?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Apparently, "true" Christians hate cats. - CERisE's Testing for L

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

December 4th, 2007


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
12:42 pm
Apparently, "true" Christians hate cats.

(12 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:anarchodandyist
Date:December 4th, 2007 11:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Holy cow, that's hilarious. Well, up until the end where they suggest killing cats. That part is less "hilarious" so much as "makes me want to stone their asses to death". But the rest of it is pretty spectacular. I love their logic. I think my favorite part is where it is pointed out that cats engage in "widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony" and "the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus". These are freaks of the highest magnitude.
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:December 5th, 2007 09:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
These are freaks of the highest magnitude.

Please -- restore some of my faith in humanity. Let's assume it's only one guy for now. 8)

I wonder how the Vatican would feel about kitty condoms.
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:December 5th, 2007 09:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
(also, why is it that you put "kitty" in front of anything and make it funnier?)
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:December 5th, 2007 05:47 pm (UTC)

The Apocryphica of Felidae (I)

(Link)
Quoting from the article you referenced:

First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term 'cat'. When analyzed with the Latin 'felis cattus domesticus', the original Koine Greek is 'cur.io huma bes-tia', means 'a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.' A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being 'beastly'. The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan's organizations, both past and present.

This contains so many inaccuracies and fallacies I scarcely know where to begin.

First of all the etymology is wrong. The derivation is Eng. "cat" from Proto-Germanic "kattuz" from Low Latin "cattus," probably from Afro-Asiatic "kadis" or "qitt" (those are respectively the Nubian word for a cat and the Arabic for a tomcat, and probably both derive from the same earlier Proto Afro-Asiatic root. I only have a smattering of Latin, and less Classical Greek, but "curio huma bestia" sounds more like "beast which guards people," in Latin (rather than Greek), which has nothing to do with being "bestial" but everything to do with killing vermin (historically, the reason why we first domesticated cats).

Latin "bestia" means, basially "animal" or "mammal." It does not have the connotation of "beastly" in the sense of "cruel." The "faithful servant of Jehovah" would thus be fooled by a false cognate between Latin and English. Simply because the same adjective is used to describe "parts of Satan's organization" is irrelevant. First of all the same logic would apply to all beasts, and one might then logically conclude that dogs or cattle were Satanic! Secondly, one might as easily argue that because Satan is described in the masculine pronoun that all males are Satanic!

Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God's enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God's Holy word would ask - is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a 'beast' of the field? Hardly so!

"The student of God's Holy word" might also reflect as to the nature of the actual "beasts" which figure in the Book of Daniel. Guess which biological family lions belong to ...?

Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).

Oh, like belonging to totally different biological Classes? (Cats are Mammalia, serpents Reptilia). Obviously, I (and every zoologist from Aristotle on) have failed to "study these matters" with sufficient "depth" ...

The last common ancestor of a cat and a snake was a lobe-finned fish, back sometime in the Devonian! But I guess a "true servant of Jehovah" wouldn't acknoweldge that, either.

In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians?

I wasn't aware that the Imperial Romans were Satanic ... Y'know, as an animal lover, this outright infuriates me. The writer is basically arguing that the lions, captured and taken against their will to the Arena, brutalized to hate humans, and starved for days, were primarily to blame for devouring victims, rather than the humans who arranged their condition.

Whatever happened to human Free Will?

[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:December 5th, 2007 05:58 pm (UTC)

The Apocryphica of Felidae (II)

(Link)
Jehovah Himself 'stopped up the mouths of the lions' (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel's day.

This could also be seen as the lion being a sacred animal, particularly suspectible to divine influence. Note the significance of lions in Coptic / Ethiopian theology (from which C. S. Lewis got the notion of Aslan).

True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions ...

More so than they are snakes, though ... :)

... but being of the same accursed animal family used by God's enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one?

Hmm, I can think of a species which has engaged in the persecution of Christians and Jews "on numerous occasions throughout history." I'll give you a hint: it's in the same family as Koko the Gorilla and Washoe the Chimpanzee. Would it be wise or prudent for true servants of Jehovah to associate with one?

