It is Biblically ok for a Christian to raise dogs for food
Debate Rounds (3)
However. . . here is my contention:
It is Biblically ok for a Christian to raise dogs as a food-source. The Mosaic food-laws were done away with because of this Biblical proof-text:
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them." After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don"t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn"t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)
The Hebrew word for "clean" is kosher, so Jesus was saying that you can eat any animal you want, and this includes dogs.
And by dogs, I do not mean "hot dogs". I mean actual canines, like labradors, chihuahua Mcnuggets, whateaver that dog was that was in Beethoven 1-20, etc.
But I am not just saying that it is just ok for a Christian to eat a bulldog to prevent starvation. I am saying that a Christian can, in good conscience, own a farm which exclusively raises bulldogs in little, bulldog sized cages. They can be fattened up with sticks of butter. Once the bulldog is suitably fat, the Christian may then slaughter the bulldog, and sell the meat, or serve the meat to his or her family. The Christian can do this no matter how many bulldogs are served. Like McDonalds, the Christian could, in good conscience, say "Over a bippity-bip-billion bulldogs served", for instance.
If the Christian wants to sell bulldog veal, they can use puppies.
DO NOT enter the debate if you still think kosher laws are in effect. The debate assumes that kosher laws are NOT in effect anymore.
Also, Con must assumes eating dog is socially acceptable. I'm not looking for a "It would make people hate us" argument.
Let me ask you a question I probably already know the answer to: Would you eat your Grandmother? I"m guessing the answer is "no". Why? According to your logic about the demolition of the Old Testament diet law there is nothing wrong with eating your grandmother. Instead of having a funeral you could have a Gandmammy sandwich dinner. Ignoring the health consequences, most people still see something fundamentally wrong with eating their loved ones. Or anyone for that matter.
Now let me ask you, do you think thinking it"s wrong would have any bearing on if it"s actually wrong or not. My answer would be yes. Or more accurately the Apostle Paul"s answer. Read Romans 14:15-23. If you feel like something is wrong in your spirit/conscience and that feeling is not in contradiction of the Word of God, then stay away from it. It is neither good nor safe to act against conscience. Basically the only reason anyone would ask "is it wrong to raise dogs to eat?" is because they know it would make people uncomfortable and is considered taboo. Otherwise it would be a pointless question. And it is not wrong to be controversial, but to be controversial for any other reason than love is a deep act of selfishness and arrogance. I myself tend to be rather controversial, but the secret is to constantly check yourself and make sure love is always the motivation.
Everything I said has been said in love, for the sake of personal entertainment, and a great learning experience.
I will be addressing your points in numerical form, for the sake of our vast and impressionable audience:
1. Would mightbenihilism eat his beloved Grandmother?
To this I answer, no. I would not. However, the Con does bring up an excellent point: is cannibalism technically approved of by the New Testament? The kosher laws clearly prohibit the eating of people because they neither chew the cud nor do they have cloven hooves. (See Leviticus 11) Ergo, humans are forbidden. However, Jesus also declared all things kosher, (Mark 7:19), so we would have to conclude that this may include human beings. Nonetheless, it is true that upon my grandmother's sad demise, I would not forego a funeral to make a "Gandmammy sandwich dinner". It is a matter of conscience, true, and though I value my grandmother over most dogs, I would also not eat a dog for a similar reasons.
I don't think the Con has actually made a clear point here, for I stated in my opening that "Con must assumes eating dog is socially acceptable". Outside of Canada, I am aware of no land where it is socially acceptable to eat grandmothers, yet there are many countries where eating dog is accepted. Also, unless you believe Richard Dawkins, it is clear that we are not descended from dogs, whereas we are descended from our grandmothers.
2. The Con writes, "Basically the only reason anyone would ask 'is it wrong to raise dogs to eat?' is because they know it would make people uncomfortable and is considered taboo".
I stated in my opening argument that "Con must assumes eating dog is socially acceptable". Despite the embarrassing grammar I used, the Con is addressing a context where dog eating might cause a fellow believer to stumble in the faith. However, if it is socially acceptable to eat dog, then there is no stigma attached that would cause someone else concern. Just like we have no problem eating cows, pigs, chickens, chicken nuggets, etc. in such a society, eating a dog would be equivalent to eating a steak.
So, yes, there is a Biblical basis for not eating something if it would be controversial. But if there is no controversy, it seems clear that eating a dog has full Biblical support --- and not only eating a dog, but actually farming them for food.
If the Con admits that the only reason to not take English bulldogs, put them in tiny, restrictive cages, force feed them butter, then, on their 3rd birthday, take them out, butcher them and serve them on English muffins, is because such an act would be taboo, I think the Con is simply agreeing with my initial statement.
To truly defeat me, the Con would need to point something out about dogs that makes eating them a legitimate source of remorse, through Biblical reasoning. The best way I can see to do this is as follows:
All kosher animals are stupid.
Dogs are stupid compared to people, but are Steven Hawkings compared to kosher animals (both emotionally and intellectually).
ERGO, while it may not be a sin for a missionary, say, to eat dog meat so as not to offend the locals, it is clear that there is something inherently Biblical about eating only animals which are dumber than a box of nails, like cows, chickens, fish, etc. Therefore, to raise them would not be prudent, for if "the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1), dogs cannot be far behind. And their loyalty, devotion, joy in seeing us come home from a hard day pan-handling in front of the mall, etc. points out that God prefers them to not be eaten. If that is so, raising them for food --- while, perhaps, not a sin in letter --- is nonetheless a sin in spirit. And "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)
However, this raises some serious concerns for Christians who eat pigs, for as George Clooney can attest, pigs are intelligent, loyal and caring animals.
I quote a popular online article:
Actor George Clooney was "so close" to his pet pig that he didn't want to have children, says his ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Daily.
The actor-filmmaker recently got engaged to Amal Alamuddin.
Elizabeth believes his change of heart with regards to love and marriage has come after he finally got over the death of his pig named Max, reports femalefirst.co.uk.
"He didn't need children, Max was his baby. He loved that pig like nothing else. It was the size of a table, absolutely huge," The Sun newspaper quoted Elizabeth as saying.
She further said that he never needed or wanted to have children when he had Max.
"I would just be hanging out round George's with giant pig chilling out beside us. It had its own special pen and at night it would sleep on the floor right besides George's bed. It got in that bed at times. (Also read: Is Sandra Bullock Upset by George Clooney's Engagement? )
"They were so close it was like father and son. When Max died in 2006 he was really torn up. Maybe now there's no Max he'll start to feel the pangs of parenthood. That would be great for him," she said.
( http://movies.ndtv.com... )
Even though the Con is clearly some awesome combination of Rick Grimes, Iron Man and Tom Hanks, I still maintain that their argument did not truly address my initial contention, as stated. They must now show and prove against this.
I wish them well. It will be difficult.
If I get to be Rick Grimes, then you get to be a zombie hoard because your side of the argument probably has a lot more points than mine. (I"m a huge Walking Dead fan, so the reference is greatly appreciated)
Pro, would it biblically acceptable to poison a population? Assuming that eating dogs is socially acceptable, one can infer that a lot of people would be consuming a lot of dog meat. Millions of people across the country would be eating dog burgers, dog steaks, and dog dogs. In fact, in the Midwest meat accounts for a substantial amount of the individual"s diet. I know some people that have several servings of meat with every meal. So millions and millions of pounds of dog meat would be consumed my millions of America every day.
