Adorable animals: Does Jesus kill kittens or is it evolution?

While cleaning out my cupboard I found an old Jehova's Witness Bible. It had a nice painting of a lion laying with a lamb.
Later I saw my kitty-cat, and wondered why these dogs and cats are so attractive, when they are actually evolutionary rivals of human hunters.
Now I'm wondering: why are these rival predators so cute?
I could never keep a lion or tiger, but I know some people do.
Aren't our cats "mini-tigers", so why are they so adorable in some cultures?
PS. I recently saw a bumper sticker that said: "God kills kittens". Is that true? I mean is it really God (or hence Jesus) who kills them?

reply to post by halfoldman


God kills everything. He will even kill you!

You must realize, it is yourself that makes that into a bad thing. not the force that be.

This is why people think that "God" has an attitude, and it fluctuates.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by gandhi]

reply to post by gandhi

Do you mean killing as in unimaginable nothingness, or do you mean killing of the physical body?

No it is humans that kill kittens or cats. I have seen three dead cats on the road in less than a week. Some A hole ran over the old ladys cat who lives down the street form my elderly mother and mind you they did this on purpose. It is a neighborhood with kids and animals and no one should be driving so fast they can not stop.
Please people if you have cats keep them indoors. You are not doing them any favors by letting them outside. Trust me they will live a lot longer.
Mine are all past the ages of 11 and they all stay inside.

God stays out of the way and lets things happen. We, as humans, have freewill and can affect change on our surroundings (and kill stuff if desired). Other living things have to go with the flow ie. let nature take it's course.

Thank God He lets big spiders and giant grasshoppers die, hate 'em.

I'm not really sure I understand your title. I'm also not really sure of what evolution has to do with killing kittens -- the idea of evolution says that species change in order to better adapt to their surroundings and the world around them. Extinction, of course, is something else entirely.

As for Jesus and God killing kittens, i'm not even sure where that would come from other than a person that perhaps is atheist or anti-God and wanted to get people's attention with an outrageous saying.

Perhaps it was a shortened version of this:

"Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten" was a headline of an image created by a member of the website Fark.com in 2002.[1] The image is of a kitten, since known as "Cliché Kitty", being chased by two Domos, and has the tagline "Please, think of the kittens".

The phrase originally appeared as the headline "Fact: Every Time You Masturbate, God Kills a Kitten. How Many More Have to Die?" with a kitten photo on the cover of The Gonzo, a satirical publication produced by students at Georgetown University, in 1996.[2]

Link: en.wikipedia.org...

It was satire, so I'm guessing there is no "real" meaning to it. But that's just my opinion.

As for why kittens are cute -- so are bears, pandas, hippos, sugar gliders, seals, panthers, etc. Here's what some have to say:

Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.

Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense. As a species whose youngest members are so pathetically helpless they can't lift their heads to suckle without adult supervision, human beings must be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all signs of infantile desire.

Link: arstechnica.com...

reply to post by lpowell0627

Well in a lot of cultures, if a rival predator like a crocodile competed with humans, they would eat more crocodile eggs.
In Western cultures dogs or cats may be cute, but elsewhere they are delicacies. Keeping a carnivorous pet is nowadays considered worse that a fuel guzzling car: the meat-carbon footprint of such pets is enormous. And yet such pets provide a great deal of solace, and a longer human life-span (a longer human life-span probably ain't so green either).
As for the religious point: if Jesus is God than He controls all creation, and He could stop killing cute kittens. Not so?

reply to post by halfoldman


i'm not even going to start on why god is evil and loves killing kittens, there is no god - now the science bit....

know why dogs are common pets today? because dog carts were the most common pre-hydrocarbon form of transport in europe.

cats however were popular as domestic pets to provide love, affection and much more importantly to kill rodents - thats why us humans bred cats down to size -yeah it's true that actually almost all of the animals that humans most prize today were NOT created by god at all! Humans selectively bred animals over hundreds of years, certainly animals like Cows and Horses have very well documented histories - cats being no exception...

those cute cats we are lucky enough to have today were never in the garden of eden, crazy god only made tigers and lions and stuff... ok cats didnt come from tigers they came from small cat like animals but still, we bred them into being todays domestic cats...

now why do we find them cute? interesting thing, mammals all have inbuilt protective instincts towards things with large eyes compared to head size, small bodies, etc -this is what causes wolves to sometimes rear the wrong species young, etc..

i would suggest that we think big cats look cute because they remind us of the lovely little friendly things that sit on our lap, also they're all fuzzywuzzy and yet sleek and well defined.

now as to your other question, why cats die - interesting point, if god had made cute animals he could have made them live forever however for evolution ot work things need to die and be replaced by a 'better model' - either crazy god wants to spread sadness by making fluffy cuddly things die or they only exist because death happens and so evolution can take place... hmmm i know what makes more sense to me )

reply to post by halfoldman


First, Jesus is not God. Jesus is the son of God. At least that's my beliefs. Second, what are you using to make the statement: Why does God kill kittens?

Because, let me be more direct: HE DOESN'T. Anymore than the death of anything is done by God.

I have not heard of a secret divine plan by God or Jesus to rid the world of kittens.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Keeping a carnivorous pet is nowadays considered worse that a fuel guzzling car: the meat-carbon footprint of such pets is enormous.

Please provide a source for this. Eating meat is thought to be "less green". I am not aware that they have done a study of how "green" pets are. My cats eat Friskies. I highly doubt there's any real meat in it.

As for the religious point: if Jesus is God than He controls all creation, and He could stop killing cute kittens. Not so?

