The other side of Christianity

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

If the Biblical ambiguity around dogs has been overlooked even by many Christians, it seems Christianity’s attitude to cats isn’t entirely negative even during the past if instances of the clergy, anchorites and monastics having cats before is any indication, it is however similarly ambivalent and there’s a similar ambivalence to both lions and dogs in the Bible. Ambivalent in the sense that felids either serve as divine judgement, shining exemplars, mere pets (in a way in the Bible a couple of times), guises of the Devil, and also guises of the divine. So in wider Christianity they are also either pets of the faithful or of witches, though the former has to be emphasised because it’s not a subject matter commonly brought up in popular cat discourse. There are really European churches, convents and monasteries that have cats around within reason, it was like this in a Cubao church that I used to attend when I was younger. There are people who take their cats to church too.

In a sense Christianity really isn’t that entirely negative to cats (as well as lions and dogs for another matter), but there is a kind of ambiguity around them that’s not given to pigeons. This is also best examined in agriculture where depending on the circumstance, cats either assist or annoy farmers, which is also no different with the way both farmers and hunters feel around dogs. In a sense cats (and lions), like dogs, are very ambivalent figures in Christianity. But the role of cats in Christianity is kind of underestimated or overlooked because there are instances where positive or neutral relationships do exist, most notably in churches and monasteries where monks and clergy have them around for good reasons. As well as versions of folk Christianity in the former Soviet Union like Armenia and Russia where cats do show up in their legends, though technically their role in wider Christianity is replicated by lions and leopards in the Bible instead. Leopards do have roles in the Bible

Especially as predators, instruments of divine retribution, and eventual companions to their prey that this is exactly how God would deal with cat predation in the future: that’s by getting them to eat plants instead. I had a cat that ate flowers before, so maybe we’ll see more flower-eating cats in the future once the Earth is restored to its Edenic glory. So Christianity and the Bible both tend to have rather ambivalent feelings around felids, but certainly nowhere as negative as some people make it out to be.

The word of God

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

This is something those in more visually orientated fields and the like many not immediately get, but the weird thing about the Bible and especially Protestantism is that there’s a emphasis on saying the right words as well as a preponderance of speakers, writers and musicians, but also a near paucity of artists in any way we recognise them as. It’s even fair to say that the number of speakers in the Bible might even outnumber the number of visual artists there, the closest to those in the Bible tend to be weavers and potters, which in a sense seem to affirm the primacy of words over pictures in the Bible. Even if some Christian denominations like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do accomodate the use of visual imagery, but they’re really just enhancements to the more important ones like liturgies and sermons, that it seems the Bible does emphasise the primacy of words over images.

An even odder one is the possibility of some Biblical stories having their basis in oral tradition, which seems stronger than the visual tradition (which came much later). The literary tradition came slightly later and is still far better established than the visual one, where it seems the word of God feels more potent in whatever permutation it takes on. Be it podcasts, live broadcasts (radio, social media, television), online websites like online liturgies and devotionals, print media (and their pirated permutations as well) and pamphlets, it seems both orature and literature are consistently far better established in Christianity and also the hardest to secularise. In the sense that one can still get the message behind a livestreamed sermon on social media if they just merely listen to it, but it can be really easy to miss the actual context or intent behind pictures like Mona Lisa.

It’s easier for the visual arts to be secularised to the point of getting sexualised halfway through, but it’s harder to do this with literature and orature. Given people still need a way to worship God with and get His message across, that it’s parsimonious to think that things like sermons and printed materials (books, periodicals, private diaries) are the places where the word of God persists. Pictures might as well be mere white noise that accompanies the real meat of the message, but that involves a reckoning of where God’s message thrives best in and it’s not going to be pictures most of the time.

A lower standard

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

When it comes to the double standards between Harry Potter and Narnia, similar things can be said of the double standards between Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz cycle, where the latter’s own L Frank Baum was just as intentionally influenced by theosophy (an occult discipline, no different from astrology and alchemy) like JK Rowling was with astrology and alchemy. But for some utterly odd reason, many Christians kind of ignore or overlook the theosophical angle of the Oz cycle. They also overlook the fact that the Discworld cycle’s written by a massive atheist as well, to the point where it seems Harry Potter is more likely to be hated for being itself, since these accusations barely get levied against these other two serials as well. It really doesn’t make any sense to complain about occultism in Harry Potter, when one can do the same with the Oz cycle or atheism in Discworld for another matter.

