From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 9 Oct 1992 16:09:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvtKyC.2Cy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Mike Linan writes:
>ml> Find your own answers Russell.  This line of questioning has no 
>ml> bearing on animal issues and really is a waste of my time.  Sorry 
>ml> old bud.  

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Of course, it has a bearing on animal issues.  You've stated in the
>rl> past that your "god" gave animals to humans like yourself to use as
>rl> you see fit.  No offense, but it seems to me that your notion of
>rl> "god" is not only antagonistic to the concept of animal rights, but
>rl> antagonistic to the concept of human rights as well.

>From article <1b1hk6INNc6j@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> So you seem to think.  I disagree with respect to human rights.  
>ml> I have given my faith very much thought (something you will no 
>ml> doubt find amazing) and while I will on occasion discuss it with 
>ml> those who will not pass judgement and are open minded, I really 
>ml> don't see that a man or woman will persuade me to waver on my 
>ml> faith in God.  You do not have to agree with my faith.  

>You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.  However, it
>seems obvious to me that your beliefs are antagonistic to the concept
>of human rights that much of the world has come to take for granted.
>To illustrate, many people who don't share your religious ideas may
>argue that they own their own bodies, to do with as they themselves
>see fit, but you seem to believe that all humans, regardless of their
>religious beliefs, are the rightful property of your "god".  You can
>prove my point in this matter by answering the following question:  

>If your "god" told you to kill a group of men, women, or children 
>without providing an explanation or permitting questions, would 
>you obey?   Would someone who obeys "god" in such a matter be 
>trodding on the basic human rights of the victims?


I'm not getting into this with you Russell.  You can think what you 
want about religious beliefs but, you pretending games are not some-
thing I want to be a part of.  It's clear you do not believe in faith
or God so I don't expect you to understand my position.  It is a waste
of my and other posters time to continue this subject line.


>rl> What rights would humans have, for instance, if it's perfectly ok 
>rl> for you to kill innocent men, women, and children if/when your 
>rl> "god" tells you to do so?  

>ml> If, if and if.  One of your favorite pastimes is pretending but, 
>ml> my God has not told me anything directly other than by his word 
>ml> in the Bible and nothing in there says to kill innocent men, 
>ml> women or children.  

>Sure there is.  For starters, how about:  "Thou shalt not suffer a 
>witch to live".   


You either have a very short memory or you are very hard headed Russell.
I told you that the verse you quote is from the Old Testament and was a
different time with different laws from God.  Since the time of Jesus 
Christ the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament with
changes and revisions.  This may be convenient to my argument but, it has
not changed in nearly 2000 years.  


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan









Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals