BreakPoint Blog
|
The Irony of a Walk on Capitol Hill The irony of Cesar Millan's purpose for a Capitol Hill dog walk that took place in September ought be obvious for pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia advocates. Cesar gathered thousands of participants to walk on Capitol Hill to garner support from lawmakers for eliminating the euthanization of aggressive, abandoned, or misbehaved dogs. His goal is to stop people from using euthanasia as a means for population control. To make his point even stronger, Cesar uses a saying that is attributed to Gandhi: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I don't know how accurate it is. (Fyodor Dostoevsky said something similar about judging a nation by the way it treats its prisoners, and I would add the weakest members of society--the unborn, the sick, and the elderly.) During the same time as Cesar's walk on Capitol Hill, pro-euthanasia advocates were blasting their deadly message across airwaves, asking people to legalize human euthanasia in Maryland and Massachusetts. Add to that, we've been bombarded with right-to-die (and duty-to-die) messages across the nation. The New York Times has run several euthanasia articles (examples are here, here, and here); there have been shows and movies about euthanasia and suicide, like "Wristcutters: A Love Story." How we resolve this debate will speak volumes about the people we have become. Meanwhile, Cesar's a good man, but I think he's a little off on the issue of animal euthanasia. I think euthanizing aggressive or sick animals is appropriate because while they are beautiful and sentient beings, they have no souls. I do agree with him, though, that puppy mills are evil because it misuses the animal. Among the 10,000 people who marched with their doggies and Cesar, I wonder how many of them were pro-choice. I am sure more than a few. The tragic fact is, as David Brooks points out, "There are now more American houses with dogs than with children.” Did they think about the irony? Probably not. |
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
But saying it comes from the nature of God still doesn't answer the question. Does it come from the nature of God that heaven should be unattainable or does it come from the nature of God that it is impossible for fallen man to attain heaven?
Regarding the second part, I think it's the nature of God as much as anything. He makes the rules, and its apparent that He has a high standard of cleanliness for entering Heaven. Due to the Fall, humans aren't having a great deal of success attaining that standard. Hence, the need for Jesus. Something tells me you know this and are having some fun with the topic. That's fine by me, as I'm not always the most reverent person here.
Kim, I'm trying to understand if you and I disagree. I'm the one who said I don't think animals are being rewarded with Heaven or punished with Hell. You say no to the punishment part, so what about the heavenly reward? Can they qualify for that but not Hell? Or would you lean more toward my suggestion that it's possible they're in Heaven for our sake and not because they earned it?
However you are rather missing the point. I was not claiming belief in Jinn, I was using them as a tool in philosophical conversation. The point was to examine whether the impossibility of entering heaven by works came from the nature of heaven or the specific nature of man.
Most serious Biblical scholars I've heard and read discussing the age of accountability say that many passages and verses in the Bible lead to strong and reasonable inference thereof. This layman agrees with their reasoning. The word "Trinity" is also not found, but most Christian scholars think the concept comes through.
Cheers,
Kim
I thought that dog commandments were clear, and included, "Sit!" "Speak!" "Roll over!" etc.
(There's actually quite a funny joke about a dog being trained by a charismatic, and when the dog is commanded to "Heel!" he lays paws on the one commanding him.)
Kevin, thanks for asking. The other day I slipped on frost while while walking Theia, one leg went under me, the other in front. I limped home but had to take a break from walking her, which allowed my neck, shoulder, arm, and hand to heal.
As for animals consigned to hell--NO. Since animals aren't morally accountable beings, they would not be sent to HELL.
More to the point, it does not say "there are no sapient beings other then human beings", and even if there is no such thing, the conceptual idea is philosophically useful. It is hard to see how there could not be such even if as it happens, there are not.
In theory, a person could attain Heaven without Jesus by living a perfectly unstained life. Unfortunately, Jesus is a tough act to follow, which leaves only one other way.
Of course, there's the whole subject of babies and kids who never reached the age of accountability. No reasonable person thinks they're in Hell. And I suppose a person could make a similar case for dogs, but there are sticky issues to overcome there. Do they ever become accountable? How would that work? What laws and commandments would there be for them, and how would they know them? How does such a notion as dogs being moral agents jibe with the Bible's clear teachings that humans are unique in these matters? Sure, God might use an animal for a special purpose, but even there it doesn't make much sense to think that God would reward the animal for doing something God in fact made it do.
It's an interesting topic, to be sure.
As for whether animals can obtain heaven by works, that depends on whether animals are moral agents as well.
The reward she's talking about is clearly entrance into Heaven. I read it to mean that if we get there through love and service, why wouldn't dogs get the same thing? Perhaps that's not what she meant. If not, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I still take issue with the concept of animals being rewarded with Heaven and punished with Hell, and think it's much more likely that our pets will be there for our benefit.
Speaking of hellish experiences with dogs, are you healing up?
And since you did, funny me shall answer.
You’ve raised what is known in elite theological circles as “The Chihuahua Conundrum”. In the circles I frequent, it is simply called “The Doggone Paradox”.
An obscure footnote from Epimenides explains it this way: “as in heaven there will not exist even the mildest of oaths, saints who on earth loathed certain dogs will not be able in heaven to say, ‘doggone’; which means the loathed dogs will be present. But as loathing will not exist in heaven either, the paradox is solvable only on the premise that the dog-loather, in his glorified state, will cherish Gidget as much as Vicki did.
Epimenides went on to say, “and that’s why there’s no marriage in heaven.”
At which point I dropped my chalupa.
And I think I already told you that for a secular organization, my employer has an amazing grasp of the notion of penance. That's why I can only go to SC when it's unbearably hot and humid. For now, it's MN.
And do you think you're the only one using rhetorical questions around here? :-)