Here"s the thing. There is something called biological magnification. Biological magnification is well established reality pertaining to the food-chain. Dogs, and all canines are what we can an "apex predator". Humans usually don"t eat apex predators. We are hardwired against it. See when a dog consumes its prey, they also consume any toxins in that prey. Let"s say we feed the bulldog protein from a cow. So from the environment the cow eats a small amount of toxins. Accumulating toxins, there is a greater toxin density in the cow then out of the cow. When the dog eats that cow, as well as meat from several other cows, they also consume the toxins that the cow ate, and the toxins become part of the dog. Therefore as it was the cow and grass, there is a higher toxin density in the dog then was in the cow. If we eat the dog, the human eating a doggy sandwich then has a higher toxin density then the dog. Therefore in the food chain, we accumulate more toxins than any other animal. Scavengers as well as other animals, have digestive systems to deal with this type of biological magnification. As humans, our digestive system is created to handle only the second level of biological magnification. We can handle the toxins we accumulate from a cow"s tissue because the toxin density is relatively low, but if you magnify that a third level or fourth level then our digestive system fails to be able to protect us from the poisons we naturally intake from eating other animal"s tissue.
So basically by producing dog meat as a viable source of protein for McDonalds, you are really poisoning every costumer that consumes their value meal. Now, given, the effects of eating too high on the food chain could take months or even years to show itself under normal circumstances. However, if an ecological disaster would contaminate any part of the lower food chain, such as the grass, or cattle, that danger would magnify itself. This is what happened to the bald eagle in the 1960"s. DDT did not affect lower food chain animals, but it destroyed the birds of prey. They were higher on the food chain and add in biological magnification, and they almost went extinct.
If we were to eat apex predators as a regular protein source we would be plaguing people with dangers that we would know about until it was far too late. And I believe that it is very unchristian to produce, market, and sell anything that puts people"s life at risk is a very wrong thing. And this isn"t a gun, or a car, or something that is obviously dangerous. This is meat. Food should be the safest product on the market, being that it is the product that we as people are so intimately involved with. I believe every eating experience should be safe. By selling people dog meat, you are putting people in a world of danger that they don"t need to be in and should not be in.
If you sell people dog meat, you are selling lies. You are making money at the cost of millions of peoples safety. And that is not a biblically sound activity!
(Forgive me the splinters in my fingernails. I was forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel)
Oh, so because they're apex predators we can't eat dog?
if that's true, then on the same basis, we can't eat hog
because a pig is fouler than Travolta in FACE OFF
chew you up like Twizzlers Pull & Peel, no steak sauce
and by that same logic, we can't eat Koala Bears neither
face it --- I ruined you --- your arguments are Selena Gomez --- I'm Bieber
Bible says all food is kosher, including terriers & poodles
neither of which can possibly be more toxic than Ramen Noodles
so, in summation, I clearly won this debate, DUN
Silly Rabbit, dogs aren't for pets, dogs are for plates, SON
your slogans remain lazy stupid, my facts remain crazy nice
your lies remain halitosis, my truths remain Dentyne Ice
so stop frontin with your nonsense and stop all that noise
my style is WU TANG, your style is Backstreet Boys
and, sure, your heart might be in the right place for now, Rick Grimes
but watch my Walkers DEVOUR THE WHOLE EARTH --- Season 9
This is reality, not nacy drew
Its stupid to, ask
Like expecting a car to run with no gas
A side effect of having no class,
Does actually arguing give you a rash?
No logic like saying tom hanks is an Arab
You had to expect this, you think you smashed it
But honestly from the get go
The whole point was always trashed
Saying you won a one sided argument is like spending counterfeit cash
Like a zombie, mindless, behind the times, like nerves to your iris,
Language of a drunk Irish,
You would of asked an actual question
Instead of just declaring yourself right,
Taking away all the means for an opponent to fight,
I wish you could see the light,
Im hoping for a round two, that way my logic could surround you, mentally pound you, drown you,
I can see the future,
in the trash can is the only place they found you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: pro is only one to use sources. If con's arguments were backed up I can believe them and he wins, but I can't trust you--who says hotdogs are poisonous? What makes you trustworthy, con? Therefore I tie arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.