Wasn't it a dog that dug it's way under the pearly gates?? laugh.gif


Why does God not like dogs...could it be a number of reasons..like....

It was a dog that lifted his leg on the tree of forbiden fruit

It was a dog that bit Moses on the ankle when he 1st came back from mount Sinai , making Moses drop the 1st set of commandments!!

It was a dog that took a dive for the bread and fishes the sec Jesus threw them to the crowd..and growled at anyone else that came close

It was a dog that burried the remains of Abel so that Cane wouldnt get the blame!!

At the last supper, Jesus and the disciples went HUNGRY, because a dog got loose at the table!!!

And it was a dog that let the Romans know where Jesus was on that night of the last supper, for when Jesus saw how the dog ate all...he put the dog out, and there he barked non stop untill the Romans came!!! the dogs name was Judas!!! LOL
w00t.gif



So what the OT and the NT describes god doesnt like dogs....<--to many says well this god aint allloving, not if he doesnt like his OWN creation

But name me a dog that will loose sleep over what a book says??? the only thing a dog would do with a book is ___________________<--fill in the blank!!
Omnaka
God, Father and Mother , Is not some scripture made and written by Man, God is the father and Mother of all spirit which includes but is not limited to Cats and dogs. What brought this post On?

God loves all, One needs not a bible to know this.

Love Omnaka
Siara
Other surrounding cultures were dog-friendly. Maybe they were trying to draw a distinction between their culture and those other [inferior] cultures. Rome was supposedly founded by two human twins who were nursed by a wolf-- and we know how much the Jews loved Rome. In another culture they weren't so crazy about- the Egyptians- the god in charge of the afterlife (Anubis) had the head of a jackal.

They probably also didn't like dogs for the same reason they didn't like masturbation. They are sources of enjoyment that encourage people to be less dependent on The Community. They wanted their followers to spend 100% of their time generating and raising the next generation of devotees. Not wasting their affection by petting and playing with dogs.


Question:
Did the ancient people in the OT hunt? If they were shepherds they probably saw dogs as creatures that stole their food.
hetrodoxly
QUOTE (Siara @ Jun 24 2008, 04:14 PM) *
They probably also didn't like dogs for the same reason they didn't like masturbation.

To much time spent stroking it? original.gif
ammy
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 21 2008, 05:54 AM) *
If so many animals are considered unclean by god, then why did he have Noah bother bringing them on the Ark ? tongue.gif

Good point original.gif
Cadetak
Of course god likes dogs if he didn't like them why create them?

Back then dogs weren't the house pets we know today they were dirty, wild, and potentially dangerous.

What a silly discussion...this isn't even good flamebait.
Siara
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 21 2008, 02:09 AM) *
I don't understand how any human can think that a book which doesn't like dogs is sacred.

The dog hatred in the Bible is just one manifestation of the Abrahamic hatred of nature in general. The physical world is "bad". Only the spiritual world is "good". Dogs are a source of temptation because they're an easy link to nature. Also, they enjoy eating and sex, presenting an appallingly normal alternative to the church's habit of rigidly controlling these things.

When you consider the Abrahamic religions' approach to nature, it is no surprise that we are so clueless ecologically. We are on our way to destroying our whole ecosystem but SO WHAT? Nature is just a twisted evil "veil of tears" that keeps us from salvation.

I'm sorry but... what a ****ed attitude.
HollyDolly
QUOTE (Abecrombie @ Jun 21 2008, 02:02 AM) *
This simply states that if a dead animal is laying around you should not touch the dead carcus due to it beung contaminated. bacteria. if skins are o be removed then they need to be washed in the waters and then the water is tend to be unclean therefore the person should be set apart from others who are not in the same senario due to diseases being spread about.

dogs are scavengers back then and wild and therfore have tendencies to eaT POOR QUALITY FOODS THEMSELVES. gOD WAS SIMPLY GIVING MOSES DETAILED INFORMATION TO BEST BENEFIT HIS PEople at that particular time in history. We still go by the laws of what is to be considered clean to as unclean. we dont drink and bathe in waters where a dead carcus has been wading in right ?

If we touch a dead carcus of a animal in the dessert lying there for a day or two , would we not be jeopordizing our own health if we didnt take measures to prevent that from happeeneing?

Lets not make this look like God hates dogs because he doesnt. He created all life and knows when a sparrow falls to the ground and considers us just as valueable if not more valueable than a sparrow. Laws for clean and unclean issue on the planet are the warnings and precautions taken for that time period and we still use them today. Now if a dog vomits and goes back to eat what it vomits we find that to be vile right? Would you eat your vomit? not if yopu didnt have to. thus proves that dogs in those days were a product of its enviroment to be scavengers even moreso than today therefore if having to resort to eating its own vomit it does so in due to the need for food . Us humans would have to consider just how important our vomit would be fir us to eat it if it inly meant for us to stay alive or feed our children.

you get the idea i hpoped.
dog also means enemy in the NT referring to the greek language of its time of the scriptures being written. the OT was in hebrew and i believe it means scavenger.

LETS SIMPLIFY THIS TOPIC AND REVIEW....GOD DOESNT HATE DOGS !!!

And cats by the waY HAVE FOUR PAWS AS WELL SO IT MAY BE REFERRING TPO ANY FOUR LEGGED CREATURE IN THAT DAY THAT EAT OR SCAVENGE FOOD .IT REALY DOESNT SPECIFY THEREFORE AGAIN MY POOINT IS ...WERE DOGS EVEN MENTIONED , NO IT SAID A FOUR FOOTED CREATURE THAT HAS PAWS.


That was a very good point you made about clean and unclean. As you say they were warnings about not spreading dieases to the general populance.And yes, dogs in those days weren't the pampered pets they are now,unless someone who was very rich had one as apet. Don't know the status of cats back then,except in ancient Eygpt.
by the way,some fish are also scavengers.My sister's boyfriend is jewish,but his family is not very observant in some of their practices,they sometimes even eat pork like at a chinese restaurant. One day they invited the rabbi to dinner,and had made lobster. Well,that was a no-no.Lobsters and other such creatures scavenge on dead fish or even dead people if there is a shipwreck.Think they wonld up making something else for dinner ,forgot what my sister said they did.

Yes people of the OT hunted.You can see hunting scenes in Eygptian tombs. Shepherds may have had dogs,to help them herd sheep,and as a protection for the flock against wolves,jackals and other animals that would kill the sheep.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.