hi brother, do you really believe that hunting is not a sin? if a person were hungry and there was nothing else to eat i might agree with you.

but are you speaking of the "sport"? i cannot imagine God in His heaven looking down and seeing the different hunting parties going after the different animals He created for us to enjoy and not crying His heart out!!

i believe in the eyes of God that hunting is one of the grossest sins there is. anyone who would take delight in hunting a defenseless, harmless creature minding its own busines for the thrill of killing....!!

As a supporter of fox hunting, I'd better chip in here, without drawing this thread away from topic...

Killing foxes with dogs (now illegal) was instantaneous, and altogether humane - the alleged shaking of the fox was post-mortem, to educate the other hounds on the fox's scent. Hounds are the best guarantee of killing foxes without injuring them instead.

There is sport in a hunt, but it's not the sport of hunting, and that anyone thinks that is down to bias and very bad journalism. Landowners, principally farmers, make hunting possible, and facilitate the sport involved: hunt days once a month are the sport occasions, while there is hunting any day of the week, any time of day - without sport. Foxes are hunted purely to protect livestock, at a farmer's request, day or night, and then the hunt master and staff and dogs go out to deal with the potential threat to farm animals. Yes, the hounds and the staff are a business operated for and paid a fee by farmers.

Hunt days are horse riding across private land, fields, forests and fences/hedgerows, with the permission of the landowners, the same farmers who are protected by the commercial hunts: the pleasure of legally riding through private, secluded rural landscapes in a moderately large group of horse-riders, with fox hounds in tow, is the sport of fox hunting. There is also the matter of exercising the horses during these winter months - fox hunting has always only been allowed over the winter, as many of the horses in hunts across the country are race horses in the summer time, exercising as such and also practising jumping fences.

Foxes are also culled in this process, as is necessary to manage nature in Britain. There is a Christian stewardship angle to fox hunting...

That's the end of this excursion, probably.

Speaking of not drawing this thread off topic, what happened to the original intent of this thread regarding The Covenants?

Christ's death did not end the GC. Why not? Ellen says it is because there are unresolved issues. "Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

Again, she does not say the holy angels were unclear about God's law and love. Instead, she says they are unclear about certain aspects of Satan's rebellion. You seem to be confusing being unclear about Satan with being unclear about God. But the two are worlds apart. There is no comparison.


The "humane hunter" story describes a father teaching his son how to hunt humanely. The father opposes hunting, but since his son insists on it, the father teaches him how to do it humanely. How does this story explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? The Jews were not eager to kill them. They didn't know what to do. So, they asked God. Why did God command Moses to kill them? Did Jesus do anything like it when He was here?

How about these two: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; (2 Peter 2:6) Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Cor 10:11)

Here it is from the other end of the spectrum: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)


Opinions shouldn't have anything to do with establishing the truth, right? Especially "testing truths". You seemed to imply that God caused the Flood by ceasing upholding the fixed laws of nature, as if nature would implode upon itself if God didn't act supernaturally to prevent it. You also seemed to imply this state of things began during creation week. Is it unreasonable to ask you to post inspired passages to support this idea?

PS - I appreciate the kind and loving way you addressed the things I posted that offended you. I have taken it to heart and am praying Jesus will help me to do better in the future. I apologize for offending you.

Correct. God cannot disregard the law. He must uphold it. Otherwise, why command it?


God is love, therefore, He cannot be cruel. Otherwise, He would cease to be God. When a State executes a criminal it is not considered cruel. Nor it is considered torture. God often commanded His chosen people to kill sinners. Not even stoning someone to death was considered cruel.


Yes, you did miss something. The point is God did command Moses to stone two guys to death (and others as well) and it was not considered cruel or unloving. God can do things that would be wrong for us to do. For example: "God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}


"Why do you choose a presumed premise which [portrays God using various means and methods to punish and destroy impenitent sinners] rather than my view of God who lets the flood waters come back, who is always consistent, never taking emergency measures, lets the wicked reap their results, who never directly kills them?"

1. "Who lets the flood waters come back." I'm not sure which fixed laws of nature God employed to cause the flood, but I am certain He did. I do not believe God created a condition during creation week that resulted in water wanting to return to its pre-creation state and killing everything in the process the moment God should cease holding it back.

2. "Who is always consistent." Yes, God is always consistent.

3. "Never taking emergency measures." Again, yes, God has never compromised with sinners in order to accommodate sinful practices. That's not to say He never compromised. For example, He gave Israel a king.

4. "Lets the wicked reap their results." Yes, God does do this. However, not always. He often intercedes and prevents sinners from reaping the results of their sinful choices. For example, Jesus healed the "impotent man" and told him to sin no more lest a worse thing come upon him. If Jesus hadn't healed him he would have continued reaping the results of his sin. In other cases, Jesus intervenes and totally circumvents the normal, natural results of sin.

5. "Who never directly kills them." Here is where we disagree. I believe God has killed sinners directly. For example, the fire that came out of the tabernacle and killed Nadab and Abihu "went out from the Lord." Also, God is just as responsible for killing the sinners He commanded Moses and others to kill. It doesn't matter that He didn't do it directly.

Yes, there are degrees of punishment for sin. The suffering sinners experience in this lifetime is not the actual punishment for sin. The punishment for sin is the second death experience in the lake of fire. Jesus is the only one who has experienced the second death. His case is different in that He conquered the second death. Nevertheless, He tasted and consumed it to the maximum.

The question is - Does God do anything to cause sinners to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness? Or, does He withdraw His protection and allow sin to cause them to suffer according to their words and works? What do you believe?

I believe God will employ three different forms of fire to punish sinners according to their sinfulness: 1) fire from above, 2) fire from below, and 3) the fire light of His glory and brightness.

Actually, yeah, I agree hunting for sport is cruel. Hunting to feed your family is not. Jesus allowed demons to enter pigs knowing they would be drowned. Allowing animals to die for a good reason is not cruel. And, after His resurrection, Jesus cooked fish and ate it with His disciples. So, killing animals for food is not a sin.

PS - My wife and I are vegans. However, we do eat "clean" meat on rare occasions. And, when eating outside our home, we are not strict about not eating animal byproducts.

Discussing the Covenant involves understanding why Jesus had to die and how justice will be meted out during judgment.

It's not a confusion, MM. To the extent that the angels were unclear in regards to Satan's character, they were unclear about God's. Think about it. Satan was making claims about God. If Satan was trustworthy, then there was a chance these claims were true.

The point of the Ever Lasting Father story is in what the neighbors would have thought had they seen the Father explaining to the son the principles of hunting. Just as the father in the story had no desire that his son should hunt, so did God have no desire that the Israelites should kill.

Regarding your question if Jesus did anything like your understanding of what happened with Moses, the answer is no. This has been my whole point. You should readjust your understanding of what happened with Moses to agree with what Jesus did and said.