Too stunned to think of a title...

Never cared for pita, myself. Pocket sandwiches taste like cardboard, in my opinion.

 

Never cared for pita, myself. Pocket sandwiches taste like cardboard, in my opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]I ate it in Jordan when I toured the Holy Land. I guess I was starving because I ate a whole plate full and drank about a gallon of water. I gues because of this I tend to like PETA. Uhhhh, PITA.

 

Well, if the population keeps increasing, even at the very low rate that it is today, it would only take about 550 years or so to have one person for every two square feet of land on the planet. (That includes the land under the Antarctice ice cap, mountain tops; everything.)

But, just as I agree that God gave us the ability to heal people, he also gave us the ability to limit our population growth.

Sadly, though, those who are least capable of supporting the people are the ones most likely to procreate at the fastest rate.

Now, there is approximately 148.94 million sq km of land on Earth. This translates into roughly 57,500,000 sq miles (about 16 US’s). There are 27,900,000 sq feet in a mile. This works out to roughly 1,604,250,000,000,000 sq feet on the Earth. This means that if there is one person for every 2 square feet of land on the planet, there is room for 802,125,000,000,000 people. At the current world population growth rate (the US is much, much lower), this number would be reached in approximately 544 year.

To extrapolate even further, if you assume there are 100,000 habitable planets in our galaxy, and we figure out a way to get there, at the current world population growth rate, we would have them all filled to the same capacity in about 500 years after that.

You have to remember that about 20% of the people who have lived during the past 1000 years are alive right now, and about 11% of the people who have ever lived, are alive right now.

It's exponential growth, not linear growth rate, that has to be taken into account.

(Please keep in mind that all numbers are rounded for ease of figuring.)

 

"A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

 

and there was something Jesus said about tending to a beast on the sabbath...?

 

And then there was this whole thing with sacrificing lambs, rams, and all other animals.

Let's insert some common sense and balance into the argument:

1. Nobody here is gonna cheer when some thug goes and kicks a puppy and hurts a defenseless animal for no reason. I have had a pet that I have cared for very well. I was very outraged when somebody shot the dog from behind. It was obvious that the dog was running away and not a threat because the bullet entry point was from behind.

2. Most of us are not going to shed tears and lose sleep because I ate a burger today. Only the mentally inbalanced act as if we are eating our children when we eat meat.

3. Human life is more important than non-human life, and when experimenting on non-human life can save human lives, we should do it.

and last, but certainly not least,

4. PETA is an organization of crazy lunatics and should never be considered a reputable source in any sense of the word.

Joseph Botwinick

 

UnchartedSpirit, yep that would be Matthew 12:11

 

True Joseph. Still there is such a thing as gratuitious cruelty. We know it when we see it, and it seems to me we should oppose it even if it puts us on the same side of the fence as PETA now and then.

 

Never cared for pita, myself. Pocket sandwiches taste like cardboard, in my opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]Oops I think I was hungry when I wrote that

 

You must have no sense of history. Modern dentistry alone has vastly improved the quality of my life. We've eliminated small-pox and reduced the incidence of rubella, polio, tuberculosis, whooping cough, measles, mumps, syphillis, and many, many more with their attendant side effects. Modern medicine can eliminate more than a few parasitic diseases, but modern economics forestalls that.

 

True Joseph. Still there is such a thing as gratuitious cruelty. We know it when we see it, and it seems to me we should oppose it even if it puts us on the same side of the fence as PETA now and then. </font>[/QUOTE]Too bad you chose to ignore the rest of my post.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Leviticus 1
14'But if his offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering from the turtledoves or from young pigeons.

15'The priest shall bring it to the altar, and wring off its head and offer it up in smoke on the altar; and its blood is to be drained out on the side of the altar.

Yup, pretty humane to me

But seriously...

Is it only the cute and cuddly animals that we should treat "humanely"? How many on this board have ever pulled the wings off a fly or legs off of a daddy long legs, or burned ants with a magnifying glass? I don't hear anyone sticking up for them. And they are more defenseless than the larger animals. Bugs are animals too!

I would love to see some of these folks (PETA namely) be taken back 100+ years and put on a farm. If they had the same attitudes then as they do now, they'd end up in the funny farm!

I don't think anyone is advocating the torture or abuse/mistreatment of animals for some sadistic pleasure. But humans are much more valuable than animals. That's the reason God said:

Nowhere in the Bible does God say a person's life should be taken for killing an animal. (and please do not quote me Isaiah 66) The Bible makes in abundantly clear that we are more valuable than animals.

and Jesus Himself said:

I think if we can improve the quality of life (or save the life)of a person due to testing on animals, so be it. . Some might consider it torture, but it is not purposeless. Is there anyone who would not trade the life of 10,000 lab rats (or other animals) for the life of their loved ones?

Animals being made to suffer for pleasure is different than animals being made to suffer for the sake of making our quality of life better.

But I will leave whether or not it is ok to use animals for makeup testing to the ladies.

 

That's what Ghandi said, you know Ghandi, the godless heathen.

 

I agree, our priorities are way out of whack.
But I would venture to guess people who are for animal testing are usually pro-life. The sanctity of human life in this country is being replaced with the sanctity of animal life.

 

Wringing off the head is not torture. </font>[/QUOTE]One of the most humane and effective ways of killing a bird quickly and humanely is dislocating the neck. This means a sudden pull to separate the head from the neck so that the spinal cord is broken and all sensation to the brain stops, but the skin remains intact. This is sometimes called ‘wringing the neck’, but technically it’s “cervical dislocation”.

I stand corrected!

 

Uh, no, I didn't torture insects, arachnids or toads, seriously. Even cockroachs I squash humanely. That sadistic streak towards small defenseless creatures is a very scary sign.

The Jains have been around a lot longer than that.