In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history?

Guilt by biological-familian association. I wish I could say a new low for Christian fundamentalists, but unfortunately, many innocent cats were tortured hideously to death in the 16th-17th centuries due to this exact reasoning.

The Bible makes clear that God's people are 'no part of this world' (John 15:19) and that we are 'not to share in the sins of others', consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or 'candy' bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.

Candy bars? What the Hell? Did he just have a free-associative spasm on the computer?

The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil.

Oh, yes. Especially when they cuddle and purr, or lick you. They clearly hate you, and are really plotting your demise.

And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth.

First of all, human-raised cats are "tame." This is evident by their lack of fight-or-flight responses when they encounter humans -- big scary predators, capable of shattering their bones and killing them with a single well-aimed blow.

Secondly, I have taught cats all sorts of things, and know people who have taught them more things. Needless to say, cats are more amenable to being taught when one honestly attempts to communicate with them, instead of sprinkling holy water on them and crying "Avaunt, Satan!"

Thirdly, "raise in the truth?" What the Hell is he talking about? Does he mean convert them to Christianity? I would be interested to know just which domestic animals he has attempted to convert to Christianity, and just how he knew his instruction was taking!

The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit.

Oddly enough, that's something I find admirable about cats.

While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master - Satan, the Devil.

Ah, so even if it doesn't realize it, it's The Enemy?

Well, that's a good way of getting around all logic ... even theological logic ...

[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:December 5th, 2007 06:06 pm (UTC)

The Apocryphica of Felidae (III)

(Link)
The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor himself owned a cat.

Do they? All they do is fail to mention anything about them owning cats. I don't believe they mention dogs either. In fact, I think the only animals that humans are mentioned as owning in the Bible are horses, donkeys, sheep, goats, birds and pigs.

Joseph and Moses are particularly embarassing for this theory, as they both lived in Egypt, and as members of the Egyptian upper classes would have as a matter of course owned cats. Note that they aren't on that list ...

In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.

Or a car. Or eat a potato.

Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that 'Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans'. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of 'week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.' Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our 'neighbor' by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease?

I can show you lists of diseases we can get from other domestic animals. And people. Clearly, we should avoid all animals. And people. True Christians live their lives in plastic bubbles, breathing manufactured air!

Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor,

Dogs also do all of these things. By the way, why is cleaning one's genitals and anus by licking them "inappropriate," given one's lack of hands? How, exactly, would the True Christian Servant of Jehovah clean himself, if he were a quadruped bereft of find manipulatory appendages?

Neither dogs nor cats commonly urinate or defecate on the floor if shown where it is good and where it is bad to relieve themselves, anyway. Both are animals who naturally den, and hence have the ability to hold it in until they are outside of their dens. The bit about making messes would be more accurate applied to ungulates, which do not den and hence relieve themeslves freely.

... vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) ...

???!!!

Has this guy ever kept any animals? Of any tetrapod species?

... and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, ...

Um, which animals engage in "holy matrimony?" There are some who mate for life or for long periods, but most of them aren't mammals. I guess you could include wolves in the list of exceptions, though I bet Mr. Christian Young Earth Creationist probably doesn't graps that dogs are actually just domesticated wolves.

I seriously doubt that alpha wolves get married by a priest in church, though.

Another species that occurs to me which has something like marriage (though polygamous) and probably close to a human concept of it (though probably not the religous part of it) is the gorilla. The reason why gorillas are very similar to us is one which a Creationist would like even less, though.

Heh :)
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:December 5th, 2007 06:21 pm (UTC)

The Apocryphica of Felidae (IV)

(Link)
Passing lightly over the catnip-induced sex orgies ...

... (actually, there is a very sound evolutionary reason why queen cats are polyandrous, but it's on a level of reasoning far above that which Mr. Faithful Servant of Jehovah is even arguing) ...

... stealing food from the table ...

Heh, my old Labrador Retriever (a kind of dog, of course) could have taught any cat ever born things about stealing food from the table. He once managed to scarf a whole pizza pie in the time it took me to pay the delivery-boy ... I miss that big black furry monster :D

... producing ungodly sounds, ...