Years ago I noticed a similar double standard between Harry Potter and X-Men, even when the latter had writers like Chris Claremont insult everything Christian. Like it wouldn’t make any sense to hold Harry Potter to a much higher standard when other stories like X-Men and Oz are spiritually just as bad, where somebody on Reddit pointed out that Christians not only have bad discernment but also tend to be worldlier than they want to be (even I myself fall into this as well). This might also explain the double standards between the Potter cycle and the Oz cycle, or the Ringworld cycle for another matter where it seems spiritual integrity might as well be dead last compared to favouritism. It gets really strange because whatever accusation levied against Harry Potter can objectively be applied to other serials and stories, but this involves holding them to a much higher standard than at present if people cared to.

It doesn’t make sense for Harry Potter to be singled out for the things the Wizard of Oz cycle got away with for years, or the Discworld cycle just the same, that it seems Christians are practically fine with the same sin if presented in a socially acceptable light. Speaking from my own personal experience, it would be like objecting to depictions of half-naked men in comics but not naked women in paintings, even when both can induce lust in people. Even with the latter where women are required to be modest and not induce lust in people (usually men), that it seems Christians are okay with sin when it’s presented in a socially acceptable manner. The same Redditor goes on saying that many Christians are Biblically illiterate, to the point of being okay with whatever defiles them (or somebody else), that it would be provocative to say that most Christians treat matters pragmatically than dogmatically. To the point where this is why a double standard between these things exist in the first place.

Maybe it’s a bad idea

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

There’s a prophecy by Alison Pound suggesting that California will be deeply impacted by such an earthquake that it’s a bad idea for publishers like DC and Marvel to move there, even when this is a sound business move to better harmonise and synchronise the publishing side of things with the filmmaking counterpart. California from a certain standpoint seems like a really cool place to be in at first, but it seems like a spiritual mess at times if it weren’t for the intermingling of occultism with showbiz (per Celestial). It’s also not without its own interethnic tensions per Pound’s other prophecies, that it seems to be less and less appealing over time. An even more politically incorrect suggestion is that California is something of an LGBT hotbed itself, which is why it’s set to get destroyed by an earthquake. America might also be split into two afterwards, if potentially becoming completely inundated by water further in the future.

If also struck by an EMP attack in the future, well it would be enough to wipe out whatever precious data Hollywood employees have. Or those of ordinary civilians for another matter, but it seems living in California is getting less practical from a secular standpoint as well. Living in Mexico City or some other city in the Americas like Vancouver wouldn’t be any better, but when California houses America’s biggest film hub at this point (as it was located in the east coast at some point), it seems to magnify the weight of problems that Canada and Mexico both end up bearing with America together. DC was ahead of Marvel when it comes to moving to California by more than a decade ago, but with this prophecy in mind that it might as well be insensible for these two to move to California. Would moving somewhere else be a safer, wiser move instead? It would be painfully ironic if an EMP attack were to take down America, alongside natural disasters like these, that other countries might be heirs to its multimedia legacy through piracy of all things.

(As well as online archiving, if that’s not enough really.)

But either way America’s legacy might be largely undone through some other means like an EMP attack wiping out most of America’s multimedia assets and stuff, that if America were to have any remaining legacy left on Earth at all it would survive elsewhere on shadow libraries and online archives somewhere in Africa (The Wayback Machine has a backup in Egypt by the way). A sort of ghost town where it seems as most US websites go down, perhaps save for Christian websites if their owners sensibly move elsewhere thankfully, maybe the gravity of the Anglophone Internet will shift towards African countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia instead. Maybe not immediately but it’s plausible given the prophecy of an EMP attack taking down America’s power lines, that perhaps the heir to America’s online legacy and achievements would come from somewhere else in the world.

