Lions and Tigers and Bears…. No more.. (Religions' view of extinction)

Great Debates
1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3119434.stm

:frowning:

I do think that we are on the road to mayor extinctions everywhere. While this discussion should be about if this situation is hopeless for the big fauna, I would like to hear also from the faithful if there are no queasy feelings about this, in other words: do you think the God of the Bible would approve? And I am curious to see what other faiths have to say about witnessing the end of a species.

[sub]The bible said we had dominion over the animals, I don’t think it does mean we have the right to wipe them out.[/sub]

2

Agreed, and there are many who say we ought to be stewards, not destroyers. Unfortunately, not everyone believes this, nor do they care.

3

Here is a related question I would like to see answered by one of our religious posters-- specifically, one who believes in biblical inerrency:

If a lion population of 23,000 animals is said to be “close to extinction”, how do you imagine a population of TWO of them (just the lucky pair that made it onto the ark) managed to hang on? (A question which, of course, applies to every species now living, but we’re talking about lions here.)

If we can take them all the way down to two without being concerned about extinction (after all, they’ve been in that position before and rebounded nicely
:rolleyes: ), why all the fuss?

Back to the real world:

I would hate to see the lion join the list of extinct species-- the cheetah is apparently in an even more perilous predicament…these magnificent animals seem all the more fantastic to me BECAUSE they weren’t designed by a “creator,” but rather evolved into the niche they’ve come to occupy. I hope they can hang onto it by themselves; it doesn’t look like they can count on very much support from us…:frowning:

4

The cheetah is kind of an evolutionary mess, though. The species has some real problems, and they’re in a genetic bind which not our doing. They may have been ehaded toward extinction anyway, pretty as they are.

Ammo55, please just leave the baiting out of it.

I think the Bible would probably support the idea that we may kill off all the animals. However, the Bible doesn’t say anything about this being th most moral of actions. As in many things, what we may do is seperate from what we should do; we have the right but not the choice.

There are some creatures I think we could do without, although almost every species has some utiltiy somewhere. Rats and cockraoches come to mind.

However, you may want to try convincing the people who actually have to take care of these animals (well, their governments, anyway. Maybe you can convert them, as I don’t think most Africans are Christians, although there is a growing movement toward it.

5

Not “baiting” at all, bandit… but rather making a point tied directly to the OP.

I’m suggesting that “Religion’s view of extinction” might not be the most credible viewpoint in the world to begin with, as by definition it would have to consider two animals as constituting a viable population.

(Letting Christianity represent “religion,” here, obviously)

Do you have an opinion on the “poulation of two” to present, by any chance? Instead of finger-wagging, how about taking a whack at my question?

6

How many of these lions are killed by humans, and did Noah go on an animal hunt after getting off the ark? I personally wish he had killed a mosquito, but alas they’re still here. So it’s kind of silly to compare the two. Which natural predators did the animals on Noah’s ark have? What about the animals in Africa? But to answer the OP, the Bible says a wise man takes care of his animals, and we are suppose to be stewards of the earth. I think it’s sad,.

But oh well, if the other option is considered, it’s just part of evolution. Obviously if they are going extinct, they haven’t evolved enough.

7

In the Bible, a land flowing with milk and honey was a good thing.

Yes, I know it’s an idiom :wink:

8

Oh shoot, wrong thread, sorry…

9

You set a bait so as to attract people you want to argue with on a matter at best vaguely related to the OP.

10

(Sigh.)

Are you accusing me of trolling?

I may be new here but I’ve already picked up on the “wisdom” of doing that publicly…

Am I to assume you’ve “reported my post”, which answered an OP about a species going extinct and the religious overtones that might accompany that, by commenting on the level of extinction implied by scripture as compared to today?

Would it be possible for me to assure you once more that I am not “baiting” anybody, without you posting “baiter, baiter, baiter” as your response?

