Animal Intelligence

[Jon_S_1]

I disagree.

Jon S, I believe I told you to try coming back as a male chick in an egg producing plant. Or would you rather have been one of Michael Vick’s dogs? Perhaps a sow in a gestation crate? A circus elephant beaten with a bullhook? Which one?

I see no conflict at all. Scripture tells of God giving man food sources. Did Adam, Noah, Moses, and Aaron know about proteins, carbohydrates and fats back then? Vitamins and minerals? No. They ate what they had. They were not biochemists. They were incapable of forming a vegan diet providing all nutrients that are necessary for a healthy life. Did they have man-made alternatives to leather and fur? No. They wore what they had. I see no problems with what I believe.

Do you expect me to believe you think only animals suffer atrocities in this world.

What about the babies dismembered in the womb.

What about children born in war zones.

Animal cruelty has nothing to do with the argument as I could have been born in a horrible place as a human.

It doesn’t change the fact that humans must choose God to go to heaven and according to you, animals get a free ride.

 

[thistle]

I disagree.

I am asking for the umpteenth time: Where is it written in Church teaching that animals do not have immortal souls? If it is not in writing, on what does the Catholic Church base its teaching? If you can’t or won’t answer these questions, you may as well not post at all.

I was the one that pointed this passage out to you; however you choose to ignore the words that I had highlighted to you previously. The fact that you post this paragraph after I have already made note of it tells me 1) you are not reading my comments at all and 2) you have no idea what is going on in the food farming industry and the world of “research”. I am not bound to agree with incorrect interpretations of Church teaching.

That animals do not have immortal souls is not written anywhere in Church teaching. If it is, please point it out to me. And like I said earlier, on what does the Church base this teaching? If you cannot or will not answer these questions, you may as well not post at all. And for you to accuse me of sin is the height of impertinence.

I totally reject any teaching that says that animals and plants have no expectation of eternal life. As far as CCC 2417, I totally reject incorrect interpretations of it. Though 2417 says it’s “legitimate” to use animals for food and clothing, I am not bound in any way, shape or form to do so.

Why don’t you just quote the parts that answer my earlier questions?

What is obvious here is that anyone who disagrees with you on anything must be wrong! I forgot that only your interpretations of the CCC are correct and we are all in error.
Others, including myself, have provided support for our arguments. You have provided none.
The Church teaches that humans are ordered to a supernatural end. If animals were likewise it would teach that. It doesn’t because we are singled out as having immortal souls.

As for the teaching on being allowed to use them for food and clothing and also perform medical and scientific experiments on animals as per CCC 2417 you are certainly right that you do not personally have to do any of these things but that doesn’t answer my question. Do you accept the Church teaching (CCC 2417) that these things are allowed to be done?

By the way if you read my post carefully you would see I I did not accuse you of committing a sin. I worded what I said very carefully. I cannot say if you have sinned or not. Only you can. I simply made a statement of fact that anyone who rejects a Church teaching commits a sin.

I cannot provide you with extracts from the book Theology For Beginners because the topic of the different souls covers several pages and I only have a hard copy. It has to be read in whole (I mean the topic of souls and not the whole book although the whole book is excellent).

 

[NeedsMercy]

Do you expect me to believe you think only animals suffer atrocities in this world.

I didn’t say that. You seem to think that all animals have such a great life. I don’t know from whence you got that idea, because it’s simply not true. Furthermore, they are not suffering because of **their **sins—of which they are incapable—but because of **our **sins, original and the rest. Doesn’t seem quite fair does it?

What about the babies dismembered in the womb.

What about children born in war zones.

What about them?

Animal cruelty has nothing to do with the argument as I could have been born in a horrible place as a human.

You are the one that keeps bringing up the idea that animals have such a great life. Animals are neglected, tortured and murdered in this life. Do you deny that animal cruelty exists?

It doesn’t change the fact that humans must choose God to go to heaven and according to you, animals get a free ride.

Yes, humans must choose God. Is that incorrect?

Now let’s talk about that “free ride”. You’ve got a real problem going on there don’t you, Jon S! You’re jealous of animals going to Heaven! Good grief, man! Get a grip!