If Africa were to host America’s remaining online legacy left on earth if the Wayback Machine continues to move elsewhere to Egypt and the like for preservation, even if that might also be temporary in a way when it comes to a solar fire decimating the Earth along with those, it would make for an awkward reminder of American influence left on Earth that its heirs are the very countries it enslaved their people from. Or that America goes back in bondage to Egypt in a way, that either way Africa would now have the keys to America’s remaining digital legacy. Quite alarmingly if Africa would eventually have the keys to America’s remaining online legacy (online archiving in particular, if the Wayback Machine continues to move to Africa for safety), it would mean African countries would end up having the most extensive records of American history by then. American influence would be largely undone anywhere in the world, but most especially the countries that were really under America’s thumb like the Philippines (for its own sins by the way).

So this would amount to more than seventy years of Chinese influence in the Philippines by then, or more than seventy years of Russian influence for Europe and Canada just the same. Making it a painful irony that Africa would be the one hosting America’s remaining online legacy by then, if the Wayback Machine ever moves to Africa for good by then.

Dogs and their role in Biblical farming

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

I said before about dogs in the Bible that upon deeply examining why Job mentioned having dogs for herding suggest a side of the Bible that’s more rooted in growing and cultivating crops than one realises, with dogs being needed to secure things but can prove to be a liability for farmers (and also hunters) on a bad day. This would be missed out for those who never experienced such things firsthand or know of the matter in some other way themselves, even if it makes sense why the Bible has such an ambivalent feeling towards dogs (as well as felids like cats and lions) if dogs are animals that both assist and annoy farmers and hunters alike. Useful for flushing out vermin and game, but a nuisance when it hunts animals on its own on a bad day. The use of dogs in pest control isn’t just a thing for some people and places (monasteries, households, farms) but also in the Bible, albeit either implicated or sublimated in some way.

The Bible early on prophesises that a woman will kill the snake (Satan) and later on, Jesus/God calls a woman a dog or something like that. Dogs have been noted to hunt snakes (on their own or otherwise, same with cats), as well as rodents (something both cats and snakes are also deployed to take on the same). Tobit has a dog that accompanies the titular figure, alongside an angel, further highlights this overlooked ambiguity around dogs in both Christianity and the Bible (as well as cats in Christianity just the same really), that doesn’t make sense unless if you dig deeper into things like hunting, farming and pest control. It would be tempting to consider cats as practically the middle ground between dogs and lions, both animals that get mentioned in the Bible, well in a way because cats are felids like lions but also domesticants like dogs and all three illicit ambivalent feelings throughout the Bible and Christianity as a whole. But in a way that makes sense that the best way to understand Christianity’s feelings towards cats isn’t just to observe history and real life, but also through passages concerning lions (and dogs to some extent).

(Something CS Lewis kind of got with Aslan, though not so much with dogs where Maugrim could’ve been an actual dog and would’ve strengthened the Biblical themes in Narnia more to be honest.)

If CS Lewis is any indication, it’s kind of shockingly easy to miss the actual Biblical ambiguity around dogs. In fact much moreso if somebody’s removed from the context behind it, where it’s kind of hard seeing dogs having a dual role in being both the companions of the faithful and the rebellious. That’s unless if somebody were to not only know of dogs’ role in witchcraft folklore but also how and why they both aid and vex farmers and hunters alike, that it seems the way dogs are portrayed in Narnia is very divorced from this context. In the same way it’s hard for some people to believe that dogs started out as scavengers, even though this portrayal does show up in the Bible. There are studies of dogs thriving on refuse as much as they would with wild animals, though with the latter it clearly angers hunters to this day when it comes to game. But the fact that the Bible also has instances of owned dogs in both the Old and New Testaments as well as deuterocanonical literatures like Book of Tobit seem to suggest a number of those dogs might in fact be village dogs themselves.

