Christian slays pet, where is your religious freedom now, dog lovers?

[msj]

I like Guiness or craft brew. The dark stuff. Don't like hops much and detest IPA's.

Maybe I will go sacrifice one right now.

[DogOnPorch]

It's the logical sacrifice....that and Scotch.

[Guest]

So are we saying this has nothing to do with Christianity then?

Ask him. If he says his God made him do it, so be it.

[cybercoma]

(covered)

Edited May 18, 2016 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

Well, allegedly one just happened so are you saying he's not Christian?

Or that he is not a "real" Christian?

If a Buddhist drove his car off a cliff while eating fish tacos and drinking tequila and screaming about Donald Trump, would you see any logical reason to link that action to Buddhism?

-k

[kimmy]

That's what I'm asking and I'm quite amused that people who would rightly call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist shrink away from religious motivated behaviour because, Christian.

Very interesting.

There's a distinction between "Christian believes" and something that any given Christian believes.

That this Christian guy believed kililng his dog would atone for sins doesn't make animal sacrifice a Christian belief, any more than a Christian believing in UFOs would make UFOs a Christian belief.

It would be a much more interesting argument if you picked something like "faith healing", where instead of one crazed kook the sample size is much larger.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

...snake handling.

[msj]

So burning the shirt and killing the dog have absolutely nothing to do with his belief in Christianity?

You do know that many Chrisitians spend far too much time admiring the Old Testament, right?

Lewis Black has a good rant about that in fact: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/lewis-black-on-evolution-creationism-and-the-bible/

Maybe the dog slayer just needed to find the right Rabbi and pay him enough to explain the Bible to him (this is a reference to the Lewis Black comedy sketch above).

[DogOnPorch]

So burning the shirt and killing the dog have absolutely nothing to do with his belief in Christianity?

You do know that many Chrisitians spend far too much time admiring the Old Testament, right?

Lewis Black has a good rant about that in fact: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/lewis-black-on-evolution-creationism-and-the-bible/

Maybe the dog slayer just needed to find the right Rabbi and pay him enough to explain the Bible to him (this is a reference to the Lewis Black comedy sketch above).

Lewis is a hoot.

Fellows like this are odd and you know it. This guy is more like Jim Jones "Christian" than kindly Father O'Malley down at the Sally Ann.

[msj]

That's what they said about all those Christians from the Inquisition period too.

It's always " they aren't one of us" when the enlightened come around.

[DogOnPorch]

That's what they said about all those Christians from the Inquisition period too.

It's always " they aren't one of us" when the enlightened come around.

This isn't the Inquisition, though. There aren't weekly pet killings in my community to rid the kids of Satan...and they're a pretty 7th Day/Born Again sort of bunch as a whole. The kind these odd balls seem to come from...

So maybe it's his church. What church does he go to and what BS are they teaching? That would be Detective Dog's next visit...

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't need no church to sacrifice critters.....each year, about 2,700,000 dogs and cats are euthanized, and that's just in the United States.

http://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-statistics

Edited May 18, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

So maybe it's his church. What church does he go to and what BS are they teaching? That would be Detective Dog's next visit...

I agree.

Surly this would not be a "real" Christian church though.....

[msj]

Don't need no church to sacrifice critters.....each year, about 2,700,000 dogs and cats are euthanized, and that's just in the United States.

http://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-statistics

While so many go hungry.....

[DogOnPorch]

I agree.

Surly this would not be a "real" Christian church though.....

I'm an atheist. They're all nuts to begin with. How nuts remains to be seen. Do they add lines to the commandments like SLAY THE UNBELIEVER? Or...KILL ALL PETS AND T_SHIRTS?

If so, I submit we have a problem, Watson.

[DogOnPorch]

While so many go hungry.....

Mmmmmm....kitty stew.

Yeah, the homeless might want to maw down on Orkin's dead rat supply. What are we thinking???

[kimmy]

So burning the shirt and killing the dog have absolutely nothing to do with his belief in Christianity?

You do know that many Chrisitians spend far too much time admiring the Old Testament, right?

Lewis Black has a good rant about that in fact: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/lewis-black-on-evolution-creationism-and-the-bible/

Maybe the dog slayer just needed to find the right Rabbi and pay him enough to explain the Bible to him (this is a reference to the Lewis Black comedy sketch above).

I think everybody who has read my opinions for the past many years on this forum would agree that I'm not one to make excuses for Christians or for any other religion. But this really does seem like an isolated kook. Surely if this weren't an isolated incident we'd hear of this sort of thing more often?

I don't see this as a "no true Scotsman" defense. I'm not suggesting that the guy wasn't really a Christian, I'm just suggesting that he's a nut and that the slaughter of his dog can't be blamed on any Christian teaching.

If we were talking about something like faith-healing, or Muslims and terrorism, or so on, then that's a very different story, because there's a strong case to be made that religion does play a role. But this... a sample size of ONE, out of American Christians who number in the hundreds of millions, I think that's about as isolated as an isolated incident can get.

-k

[msj]

Just so we're clear on this: so you are saying that if I put on the TV on Sunday morning I will not find guys, calling themselves Christians, preaching to millions of people across North America, while making rfeference to the Old Testament?

I suppose the fact that the dog slayer claims the shirt was "satanic" means he must be a Satanist then.

That must be the only logical explanation between belief and behaviour here.

Edited May 18, 2016 by msj

[kimmy]

Just so we're clear on this: so you are saying that if I put on the TV on Sunday morning I will not find guys, calling themselves Christians, preaching to millions of people across North America, while making rfeference to the Old Testament?

