It reinforces the tragic, inherently immoral idea of fish being a commodity, that can be exploited for our use; and since Christians believes that a “fisher of men” is a good thing, every time the expression is used it reinforces the tragic idea that it is a good thing to be a fisher. Why would you ever use an expression that implies the murder of a fish (‘fisher’)?
I don’t think the historical Jesus would have used speciecist expressions, him being a vegan: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/historical-jesus-was-vegan-didnt-eat.html
What do you say?
My reply to a Christian person:
I think the historical Jesus was a wonderful vegan man who stood up against all violence against humans and nonhumans, and that this got him killed.But I think the Bible is a mix of redactions and authentic teachings of Jesus.
The Bible is full of speciecism. It also approves of other immoral practices, e.g. slavery, claimed mass-killings of Kanaanites and the great amount of killings (including sacrifices) of our Creators other sapient creations - His beloved animals.
The Bible is inspired by humans that were heavily influenced by the culture of animal slavery that they participated in, thus you find justifications of enslaving animals in the Bible, both in Old Testament, and also in the gospels and in the teachings of Paul. The Bible is written by humans and thus influenced by preconceived human ideas. I studied the Bible extensively first as a Christian for 6 years, and later as a follower of Torah for 5 years. Left my later beliefs last autumn, one reason being that I realized that hurting and killing animals is unethical.
If you want to learn some scholarship about the Bible, I recommend: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
So what guidelines do you use to filter away the unethical practices of the Bible, from the ethical practices?