Or if you believe Sophie Bobbé, the line between domesticated and wild may be more blurred with dogs than one realises, to the extent this still reveals the Biblical ambiguity around dogs that’s missed out among some Christians. It’s not that owned dogs were nonexistent in the Bible, but it seems there’s a kind of ambiguity around them that’s nearly unthinkable for others at present. Even when it’s not lost on a number of hunters and farmers elsewhere, where it seems the Bible is written by those who come from these demographics and psychographics at times. That the possibility of dogs having a wild side isn’t lost on them either, but an even odder one is that most of the dogs appearing in the Bible (or perhaps all dogs) have no discernable breed whatsoever, where most of them are defined more by what they function and do in the Bible (guarding in Judith 11, retribution in both 2 Kings 9 and 1 Kings 21, herding in Job 30, pest control as implied in both Genesis 3 and Matthew 15 as well as 2 Kings 9 and 1 Kings 21, companionship in Luke 16, Matthew 15, Tobit 6 and Tobit 11, disobedience and laziness in Revelation 22, 1 Samuel 15 and Isaiah 56, predation in Philippians 3, scavenging in 2 Kings 9, 1 Kings 21, Proverbs 21 and Matthew 15) than by breed.

In the sense that notions of breed dogs have yet to show up this much in the Bible, so it seems the dogs there might as well be village dogs in some sense. Not necessarily useless but notions of breeds have yet to show up to the point where dogs are solely defined more by function and role than by breed there.

The multifaceted side of Biblical dogs

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

It seems when making a series of the way dogs are depicted in the Bible, the more I dig deeper into certain verses or passages regarding them at all, the more nuanced their portrayal in the Bible turns out to be. Revealing a kind of overlooked ambiguity around them since there are passages that seem to suggest otherwise, or that some passages may be more interconnected to one another than one realises. In the sense that the Bible seems to be written by people who have experiences in the countryside in some way or another, or perhaps having recurring experiences with dogs in semi-urban places in some cases, that the way dogs are portrayed makes much more sense in this light. The idea of beware of dogs and mutilators of the flesh make more sense in the context of dog predation, as implicated in one sermon I listened to 8 years ago or something, something that’s not lost on even German hunters (and the general Biblical ambiguity around dogs is also shared among them). The association of dogs with murderers and especially witchcraft (and its proxy rebellion) seem more obvious in the cases of Myra Hindley and Dennis Nilsen, as well as luminaries who are no strangers to the occult themselves like Britney Spears and David Bowie (who also own dogs themselves). Or Nana Kwaku Bonsam with his dogs towards Cristiano Ronaldo just the same.

A more unexpected association is the implication of dogs being used in pest control like snakes, where if Satan is likened to a snake and a woman’s out to kill him, and in the New Testament Jesus likens a woman to dogs (or at least her people to dogs) and then rewarding her for her faith, that it seems in some cases even monasteries wouldn’t be above using literal dogs to get literal snakes. But the snake is also an ambivalent animal as well, since it also plays a role in pest control regarding rodents. Again it seems the Bible is more deeply steeped in things that concern those living in farms, orchards, gardens and the like than one realises, in the same way the ambivalent attitude to dogs makes more sense in the context of both farmers and hunters alike having dogs around for good reason, but will exhibit mistrust when dogs start killing animals on their own. If you have dog owners leaving dogs to their own devices (a stumbling block for their own pets), it would be enough to anger hunters and farmers alike whenever they start killing animals on a bad day. Again both farmers and hunters own dogs themselves, but they wouldn’t be above mistrusting dogs when said dogs kill animals at will. This nuance is lost on those who’re either inexperienced with the matter or show no interest in it either.

There are instances in the Bible and especially the Book of Tobit (only found in certain editions of it like Catholic Bibles) where there’s a sympathetic dog that accompanies Tobit around wherever he goes, just as there’s a passage of Job mentioning that he had dogs at some point. There are also passages that hint at dogs having a more vindictive side (or getting used for vindictive purposes) towards evildoers like Jezebel to the extent they are God’s attack dogs in this regard, just as there are people who deploy dogs to attack intruders of nearly any species imaginable (including humans as well as the usual suspects like rats, snakes and bears). The fact that the prophecy of dogs killing Jezebel also takes place at a vineyard suggests that she’s something of an intruder who attacks His flock who deserves to get killed or whatever, though this also applies to cats in wider Christianity (and lions in the Bible) albeit later on for the former in the sense of both felids inducing ambivalent feelings but only the former is actually domesticated and are used to deal with vermin (even in monasteries, libraries and churches, today and yesterday). Even then it hints a the Bible’s strongly agricultural and pastoralist roots, in nomadic pastoralism shepherds spend a lot of their time moving around. Historically they never had permanent homes, that the idea that Earth is not one’s permanent home makes sense in this context.