I suppose the fact that the dog slayer claims the shirt was "satanic" means he must be a Satanist then.

That must be the only logical explanation between belief and behaviour here.

The OT talks about a lot of other things that just aren't observed in modern Christianity too. I joked earlier that if he was a real Bible believer he would have had the townspeople stone his kid to death. The OT says that. But we don't actually see Christians doing that anywhere.

If belief in the laws of the Old Testament were a feature of modern Christianity, wouldn't we see a lot more burnt offerings, stonings of people, smashing and burning of graven images, and so-on? I mean, if what you're saying is true, why isn't this happening? There are somewhere in the hundreds of millions of American Christians, and all you have to support the notion that this is a "thing" is one guy who barbequed his dog. A pretty weak case, don't you think?

-k

[msj]

Ok, found it.

He should have killed his daughter per Jesus as outlined in Matthew 15:1-9: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A1-9&version=NASB

Perhaps he killed the dog because he preferred to not harm either his son nor his daughter despite it being clear, per the passage, that Jesus wanted those children who did not honour their parents to be put to death old style way.....

At any rate, that's what I think Jesus would have done.

Edited May 18, 2016 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Jesus didn't have a dog...well he did...but then he killed it.

[kimmy]

I found that passage difficult to read and couldn't make heads or tales of it. Clearly he's referencing the OT law regarding what happens to rebellious children, but I didn't get what it had to do with this situation.

As we've probably all heard, the Pharisees were jerkwad rules-lawyers who often tried to trip up Jesus in the letter of the law. The story where he challenges any man who is without sin to "throw the first stone" at the adulteress is the best known example. As you'll recall, the adulteress didn't get hit with any stones that day.

Here's an explanation of why Jesus accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites:

Second, the Rebuke of Jesus (3-9). The reply of Jesus is more a counterattack than a reply to their question. He first accuses them of breaking the commands of God in order to keep their traditions. This puts the issue back to them—they were the sinners, not Jesus and his disciples, because they had broken God’s commands and not just some teachings of elders.

To press his point he reminds them of their tradition of getting around the law of God. They could pronounce a vow on their things with the word, “Korban,” meaning it is a gift (see tractate Nedarim in the Mishnah, chapters 1, 9, 11). The word “Korban” is based on the word in Leviticus for bringing something near to God. If because of greed, for example, a man did not want to help support his aging parents, he would announce “Korban.” That would mean the money was frozen, and could not be used for taking care of the parents. Thus, they could use their traditions to get out of taking care of their father and mother (which the Law required). Then, they might find a way of nullifying the vow so they ended up keeping the money. A clever tradition of swearing or taking oaths had grown up as a way around a clear cut teaching of the word of God.

This, Jesus says, is hypocritical, and thus they fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. Here is the first place that He called them hypocrites. Here he quotes Isaiah 29:13, which was clearly addressed to the prophet’s own audience. But by quoting it Jesus was saying that his generation was doing the same thing as Isaiah’s generation, and so the words are also addressed to this generation. In both contexts, Isaiah and Matthew, the people spoken to are Jews from Jerusalem who had a religion that was characterized by externals that often crowded out truths. The Jews in Jesus’ day were just preserving the spirit of the folks in Isaiah’s day. They said all the right things, giving the impression they were pious; but their hearts and wills were not obedient at all (they would not honor father and mother, for one example). They had a religious form, but not the reality that goes with it. So their teaching was in vain because there was nothing of God’s authority behind them.

The quotation from Isaiah generally follows the shorter form of the verse found in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. The point is very clear: Jesus was saying to his audience what Isaiah said to his, that their worship was vain because they were far from God in their hearts.

The point of the story is, the Pharisees come up to Jesus and tell him that his disciples are sinning by eating without washing their hands first. Jesus counters by telling them their traditions are a load of crap, because they use their tradition as an excuse for withholding the money that they're supposed to be using to care for their elderly parents. And to accent that point he mentions the Commandment to honor thy father and thy mother, and the law in Leviticus regarding stoning rebellious children.

So these mooks the Pharisees are there badgering him for disrespecting "their traditions", in this case washing of hands before eating. And Jesus turns the tables on them by blasting them for disrespecting a much more important rule, one given direct to Moses on stone slabs. The Pharisees leave after that verbal beatdown, and Jesus explains to everybody that stays behind that what you eat doesn't make you unclean*, what's in your heart makes you unclean. And he explains that while the Pharisees might live by the letter of the law, their hearts are a long way from God.

So no, I don't think Jesus would have had the girl stoned to death. I think he would have said that eating with dirty hands doesn't make you unclean, and a t-shirt doesn't make you unclean either. Not even if it was made of mixed fibers.

-k

* and that's why Christians are allowed to eat bacon!

[kimmy]

Jesus didn't have a dog...well he did...but then he killed it.

He was pretty rough on pigs as well.

-k

[msj]

Fair interpretation and I think I agree.

However, we all know people who call themselves Christians but who clearly have a view or a respect for the old methods from the Old Testament. They are on TV each Sunday if you care to watch.

All this "not a real Christian" smacks of the same attitude that the "regressive left" use to defend Muslim terrorists.

Oh, no, I know better than you what you believe so I don't care if you identify as a Muslim or a Christian, no that has nothing to do with your behaviour because you are just insane is all.

Nevermind that the behaviour is found and inspired from the same books that all the Sunday sermons are drawn from.

Strange that.

[kimmy]

I'm not saying that he's not a real Christian, I'm just saying that barbecuing pets to atone for sins isn't a widespread Christian belief to any detectable degree. Like, it appears to be way below faith-healing and snake-handling in terms of market penetration.

-k