Does Matthew 6:26 really mean that we should see animals as inferiors because they don't make and consume things?

[Isaac]

I really like animals, and I agree with Hemingway when he stated that 'Animals are more noble than man, we're just more intelligent.' in Old Man and The Sea.

 

[dillybars]

Isn’t the overall message that they don’t have reason not because they don’t build barns literally

 

[Wine em Dine em 69 em]

Because they don’t have possessions maybe? Which leads to wealth or poverty, the root of all evil. I’d suggest that animals are the true innocents with pure souls (ie they literally are without sin) and we are the demons let loose upon the earth. Our brains are a curse. If we have this knowledge we would deny our maker for the great deceiver he is.
I’m bullshitting out loud, but I like the sentiment.

 

[Isaac]

Because they don’t have possessions maybe? Which leads to wealth or poverty, the root of all evil. I’d suggest that animals are the true innocents with pure souls (ie they literally are without sin) and we are the demons let loose upon the earth. Our brains are a curse. If we have this knowledge we would deny our maker for the great deceiver he is.
I’m bullshitting out loud, but I like the sentiment.

Some animals actually do have possessions (granted, in a very limited sense). Red Foxes have been observed to inherit decrepit dens from their ancestors, Red Foxes and many other animals are territorial and enforce their property rights aggressively (Red Foxes attack other foxes that stumble unto their territory) and, foxes cache food as a survival strategy.

 

[Blasterisk]

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

Anybody who quotes you a single verse out of the Bible at a time is probably crazy, trying to trick you, or selling something.

Could you argue that foxes are a lower life form than lilies because they are not cited as being clothed better than Solomon? Perhaps, but I'll chuckle at you for it.

 

[Psychotron]

My fatcat is a weathy banker who makes money on usury

 

[Shig O'nella]

How in god's name did you get such a retarded conclusion from one of the most straightforward of bible verses?

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Yeah, and what the fuck did Hemingway know? More like Heminggay. Nietzsche said:
"Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

Being incompetent doesn't make something innocent or noble. In fact it's that very line of thinking that leads to kids/animals/women getting Lenny'd, since dumbos mistake lack of ability to pre-plan for innocence/benignity and leave hulking tards alone with people and things way smaller than them.

 

[Isaac]

How in god's name did you get such a retarded conclusion from one of the most straightforward of bible verses?

Franny interpreted the verse in that manner in Franny and Zooey. I assumed it was the commonly held interpretation of the verse.

 

[Shig O'nella]

Franny is as sweet a bit of characterisation as exists in literature - but biblical literate she isn't.

The last line is the one that matters, the rest is just filling. Pretty sure Matthew was paid by the word.

 

[Isaac]

Yeah, and what the fuck did Hemingway know? More like Heminggay. Nietzsche said:
"Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

Being incompetent doesn't make something innocent or noble. In fact it's that very line of thinking that leads to kids/animals/women getting Lenny'd, since dumbos mistake lack of ability to pre-plan for innocence/benignity and leave hulking tards alone with people and things way smaller than them.

I apologize, but I refuse to entertain anything Nietzche ever said. I tried reading Beyond Good and Evil, realized he couldn't write for shit and discarded my copy. If an author cannot communicate his ideas to the reader effectively, why the hell should I read him? Hemingway had a talent for brevity, read A Farewell to Arms and you will understand this. Although I don't particularly like Hesse he can communicate his ideas effectively, which is why I am willing to read him.

 

[Manul Otocolobus]

My cat consumes mice and produces shit. Seems like consumption and production to me.

 

[libRT]

Seems more to me that its saying don't worry about shit that doesn't matter.

Yeah, and what the fuck did Hemingway know? More like Heminggay. Nietzsche said:
"Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

Being incompetent doesn't make something innocent or noble. In fact it's that very line of thinking that leads to kids/animals/women getting Lenny'd, since dumbos mistake lack of ability to pre-plan for innocence/benignity and leave hulking tards alone with people and things way smaller than them.

Yeah they cannot be noble, but they are innocent. They cannot be judged morally since they are mostly reacting to their environment and don't have the ability to think about morality or make an informed choice about pretty much anything. So not noble, but not not noble either. But yeah that makes them incompetent and there's no negotiating with them which is why they are inferior, and considered for the chopping block first.

Though some people, who tend not to reflect on themselves, their actions and always repeat the dumb shit they do. They are inferior to animals, because they have the ability to improve themselves but instead choose to neglect that. Usually dopamine degenerates.

 

[Law]

Animals do make things. Beavers build fams, birds build nests, badgers dig burrows, spiders make webs. They consume things as well.
I always thought that Mathew 2:26 was telling Christians to not worry and rely on god instead of relying on themselves alone, since god would provide for them like he "feedeth the birds", instead of having a strictly Dominionist interpretation, but then again I kind of hate Dominionism.

 

[Shig O'nella]

I always thought that Mathew 2:26 was telling Christians to not worry and rely on god instead of relying on themselves alone, since god would provide for them like he "feedeth the birds", instead of having a strictly Dominionist interpretation, but then again I kind of hate Dominionism.

It does. The confusion / debate comes from a change during the Enlightenment.

Spoiler: Random sperging of minimal interest to most

The bible isn't meant to be read, it's meant to be spoken, and it was written (or compiled, whatever, I'm not going there) by people to which the written word was only important as an aide memoire for the art of rhetoric. Remember, writing wasn't really taught (Edit: The act of writing, yes, the art of writing, no), but how to speak publicly was a part of every reasonably ranking family child's education.
In rhetoric, you give your examples and analogies first, then you provide the statement. Things stayed that way until the enlightenment, when written communication and wider literacy, combined with the assumption that at least a portion of your audience never learned how to speak properly inverted that order to the one we're more familiar with now - statement followed by evidence.
The changeover wasn't fast - people still struggle with reading Dickens now because Dickens tales are really meant to be spoken, but by the beginning of the 20th Century it was complete in every area outside law and religion.