A more explicit link between dogs and disobedience is found in Isaiah 56 regarding the tardy watchmen, though it also hints at two overlooked sides to dogs, namely laziness or inactivity and resource guarding/greed. That’s not to say Biblical writers didn’t value dogs at all, but that they’re aware of the odd fact that dogs aren’t always effective at what they’re supposed to do. The study ‘A Dog Is For Hunting‘ makes this association clearer where although the dogs were made to hunt animals, they also do so against their owners’ awareness and are even assumed to be witches’ guises even. That and destroying furniture without the owner knowing it, when it comes to dogs getting taken advantage of by intruders this is something even Ancient Romans have noticed themselves. It seems the way the Bible depicts dogs, upon studying it more deeply, suggests a more complicated portrayal that hints at things like resentment, laziness and the like, both good and bad. It’s kind of easy for people, even myself at some point, to assume Biblical writers dislike dogs when in reality it’s not always the case and moreso when contextualised with one another and other media. It’s not just that dogs eat their own owners, but also the odd possibility of dogs being similarly resentful from being abused.

The Bible kind of hints at good animal treatment, as well as knowing dogs do have a more vindictive or resentful side to their character, especially as evidenced by the dog attack on Jezebel in Jezreel. But even then it seems the way dogs are characterised in the Bible is more complicated than one realises, but one better contextualised in terms of things like animal abuse, farming and ecology.

The oddly agricultural nature of the Bible

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

When it comes to Job admitting he had herding dogs, it does bring up a certain aspect to the Bible that others overlook. Namely that agriculture’s the biggest and most recurring leitmotif around, the link between dogs and agriculture’s brought up again in the passages concerning Jezebel (though it can also be taken as a sign that dogs do harbour resentment from being hurt or wronged by people), that it seems dogs really did have a role in agriculture as well as annoying farmers (and hunters) on a really bad day. The passage describing dogs as mutilators of the flesh is much more literal in the cases concerning dogs attacking livestock, that it does show you how ambivalent dogs really are in the Bible when properly contextualised. (Or cats for another matter in wider Christianity, though their role is paralleled by lions in the Bible.) The case with Jezebel could also be seen as God having attack dogs sent to destroy her, there are farms out there even in China where dogs do attack intruders, both humans and animals alike (if the body of Christ is his flock, then it makes sense why Job had sheepdogs to begin with).

Satan being a snake makes sense in a certain regard or way, even when snakes aren’t always regarded negatively in the Bible (snakes also get used in pest control themselves regarding rodents, same with both cats and dogs), I suspect if it’s prophesised that a woman will attack a snake and Jesus called a certain woman a dog in Matthew 15, then it makes sense that literal dogs would be used to attack snakes themselves. That the word for dog is grammatically feminine in some languages like Oromo and Russian kind of hints at this overlooked association, but one that makes more sense in light of agriculture and pest control. I guess if Satan’s likened to a thief who destroys things, this makes more sense in light of wildlife attacks on livestock or even actual thieves stealing animals just the same really. (This ties with treating animals well, even dogs.) Likewise the passage of Job’s fortunes getting restored after destruction by vermin also hints at regular experiences with them, as it is with me regarding termites and the like, a passage in Isaiah suggests that predatory animals might cease killing prey altogether.

Regarding cats and dogs attacking wildlife that this would be dealt with in a way in the future, that’s by getting them to eat plants instead (one of my cats did this to flowers before). A very unexpected answer to a recurring global problem, in the same way that a certain station (Citi FM) I listen to now airs sermons by another pastor altogether every Sunday from getting the station to play sermons again early this year. Back to the original topic, it’s been said that if the Bible’s written by those living in the Mediterranean and West Asia whose worldview differs from modern America, then it’s logical to assume that many Biblical passages are informed by people’s experiences in the countryside in some way or another. This also makes sense regarding the ambivalence around dogs, where in Germany though hunters own dogs themselves they also shoot dogs whenever they stray or attack wildlife.