If you think I’m sidetracking this discussion (calling my post only “vaguely” related to the OP, which I find interesting…) would it be better if I started my own? More to the point-- if I did start my own, would you feel compelled to take a stab at the question I raised, or do the implications of debating the point I raised leave you a bit… hesitant? (I know I would be pretty hard-pressed to defend the biblical account, so I can understand you wanting to dodge it rather than address it.)

The OP asked about religion’s view of extinction. I raised what I thought was a relevant, and fair, question as to whether religion was “qualified” to comment authoritatively on extinction, given the absurdity of the “two-animal” populations it constructs through scripture.

If you’d like to refute that, and extend to me the benefit of the doubt that I came here to debate in good faith, I’m all ears. Otherwise, make your accusations to the moderators and not to me.

11

An article featuring my Patriarch:

http://ismaili.net/timeline/2002/20020612bbc.html

12

Therefore, you are suggesting that Patriarch Bartholomew’s pro-ecology and very Green attitudes over the years, urging the Orthodox and all Christians to take responsible stewardship for the environment, should not be followed. Since it comes from a “religious” source, you suggest we should do exactly the opposite.

13

Whoa, dogface…

You and I will get along even better if you let ME put the words in my own mouth… I know what I want to say, thanks very much.

I don’t even know who your “Patriarch Bartholomew” is, yet alone disagree with his policies. In fact, if he’s a pro-ecology kinda guy, urging responsible stewardship of the earth’s resources, we sound like we’re on the same page so far. :slight_smile:

Would you kindly point out to me precisely where I advocated doing “exactly the opposite” of any guidance provided by a source, simply because that source is religious?

<sound effect: crickets chirping>

… Didn’t think so.

My point was, and remains, that a religious view on extinction has a built-in logic fault that, for me anyway, is hard to get past. I assume you and other presumed creationists must have these difficulties as well, since none of you seem up to staying on topic and dismissing my points with facts-- or for that matter, even opinions. Instead it’s just “baiter”, or your convoluted attempt to assign a ridiculous position to me.

Got anything else?

14

You might note that presuming another’s position is not far removed from putting words in their mouths.

There have actually been a number of disparate positions put forth in this thread by people who have (in the past) demonstrated a very wide range of beliefs (or lack of belief).

I will accept your original question as inquisitive and not as bait, but by posing the question before we had even heard from a biblical literalist or YEC supporter in the thread, you have skewed later responses somewhat (probably not deliberately) so that any response from a religious perspective is now being perceived as a statement by a YEC supporter or biblical literalist. In fact, our most outspoken advocates of YEC and biblical literalism have not even posted to this thread.

15

The presumption I couched * inside an assumption* is, indeed, far removed from the outright, positive assertion dogface attributed to me. Those my presumption was addressed to had already somewhat “showed their colors” with the flavor of their posts, yet still I awarded them a benefit of the doubt which I never got (and frankly, have yet to get) in this thread.

Take another look at the position that was “forced” onto me… really. It’s not even prefaced with a qualifier such as, "using YOUR logic, ammo52,______… "

Note also that in my first post on this thread, I addressed a question to the religious, and then qualified that by tacking on, “specifically one who believes in biblical inerrancy.” Gee, it’s almost as if I was able to distinguish between those two camps and realize they weren’t necessarily synonymous.

Knowing, as I do, that YEC/biblical literalists exist on this board, must I really sit on my hands and wait until one of them posts before I’m allowed to venture an opinion?

I honestly hadn’t noticed a tendency in here so far (admittedly, I just got here) to wait until every possible quarter had been heard from before being allowed to weigh in with an opinion. A thread critical of, say, President Bush seems to get off the ground quite nicely without the Democrats having to sit patiently and wait til a fervent Republican rides in to “defend” him.

Why should I have to wait, to make a connection which immediately struck me and which I personally find totally relevant to the OP, until what essentially would be the exact opposite of my point is expressed? Isn’t it… umm… “first come, first served?” :slight_smile:

Whatever-- I’ll butt out until everybody and their brother has exhausted the possible range of responses from various religious faiths/lack of faith/agnostic viewpoints, and check back on it later. If it’s still on the first page of posts when I check back in, I may even dare to post in it again.