 

[NeedsMercy]

What is obvious here is that anyone who disagrees with you on anything must be wrong! I forgot that only your interpretations of the CCC are correct and we are all in error.

I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.

Others, including myself, have provided support for our arguments. You have provided none.

I have been asking and asking for 1) the place in writing where the Catholic Church says that animals and plants do not have immortal souls and 2) if the so-called teaching is not in writing, on what has the Church based this “teaching”. As of yet, no one–including you—has answered the questions. I can only infer that you can’t. I have a quote from Jesus saying that the Father does not forget the sparrows. Have you provided proof to the opposite? No, you have not.

The Church teaches that humans are ordered to a supernatural end. If animals were likewise it would teach that. It doesn’t because we are singled out as having immortal souls.

Since the Church doesn’t say whether or not animals have souls, then it follows that they don’t? Hate to say it, but there’s something seriously flawed with that kind of logic. The Church doesn’t teach it because we are “singled out”? Ok, I’ll bite, where does it say that?

As for the teaching on being allowed to use them for food and clothing and also perform medical and scientific experiments on animals as per CCC 2417 you are certainly right that you do not personally have to do any of these things but that doesn’t answer my question. Do you accept the Church teaching (CCC 2417) that these things are allowed to be done?

I accept that medical and scientific experimentation is allowed to be done but only** “if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.”** I know you would prefer that the CCC didn’t say that, but it does. And again, most experimentation today does not conform to the CCC’s guidelines. It is cruel and useless.

The use of animals and plants for food is considered to be “legitimate”; however, CCC 2418 also says:

It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

Since most animal food production is done on a grand scale, and since the animal food producing industries are guilty of wide-spread cruelty, most animal products, that is, meat, dairy and eggs, are the products of suffering and cruelty. This is expressly forbidden by CCC 2418.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You refuse to answer the question.

Which animals are allowed by you to be killed. And how do you decide.

Using insecticide to kill the termites in your house is genocide to you correct?

 

[thistle]

I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.

I have been asking and asking for 1) the place in writing where the Catholic Church says that animals and plants do not have immortal souls and 2) if the so-called teaching is not in writing, on what has the Church based this “teaching”. As of yet, no one–including you—has answered the questions. I can only infer that you can’t. I have a quote from Jesus saying that the Father does not forget the sparrows. Have you provided proof to the opposite? No, you have not.

Since the Church doesn’t say whether or not animals have souls, then it follows that they don’t? Hate to say it, but there’s something seriously flawed with that kind of logic. The Church doesn’t teach it because we are “singled out”? Ok, I’ll bite, where does it say that?

I accept that medical and scientific experimentation is allowed to be done but only** “if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.”** I know you would prefer that the CCC didn’t say that, but it does. And again, most experimentation today does not conform to the CCC’s guidelines. It is cruel and useless.

The use of animals and plants for food is considered to be “legitimate”; however, CCC 2418 also says:

**Since most animal food production is done on a grand scale, and since the animal food producing industries are guilty of wide-spread cruelty, most animal products, that is, meat, dairy and eggs, are the products of suffering and cruelty. ** This is expressly forbidden by CCC 2418.

Again I ask how you know that. It is sheer speculation unless you have personally been to all the places you are accusing!

 

[NeedsMercy]

You refuse to answer the question.

Which animals are allowed by you to be killed. And how do you decide.

Using insecticide to kill the termites in your house is genocide to you correct?

If you ask an intelligent, non-sarcastic question, I will answer it.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Again I ask how you know that. It is sheer speculation unless you have personally been to all the places you are accusing!

If you want, I will send you videos. I want to warn you, however, that they are extremely graphic.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If you ask an intelligent, non-sarcastic question, I will answer it.

This is a serious question! Seriously!

You said hunting food is immoral, but most of your railings are against factory farms.

So can I kill any animal for food? Snakes?

Do you consider reptiles and insects animals?

How do I, if I want to follow your position determine what animals can be killed and which can’t.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If you want, I will send you videos. I want to warn you, however, that they are extremely graphic.

It still would not prove that “all” or the “vast majority” are treated that way.