Dogs may be used to combat invasive species, but they’re also an invasive species themselves as hinted in a sermon I listened to on the matter before that led me to a study confirming this. (Mind you I had a dog that killed frogs a lot to the point where my father installed fences to minimise this.) Dogs are useful in defending people against wildlife, but they’re also used to destroy it (though at times even among hunters, the recurring phenomenon of dogs attacking wildlife at will is contentious among them), to the extent that dogs are truly mutilators of the flesh in some cases. Not just with humans if Jezebel’s any indication, but also both livestock and wildlife alike. A real wild card animal, on par with lions/cats and snakes in Christianity and the Bible. They’re also implied to be used in guarding premises in the Bible as it is today, even when in the same passage they’re not always effective either (though it also depends on the individual dog), as well as the now overlooked association of dogs with laziness.

That’s not to say all dogs are lazy all the time, but that they spend a good amount of their time resting in some way or another. This gives new meaning to a old phrase called ‘dog-tired’, but this also hints at an earlier association of dogs with laziness. It’s kind of there in the Bible as well, though it can also stand in for disobedience (also hinted at in the Bible). In a sense it also gestures at witchcraft by proxy. That and selfishness or greed when it comes to resource guarding, though the Indian studies actually described urban stray dogs, but even then it’s kind of easy to miss the actual context behind the Biblical depictions of dogs when not properly contextualised. Likewise the Biblical passage of disobedient watchmen being likened to lazy dogs makes more sense when contexuatlised with both Biblical passages found elsewhere and nonfiction media involving lazy dogs at all. Or even why that woman Jesus met was called a dog by Him, that it seems the Bible paints a more complicated picture of dogs that makes more sense in certain contexts like farming, hunting, ecology, linguistics and the like.

The unexpected side of Biblical dogs (and pigeons)

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

When it comes to dogs in the Bible, I feel there’s really more of an ambivalent sentiment to them than one realises, since there are passages that suggest a more practical or sympathetic regard for them, moreseo if one includes the Book of Tobit. The use of dogs to avenge people from the hands of Jezebel can be considered either pragmatic or even sympathetic in a way, if because there are dogs who react badly to people due to being mishandled by them (even by their own owners) in some way or another. Similarly there’s a passage where Job mentions having herding dogs suggest that there were good reasons for having dogs around as it is today, if it’s there in modern Islam and also China too it was also there in Job’s time. The fact that there were companion dogs in the Books of Tobit, Matthew and Luke should also hint at a more ambivalent attitude to dogs in the Bible than one realises, or at least play a wider variety of roles than one realises.

This includes a use of them in farming that if it’s there in China, it was also there in the Bible too but one that deserves more mention in the subject of dogs in the Bible. I feel it’s easier to jump to the conclusion that Biblical writers dislike dogs, especially in popular American discourse, because American culture seems to have a consistently higher regard for dogs than they do. The ambivalent attitude to dogs is more evident in countries like Germany, if it weren’t for the fact that even though hunters do own dogs themselves, they’re not above shooting dogs (or merely distrusting them) on a really bad day whenever they stray and kill animals on their own. America, despite being something of the unofficial epicentre of modern Protestantism at this point, never seems to have that same ambivalence around dogs that’s also found in the Bible. Which is why from my experience frequenting certain Dutch, Swedish and German language websites, though some of them agree with their Anglophone counterparts, others admit or imply that this ambivalence exists in the Bible.

