PDA

View Full Version : Animals & medical advances



Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 04:38 PM
Yahweh gave us dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the earth in the garden.

He gave us animals for food after the flood.

Does that extend to using his creation for advances in medicine and health, to extend the length of our lives?

Is it acceptable behavior to give animals diseases and sicknesses, to experiment & test drugs on them, to practice surgical techniques on them so that we may live longer or healthier lives?

daughter
Jul 6th 2008, 04:44 PM
Well, I saw one man, a scientist, die unsaved in the last few years, as a result of trusting in science to save him, when he should have trusted in God. He had a horrible cancer which took his voice box, his tongue, and devoured him painfully and humiliatingly, but he wrote that he believed the scientists would save him... just weeks before his death. When witnessed to, he raised his two fingers to curse.

Vivisection trades on the satanic lie that animals and humans are the same, interchangeable... and yet despite the miriad of cancers that have been cured in rats, one in three people in the Western world still die of cancer. Still, many of them, having faith in a science that cannot save.

It's not just that vivisection doesn't deliver it's promises... it actively leads people to put faith in the wrong place, and I do believe has damned many.

quiet dove
Jul 6th 2008, 04:45 PM
I love animals so much, and I really believe that even though it is not sinful to eat them, it does make a difference how you treat them before you whack their head off. I mean it is one thing to kill something it is another to torture it before you do. I guess I kinda feel the same way about medicine, all things should be handled humanely as possible. Animals also benefit as vets also must learn in school and they do it the same way people doctors do.

Please folks, lets do not make this a graphic gory thread. Warning, any post like that is gone, make your point another way.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 05:06 PM
Yahweh gave us dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the earth in the garden.

He gave us animals for food after the flood.

Does that extend to using his creation for advances in medicine and health, to extend the length of our lives?

Is it acceptable behavior to give animals diseases and sicknesses, to experiment & test drugs on them, to practice surgical techniques on them so that we may live longer or healthier lives?

I think, unfortunately, that when it comes to medical advancement it is a necessary evil. These animals have been given to us in order to enhance our own existence. I could, however, be completely wrong on this issue (for instance, the idea that we can test medicine on animals to see how it will work on humans is an entirely Darwinian idea that, at times, has failed...I just don't know enough on the issue to be able to have an educated opinion).

I will say, however, that we should be good stewards and not take these animals for granted. Furthermore, I will say that the conditions are meat farms are less than ideal (much of our ground beef comes from calves that died of disease, but since the disease is not harmful to humans, eat up!). Plus, without going into detail, the way the animals are killed and raised is just pathetic.

I generally try to eat free ranging organic meat - meaning the animals were allowed to roam around, eat grass, and live as God intended. When killed, most of the time it was following the Biblical method (cutting open a main artery to the animal passes quickly).

DadBurnett
Jul 8th 2008, 07:19 AM
I generally try to eat free ranging organic meat - meaning the animals were allowed to roam around, eat grass, and live as God intended. When killed, most of the time it was following the Biblical method (cutting open a main artery to the animal passes quickly).

I apologize for taking the thread on a detour, but I couldnt resist responding to your comment about free ranging animals. Its a great idea, but do you know the official USDA definition/labeling requirement for free range? Here it is -
"FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING Producers may label products as "Free Range" or "Free Roaming" if they can demonstrate to the USDA/FSIS the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." (emphasis, mine)
There is no requirement that animals actually freely roam around, or that that they eat only grass and otherwise live as God intended. Nothing is said about feed additives, etc until you get into the complex orgainc labeling. As I read the federal codes again today, I see that producers are allowed to label products organic IF the conttents are 95% organic ... which raises the question, what is the other 5%? Incidently, there is no official definition or regulation for so called Free Range Eggs.
Is there no one, except God and Christ, that can be trusted???

daughter
Jul 8th 2008, 08:48 AM
Well, I'm probably the only person posting so far who has direct first hand knowledge of the insides of laboratories and breeding establishments, but I won't be able to tell you what goes on because I assume it would just upset people.

My attitude is that vivisection is the corrupt fruit of a rotten tree. Even the language used betrays this... rather than admit they are killing an animal they say they "sacrifice" it. And as apothanien kurdos says, it's based on a Darwinian idea that humans are like the other animals. Even the animals aren't like each other, they are all of their own "kind" - a treatment that cures a rat won't cure a dog, or a donkey. It's guess work if these "treatments" will work at all. Even the head of HLS, a huge vivisection laboratory in the UK, admits that the drugs developed by vivisection are only applicable in 5-15% of cases. Frankly, you would be better off tossing a coin, at least that's fifty fifty.

Modern testing methods would have not allowed aspirin or penecillin through. They affect animals differently from us.

But the main thing is, the companies that do the testing do not have the best wishes of humans at heart. They develop a drug in order to sell it. Have you ever heard of a "me to" drug? Somebody's developed an effective pain killer. A rival wants to sell it, so he develops something similar, but different enough they can take out a patent, then they market it, and rake in the profits. In the mean time hundreds of animals, primarily rodents (rats, mice, guinea pigs or rabbits), but finally "higher" mammals, like cats and dogs or monkeys, are "sacrificed".

What are they sacrificed for? To make profit for the companies. These businesses often have more power and finances than small nations. Why do we trust them to "have dominion" over the animals? They are not philanthropists, whatever they say... and that's a lie that offends me.

Humans are NOT simply animals, billions of pounds are spent each year causing animals to become diseased so that they can be "cured", then it is found that the cures don't work on humans.

I'm pretty sure this thread is going to end up with people arguing passionately on both sides, and may get nasty. This kind of thread does. I am only going to say that if someone is tempted to put their faith in "science" and the vivisectors, they will be let down, not just here, but in eternity.

diffangle
Jul 8th 2008, 02:48 PM
rather than admit they are killing an animal they say they "sacrifice" it.

They are "sacrificing" it to their god(science). :cry:

Eaglenester
Jul 8th 2008, 07:58 PM
I am only going to say that if someone is tempted to put their faith in "science" and the vivisectors, they will be let down, not just here, but in eternity.

Yes, that's the real issue.

To to many today look more towards science and the learning's of men for health and healing rather than trusting THE healer and Creator.

I see that with dominion over the animal kingdom comes responsibility and accountability.

We will be judged on how we treat Yahweh's creation - to purposefully make one of His creation ill is an evil.

DadBurnett
Jul 8th 2008, 08:35 PM
I'm pretty sure this thread is going to end up with people arguing passionately on both sides, and may get nasty. This kind of thread does. I am only going to say that if someone is tempted to put their faith in "science" and the vivisectors, they will be let down, not just here, but in eternity.
Thanks for sharing your experience and point of view. It does give me cause to think.

David Taylor
Mar 6th 2009, 05:29 PM
(thread closed as per...Slug1)
As the OP has changed his status to Non-Christian and can no longer participate in this thread, as per Slug1 the thread is now closed.

Thanks to all who have participated!