I have been on the kill floor of the Farmer John slaughterhouse. They kill 3000 pigs a day. They are extremely humane. They even have a procedure to ensure the pigs do not feel pain.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You also did not answer any of my Bible verses in post 88.

 

[NeedsMercy]

This is a serious question! Seriously!

You said hunting food is immoral, but most of your railings are against factory farms.

So can I kill any animal for food? Snakes?

Do you consider reptiles and insects animals?

How do I, if I want to follow your position determine what animals can be killed and which can’t.

I believe I said that sport hunting was an abomination.

If you absolutely need to kill an animal for food, the Catholic Church allows it, provided you do not cause animals to suffer, or die needlessly. (CCC 2418)

Since you don’t know what “animals” are, here is the definition:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal

In your last sentence, what “position” of mine are you talking about?

 

[NeedsMercy]

You also did not answer any of my Bible verses in post 88.

I addressed the quotes in my post #98. Was there a supplementary list of questions? Must have missed it…

 

[NeedsMercy]

It still would not prove that “all” or the “vast majority” are treated that way.

I have been on the kill floor of the Farmer John slaughterhouse. They kill 3000 pigs a day. They are extremely humane. They even have a procedure to ensure the pigs do not feel pain.

Ahhh, NOW I know where you are coming from!!!

I did not use the words “all” or “vast majority”.

I’ll just have to research “Farmer John” now, won’t I?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe I said that sport hunting was an abomination.

If you absolutely need to kill an animal for food, the Catholic Church allows it, provided you do not cause animals to suffer, or die needlessly. (CCC 2418)

Since you don’t know what “animals” are, here is the definition:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal

In your last sentence, what “position” of mine are you talking about?

No I do know what animals are. “Anything in the family Animalia”

1 : any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation 2 a : one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings b : mammal ; broadly : vertebrate 3 : a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational ; also : this nature 4 : a person with a particular interest or aptitude 5 : matter, thing <the theater … is an entirely different animal — Arthur Miller> ; also : creature 1c

So again I ask where do we draw the line?

Can you kill amoebas?

You keep saying Reductio ad absurdum for my arguments.

This however proves my position not yours. It means your argument is absurd when we logically follow it and thus your argument is illogical.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I addressed the quotes in my post #98. Was there a supplementary list of questions? Must have missed it…

Yeah, you missed responding to the many Bible verses presented to you in post 88.

I hope to see you address them.

 

[phil19034]

This chain is getting out of hand. May I suggest you simply agree to disagree and drop it.

Christ would not approve of this back and forth arguing.

God Bless.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Ahhh, NOW I know where you are coming from!!!

I did not use the words “all” or “vast majority”.

I’ll just have to research “Farmer John” now, won’t I?

Farmer John is owned by Hormel Foods.

Responsible Animal Care

Producing the highest quality brand-name foods and meat products for consumers throughout the world starts with industry-leading animal care practices. For 121 years, Hormel Foods has focused on treating animals humanely, simply because it is the right thing to do.
We base our animal husbandry practices on the best scientific data available, new technologies and hands-on experience. The combination of these factors allows us to have a consistent, successful and measurable animal care program. Throughout this section of the report, we describe our commitment to responsible practices and policies related to animal care for hogs and turkeys. Hormel Foods believes that animal care and employee safety are non-competitive issues and we are always willing to share our best practices with our suppliers; however the company does not dictate what systems our independent producers use to operate on their farms.

• See more at: 2011csr.hormelfoods.com/process/animal-care/#sthash.mVVkEC76.dpuf

 

[NeedsMercy]

This chain is getting out of hand. May I suggest you simply agree to disagree and drop it.

Christ would not approve of this back and forth arguing.

God Bless.

Bless, you, Phil. It is. I apologize for letting it get so out of hand. It anyone really needs to argue with me, they can shoot me a PM.

 

[thistle]

If you want, I will send you videos. I want to warn you, however, that they are extremely graphic.

Yes please. Send me videos of every lab in the world, every slaughterhouse in the world and every place animals are raised because sending one or two videos does not make it apply to everywhere. You are making generalisations which cannot be backed up.