If dogs do play a wider variety of roles in the Bible than one realises, or at least show different sides that even many Christians overlook (such as a potential or use for vengeance against wrongdoers like Jezebel), the pigeon seems unmistakably and consistently positive in the Bible. It seems like the reverse in American culture (German culture not so much to an extent regarding dogs, if because dogs really do illicit a polarising reaction there if it weren’t for the presence of dog haters poisoning dogs and hunters shooting dogs on a bad day) where dogs are highly valued, but pigeons seem to be despised. A kind of weird irony considering that the pigeon is the animal also used to symbolise the Holy Spirit (the third aspect of God, the first is Him as the Father and the second is Him as the Son), where America does seem to have more professing Christians than Germany does. (Germany really isn’t that irreligious if you know where to look online.) Even if not all Germans, religious or not, despise or distrust dogs themselves, but American culture is rather weird from a Biblical perspective.

Pigeons in the Bible did serve certain uses, whether ceremonial or practical, where they symbolise hope after judgement in Genesis, religious sacrifices in both Luke and Genesis, and pigeons turning out to have good direction as proven by science. Pigeons were even used to carry messages, in the sense that if the Holy Spirit appears as a dove, maybe God would still message people in this way. It would be tempting to think that the devaluation of pigeons in the west went hand in hand with secularisation, but Germany also got secularised and either it still has the same ambivalence around dogs as in the Bible, or it’s still nowhere as consistently or largely positive as in America. In a Biblical sense, America is a very weird country. It has the Global North’s largest number of professing Christians, but pigeons (being a symbol of the Holy Spirit) are largely despised and seen as pests, dogs seem to be nearly universally venerated there in a way they aren’t in Germany if it weren’t for dog poisoners and hunters shooting dogs there. If dogs are associated with witchcraft and witchcraft’s linked to rebellion, with America being a rebellious country it might explain certain things.

Though pigeons were used to carry messages in some way or another as in the Bible, it seems America doesn’t seem to have a high regard for them anymore, despite the fact that America has the Global North’s largest number of professing Christians, making this a terrible irony in hindsight.

The surprising side of Biblical dogs

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

The most common discourse over the way dogs are portrayed in the Bible is the presumption that Biblical writers deeply distrust dogs, even when there are instances in both the Old Testament and New Testament as well as deuterocanonical books like Tobit that suggest otherwise. A far less commonly talked about matter is the use of dogs in shepherding, which is stated by Job himself at some point in his life. The literal use of dogs in shepherding is still around in West Asia, which is majority Muslim at this point, and it should be noted that Islam does permit owning dogs within reason. To the extent that West Asian cultures have a habit of using dogs in hunting game as well as guarding and shepherding, whereas East Asian Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia have a habit of using dogs to do pest control. The ‘Dominicans ‘are God’s dogs and I said before that if God is dog spelt backwards in light of dogs also having a vindictive side towards those who wronged or hurt them, then it seems the Bible’s attitude to dogs doesn’t seem that consistently negative or antipathetic.

Or perhaps understandable in a way when it comes to Jezebel angering God and hurting His people, that maybe in using dogs to take on her, He knows that they have a rather vindictive or vengeful side that may come in handy in here. In the case with using dogs in herding the flock, it’s still the case in other countries to this day that perhaps the Bible’s attitude to dogs isn’t that consistently negative. In countries like Iran and Turkey, it’s pretty much the same thing as it is with their Arab counterparts. But if the Bible is understood to be a book with portions of it written somewhere in West Asia (especially the Old Testament), then it makes sense that somebody like Job would have dogs for shepherding, like modern day Arabs, Iranians and Turks do. Or for another matter, those in Turkmenistan and even Nigeria do. Nigeria may have a substantial Christian community at this point, but it also has a substantial Muslim community to the North as well.

But that comes with an odder realisation that farming and pastoralism (which the word pastor is related and in some languages, it actually means shepherd) plays a far bigger role in the Bible and likely Christianity to an extent than one realises. Which also includes the use of dogs (and cats) in things like pest control (especially the latter to a big extent, though the former is also extensively used for this even in monasteries) and herding (the former particularly so), that the idea of God as the Good Shepherd makes more sense in this regard. Hunting may not be that explicitly maligned in the Bible (in my opinion), but it’s either something of an afterthought or only condoned on certain conditions. The monks from Mount Athos have been noted to raise their own crops, some Russian monks also do the same or similar things themselves as well. If there’s talk of Biblical statements getting divorced from their West Asian and Mediterranean roots in American Christianity, then there should be talk of Biblical statements getting divorced from their horticultural and agricultural roots as well.

