Comments on: PETA Deada in the Heada

By: Dorian Ballard

Dorian Ballard — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:22:54 +0000

I have to admit your opening comments of ‘laugh, cry, or commit huri-curi’ I can seriously relate to. What amazes me is how the grossly sinful and for lack of a better term ‘braindamaged’ can openly and boldly take a stand for these things proudly?!? When many Christians are ashamed of criticism’s thus compromising Biblical Christianity and seek to have the world’s approval?!!? If PETA can stand by such absurd comments without flinching as if everyone in opposition is wrong why cant more Christians take a bold stand for our faith? Shocking!
Dorian Ballard

By: Ewan

Ewan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:12:23 +0000

PETA are the same bunch of idiots who want Australian wool growers to stop mulesing their sheep. The absurd thing is that the industry body Australia Wool Innovation has pursued a policy of appeasement with PETA and have agreed to a phase out of mulesing by 2010. But PETA are philosophically opposed to the farming of animals so appeasement won’t work with them. If mulesing is stopped, PETA will just move on to the next “objectionable” practice of docking lambs tails for example.

Ewan McDonald.

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:38:29 +0000

Thanks Nathan

Yes, very revealing stuff there!

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Nathan Schellinger

Nathan Schellinger — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:30:21 +0000

Just found this very interesting info about PETA.
www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/134

I guess they’re even more wacko than we thought!
Nathan Schellinger

By: Ewan

Ewan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:24:17 +0000

Iowahawk – always good for a laugh.

“It’s obvious he’s in the pocket of Big Manure.” LOL

Ewan McDonald.

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:25:19 +0000

Thanks guys

I was just sent this which is quite funny: iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/06/widow-of-murdered-fly-seeks-white-house-apology-shit.html
Apologies for its use of the “s” word.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Kevin Mullen

Kevin Mullen — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:06:55 +0000

I first saw this gag in a Dilbert cartoon twenty years ago.
Dibert swats a fly, and Dogbert asks “Why is it OK to kill flies while it’s not OK to kill dolphins?”
www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-10-30/
PETA, it was just a joke! You weren’t meant to take it seriously!!!
Kevin Mullen, Perth, Western Australia

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:21:03 +0000

Thanks Chris. Whether they were asked or not is not the issue. The real point is, any group which can issue press statements about flies, while being quite happy with the killing of unborn babies is a group which has got some real problems. The moral priorities of PETA are out of line big time.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Chris R

Chris R — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:19:23 +0000

What a complete misrepresentation of the truth. PETA did not react or get angry or attack or anything. They were asked to make a comment and they did. Who are the idiots here? People are making way too big of a deal our of this.
Chris Richardson, USA

By: Peter Grice

Peter Grice — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:36:03 +0000

Please excuse my philosophy, but between the universals and particulars, the nonchristian/autonomous quest for universals has been abandoned, and along with it not just the coherence of particulars, but the differentiation of them. The result, particularism, erases all categories/distinctions of species and gender. Humankind (or personhood) is a lost identity. Maleness evaporates. Male/female complementarity vanishes. The only distinctions to be made are physical/spatial and thus arbitrary, leading to the absurdity of an unborn baby being considered a person based on its location in or outside the woom.

But nothing is too absurd in a particularistic universe because all particulars collapse into a monistic whole: each ultimately merges relativistically into the same continuum. Sex with a marigold? That’s fine. Decapitating a daisy? How dare you make a qualitative distinction?!!! All is matter, all is Brahman.

As is often noted, Singer and Newkirk are drawing consistent conclusions. Ingrid Newkirk’s infamous “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” encapsulates in the realm of species what Francis Schaeffer indicated in the realm of morality with his formula “cruelty=noncruelty.” It is the great equivocation of good and evil, the denial of created distinction and purpose, and thus of identity.

This is the logical inevitability of rejecting the Creator/creature distinction. With no Creator, we worship only created things, which are deemed natural and therefore ultimately of the same essence or “stuff.” The poverty and irony of this view is that you could worship stone and wood, while trampling the Image of God in man. You could exchange male-female relations for same sex, or interspecies, but in so doing you are denying yourself as a self with any distinction and dignity.

What sounds like an absurdity to most people is actually a logical consequence of atheism. Christians can do better in exploiting this fact in our apologetic method.

Peter Grice, Think Christianity