Bodies age. Bodies get sick. Bodies die. There is no fountain of youth -- even for kittens.

Death is a result of sin, and was brought into this world by man, not by God. There was no death in the beginning. Maybe you have heard the quote “the Wages of sin is death”, well that is what it means.

...And before you ask, no God did not create evil or sin, they exist simply because God exists. Anything that falls short of the perfection of God, and is not covered under grace, is considered to be sin. The only reason that sinful men can someday be in the presence of a perfect God, is because God extended grace to man through Christ.

reply to post by lpowell0627

Short reply to two beautiful posts above: I always thought dogs became domesticated through hunting with humans, since the muscle power (outside the North Pole) is rather negligent.
As for God and kittens.
I was taught that the doctrine of the Trinity keeps Christianity together. Despite distinct roles: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were made of one substance!
Once you are saying that God doesn't control non-human events, you are saying that God sits apart from "nature", and hence you might as well be an evolutionist. Either Jesus has a plan or reason for every kitten and baby that dies, or He's not interested in materialism at all.
Maybe one could say YES, Jesus doesn't care about fish, fig-trees, swine and kittens. They're like wind-up toys. Only humans matter. But that also seems Cartesian, cruel and cold.

egyptians held cats in high regard. egyptians enslaved jews. Jesus kills kittens as payback since he is the son of a vengeful and jealous god. thats why my cats worship the devil.

reply to post by lpowell0627


www.newscientist.com...

www.good.is...



as for god in control of creation, if god DID create life then he created to his own rules, thats how the story goes - death is a concept god invented - he made sure that cats would die, etc

he even mentions in the bible why women get pain during childbirth, because of the apple thing - thats why our heads are too large for womens hips, nothing to do with evolution of the brain - god is punishing women for eating an apple to learn right from wrong -a crime she couldn't know was wrong without understanding right and wrong! thats why 1 in 4 human women die in childbirth without modern methods!

anyway god could have made cats live for ever but no he wanted them to die. i prefer to think he doesn't exist and nature just happens, its far more comforting.

reply to post by halfoldman


ok this is true, we did hunt with domestic wolves - these became dogs as farming developed and for most of human #history# they were the poor mans transport or the rich mans hunting friend - however without dogcarts we would only really know dogs as hunting implements and most likely be fairly rare as pets - although yes you are right hunting with dogs played a major role in their domestication.

also beautiful description of the total control paradox, when you consider these things with an open mind the christian perspective so often turns out to be not just rash but illogical and offensively curt on certain points.

reply to post by defcon5

Numbers 22:28: And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, what have I done unto thee...?
Will there be no animals in heaven?
Perhaps God is taking the animals first, so we may feel at home.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by halfoldman]

reply to post by defcon5


too late i'm asking.... god must have created sin, let me explain why...

the human brain is a complex biochemical computer, it contains a very complex endocrine system and all sorts of crazy hormonal control systems - modern science has demonstrated how this compels people to commit certain acts god doesn't really like - when a human male is shown a picture of an attractive female certain things happen in his brain, he can't have any control of these things they're biologically hard wired - he will desire that woman sexually, his sexual organs may be stimulated, his pulse rate will rise, etc - thus he is not just breaking the coveting his neighbors wife rule but also the thing Jesus says about even thinking about being with a woman is adultery.

Has god created our brain in a way that makes it impossible not to sin? it sure seems that way!

More to the point i remember when EVE ate the apple from the tree of knowledge, did Tiddles scratch the sofa of Cuteness or did Ginger poop in the rose garden of snuggling in front of a warm fire?!? What exactly was it that CATS did to annoy god? you mean all animals annoyed god or did god punish cats because of something a human (who couldn't have known better because she didn't yet understand good and evil) did?

thats your forgiving god? cats 6000 years later still have to die because one uneducated woman with a biochemical desire to enjoy eating nice things ate an apple? all loving? he sounds like a psycho.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Keeping a carnivorous pet is nowadays considered worse that a fuel guzzling car: the meat-carbon footprint of such pets is enormous.

Please provide a source for this. Eating meat is thought to be "less green". I am not aware that they have done a study of how "green" pets are. My cats eat Friskies. I highly doubt there's any real real meat in it

From: "How green is your pet?" (New Scientist, 23 October 2009, www.newscientist.com...).
"SHOULD owning a great dane make you as much of an eco-outcast as an SUV driver? Yes it should, say Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, they compare the ecological footprints of a menagerie of popular pets with those of various other lifestyle choices - and the critters do not fare well.

As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution. It is time to take eco-stock of our pets.

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year - far more for beef and lamb - and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

Meanwhile, an SUV - the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison - driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares - less than half that of a medium-sized dog.

The Vales are not alone in reaching this conclusion. When New Scientist asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, UK, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data, his figures tallied almost exactly. "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," he says."

reply to post by NatureBoy

Shortly, I did a marketing course once, and I was told that people always respond favorably to anything with features akin to a baby.
Round head, BIG eyes: I recall in South Africa that was an argument on why the Nationalist Party did so well under FW De Klerk - he looked like a big baby! Perhaps this explains why so many top politicians are so elderly - elderly people resume the harmless guise of babies!



[edit on 24-11-2009 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


haha yeah i saw a study where they recorded peoples responses to pictures of politicians faces who had gone against each other, then 9 times out of 10 then predicted who had won the election! i can totally buy that someone who looked like a baby got more votes, those tiny little biological pressures evolution has left in our brain really do cause some weird behavior, to attribute these things to a creator is to wish for a very weird god.