16

Not at all, and I would side with you over smiling bandit if I were asked to referee this thread regarding your first question. I do not think it was trolling and I do not think it was a hijack. However, once the thread started angling off (as they often do) following your first post, you then made an assumption regarding your opponents that is, as far I recall their positions, incorrect. I just find it ironic that you would make assumptions as glibly as they have, while protesting assumptions made about your statements.

I’ve got no problem with your questions or your assertions in this thread; I am only amused that you are acting in a manner that you have criticized.

17

I will identify myself as a staunch creationist(of the protestant Christian variety). I will probably not contribute a lot to this thread because topics like this tend to raise my frustration level more than I think that they do anything to reduce the amount of ignorance in the world.(And firmly ignoring the possibility that many people consider me the one whose ignorance needs reducing). Also, it is my experience that arguing about things like this, especially on the internet is futile because we all have a strong vested interest in maintaining our own beliefs and I can’t show you by typing how much superior my life is because of my beliefs.

Anyway, with respect to the question of how did two lions come to populate the post-ark world. I would say that in those early days, many of the nasty mutations which make in-breeding so dangerous did not exist. Since those two lions had nothing but healthy genes, their offspring did as well. Sometime later nasty mutations started showing up leading to problems.
Another simplistic possiblity is that the Bible describes the interactions of God with one people and so while Noah collected all the animals he knew of, the rainforests of South America were unaffected by the flood, thus making it easier for Noah to fit all the animals onto the ark.

My other comment is simply that when I was in Botswana and I got to see these wonderul creatures in their natural habitats it was a thrill I can not express. In particular, the leopards I saw. Leopards are harder to locate than lions partially because they are solitary creatures(though the two I saw were together) and partially because they tend to sleep during the day high up in a tree(my two were drinking from a stream). I was very lucky to see them, but my pictures look like smudges. Still, seeing lions and leopards and giraffes reinforced my belief that God is wonderful and we as people need to do whatever is in our power to preserve the evidence that the world God created is a wondrous place so that future generations to can see it as well.

And by the way, without the question about lions, I probably would not have posted to this thread. But any excuse to talk about my trip to Africa is a good one.

18

In other words, you just intend to “hit and run”.

And, since this is GD, you have a cite for this, right?

So then, you do not take this passage literally:

**Genesis 6:17**  *I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.*

Yet, obviously, you believe the Bible to be the “Word of God”. Please explain.

19

Good to know the Catholic church seems to have gained a conscience in this regard, I am still curious in the view other religions may have, specially Africa: would not be weird for tribal faiths based on animism, suddenly finding that they have nothing real to show to future generations? I wonder then why they are not more active in preservation.

But I see we are in the midst of…

Avast! A hijack!

This being talk like a pirate day I am generous. :slight_smile:

Sometimes semi hijack can be educational. This one could be considered as the other side of the coin, one side being extinction, the other: the problem the bible has with the origin of species. On this regard, I think a stumbling block that has never IMO been dealt properly, is how critters like the cat or the dog and other domestic animals came to be; specially if one takes into account the fall of man. AFAICR only very silly legends have been put forth as explanations as to how it was that we still had friendly critters after that apple business.

20

Roundguy,
It isn’t so much that I intend to “hit and run” as it is a warning that threads on religious topics can get really nasty and if people who disagree post in much greater numbers than people who are sympathetic I may disapear without responding to all posters.

And no, I do not have a cite. The last time I cited an author whose views helped form mine on a topic related to evolution people were really nasty about the author.
I am also not going to express an opinion as to whether I take Gensis 6:17 literally or not at this time. I don’t think I can win either way.

GIGObuster,
While I do not know a lot about religions in Africa, I would say this. There are a lot of people in Africa who are working too hard to survive and feed their families to spend much time worrying over what their religion says about the proper respect for the animals.