So the proper translation of "meow" and "hiss" is "Hail Satan!" ... ?

Who knew?

... excessive playfulness ...

Oh, horrors.

"Once I tangle up my claws in the string just the right way, it will open the portal to the Ninth Abyss and unleash the hordes of HELL!"

Yeah, right.

... and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus ...

What? I don't even understand what that sentence means. It sounds like he's accusing the cat of doing carpentry with power tools, or something.

... the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night ...

So all nocturnal animals are evil? What about humans who work the evening or graveyard shifts?

It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer.

See the definition of "carnivore." By the way, we are "killers," too. See the definition of "omnivore." And so was Abel, and all the patriarchs before the Kingdom of Israel. See the definition of "pastoral," as in a way of life.

Oh, and if you're concerned about creatures other than mice, so were most of the patriarchs, period. See the definition of "warrior."

It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17).

Apparently the writer is innocent of the habits of dogs, as well. Which will cheerfully hunt rodents, and kill them too, if the dogs are stealthy and quick enough to catch them. Guess for what purpose terriers were orginally bred?

What cats are most guilty of, compared to dogs, is being stealthy and quick.

But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God's sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29).

Does he imagine that other carnivores hang up their kills on butcher's racks? (I know of one animal that does, but it's an insectivorous bird). For that matter, does he know of what gravy is partially composed?


[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:December 5th, 2007 06:38 pm (UTC)

The Apocryphica of Felidae (V)

(Link)
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to 'quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].' -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats.

Of course not. Why, once we decide to totally throw logic overboard, there's no reason why it can't be applied to association with dogs, members of the Green Party, or our own intestinal flora. Hey, did you know that you have bacteria in your intenstine which literally eat your waste products? Quick, massive doses of antibiotics for all Christians! A "true servant of Jehovah" wouldn't mind the massive diarrhea, right?

Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.

The Apostle Paul also didn't talk about ink, which is obviously unclean (ever had a pen break open in your shirt pocket?). Maybe true Christians should throw out their pens, too!

In harmony with this, surely it is the parent's obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas.

Oh, how unfortunate. One longs for the days when loonies ... I mean "servants of Jehovah" ... were legally empowered to murder their own children ...

Now, this is where it gets nasty ...

This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans.



Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.' (Deut. 21:18-21)

Uh huh. So, to recapitulate.

Cats are servants of Satan, even though the Bible doesn't say so, because they look vaguely snakelike if you squint just right, and they do things that humans wouldn't do, some of them nasty by our lights. Therefore, a true loving Christian would take his pet cat, who loves and trusts him, and stone it to death.

Right.

If there were any justice in this world, the author of this report would go out jogging and get killed by a mountain lion.

[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:December 5th, 2007 09:04 pm (UTC)

Re: The Apocryphica of Felidae (V)

(Link)
Mountain lions are too good for them.

You know -- if I didn't know better, I'd say there were minor problems with that essay by your responses. 8)
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:December 5th, 2007 11:20 pm (UTC)

Re: The Apocryphica of Felidae (V)

(Link)
My mind was boggled by the intolerance, paranoia, cruelty, and sheer fallacious reasoning of that essay. I mean, even if you start from a believing Christian point of view, it doesn't make any real sense!
[User Picture]
From:zweeb
Date:December 6th, 2007 05:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
so uhm... since when are YHWH's witnesses considered "true" Christians? they can't even pronounce Elohim....
[User Picture]
From:babe_of_beyazit
Date:December 8th, 2007 06:57 am (UTC)

Lock up your kittens! Christians are on the town!

(Link)
This made me laugh so hard I actually cried a little.

Clearly the person who wrote this absurd essay was not being serious. The absurdity is evident in the fact that the logical contortions often used to justify pretty much any conclusion that "feels right" to Christians (though these logical contortions are a stretch even for the generally lax standards applied in some debates) are instead employed to argue for something that doesn't seem to be on any Christian agenda. All it shows is the farce of such idiotic sophistry. Actually, it's not even sophistry because sophistry is supposed to be persuasive.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com