(That and dogs attacking livestock, which makes the whole mutilators of the flesh passage much more literal here.)

This even shows up in the Bible a lot, moreso with things like workers in the vineyard, Naboth’s vineyard and the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few, that it seems parsimonious to think that agriculture and horticulture play bigger roles in the Bible than one realises. There’s also an argument brought up that the Garden of Eden may’ve been based on fruit orchards and forests found in Kazakhstan and the like instead, which means farming is a much bigger leitmotif in the Bible than one realises. The Bible also mentions wool and some animals like sheep and goats have been used for wool, even if you exclude wool from the equation farming things for fabrics would still exist when it comes to linen (which is also mentioned in the Bible). Genesis 3 has Adam and Eve wearing fur garments to literally cover up their shame, it should be noted that fur farming is a very contentious discipline of farming. But in a way the Bible’s still about farming in some way or another. That the Bible might be right when it comes to a possible Garden of Eden somewhere in the Eurasian continent, but in a way that suggests the Bible’s deep basis in horticulture and agriculture.

Whether if it includes fur farming in a way in Genesis 3 (also called the first book of Moses 3 in some languages*), that it seems the shadow of farming looms larger and deeper in the Bible than one realises, not just with literal shepherds like King David and figurative ones like Jesus Christ, but one that deeply informs Christianity in some regards. The fact that dogs seem to induce a very polarising or ambivalent sentiment among both European hunters and farmers a lot, in that though they are used extensively by them to do things like hunting game and guarding livestock, but on their own they kill animals for the worse is close to the way they’re written in the Bible. That kind of ambivalence would be missed out if not properly contextualised in things like farming, shepherding as with Job, pest control (with cats or dogs), witchcraft (also there in a way in the Bible), revenge (there as well), predation (there as well in a way) and companionship (the Books of Tobit, Matthew and Luke have this as well).

*In the same way the Book of James is also known as the Book of Jacob in some languages or the Book of Jude is the Book of Judas, that the James in the New Testament is really another Jacob who’s the son of another Joseph this time, reversed from their Old Testament counterparts with a Joseph who’s the son of a Jacob.

The retributive side of Biblical dogs

~ nightseid ~ Leave a comment

The fact that dogs were used as instruments of divine retribution in the Bible should also point out to the other side of dogs, especially after they’ve been wronged or hurt even by those they’re been raised with (in a way), that it can’t just be assumed Biblical writers dislike dogs when there are passages that suggest otherwise. But more of an acknowledge that dogs do hold grudges from being wronged or hurt by others, or at least the possibility of dogs acting this way because of the way they’re raised, that this is one topic not many Christians openly discuss. One is that their idea of dogs at this point is heavily influenced by contemporary secular culture, rather than a stronger understanding of how and why would God use dogs to take on Jezebel and not some other animal. Two or the other is that a number of Christians are Biblically illiterate, jumping to the conclusion that Biblical writers hate dogs even when it’s not always the case in other passages in some contexts like shepherding or helping others out or even being merely pets.

This grows somewhat if you include the Book of Tobit where you have another dog that helps somebody out, but in general Christianity as it is in the Bible, dogs seem to be rather ambivalent animals that depending on the circumstance and usage they’re either pets of the faithful or pets of the rebellious as in Revelation 22. (This also goes both cats and lions in a way too.) An even less commonly talked about matter is the vindictive side of dogs, where in this context it does make sense for God to use dogs against Jezebel to avenge His people. So in a sense dogs do hold grudges or a lingering mistrust of others from being wronged or bothered in some way, that recontextualises the passages concerning both Jezebel and dogs. Especially if they live long enough to bear a grudge against those who’ve wronged them, that it’s possible God does empathise with dogs on some level. Or at least willing to take advantage of a certain side of them to avenge what’s been done to his people, if Jezebel’s sins are any indication. In the sense that dogs do get hurt and will fight back inevitably, something God Himself also feels.

It’s one thing to assume God uses evil for good, it’s another to realise a certain side to dogs that goes beyond popular understanding, even those of Christians.