Old Yeller in Paradise

[nobody]

batteddy:

It is not the animals who are truly the victims or suffer the results,

The CCC just said “animals suffer”. Are you debating this?

Also, I’m sure you read in the CCC:
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

Have you ever seen an animal die (in real life, not on tv)? Did it not tug at your heart and make you sad?

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

First, there is generally a difference seen between Original Innocence, and the state of mankind after the Second Coming.

I fully understand that Adam in Eve were created in a state of Original Innocence, and that in that state they did not behold the beatific vision (if they had, it would have been impossible for them to sin). Adam and Eve they were predestined by God for a state of glory greater than that which they possessed in the state of Original Justice - they were predestined to be fully divinized through the incarnate Word by partaking in the divine nature of God through the incarnate Word. The souls AND the bodies of all humans were predestined by God for an even greater glory than the state of Original Justice - a glory that would be received by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.

What you are ignoring is that the Catechism teaches that Adam and Eve’s sin had more than just consequences for human beings. Original sin didn’t just bring the bondage of decay to Adam and Eve and their progeny, their sin degraded the whole universe and brought ALL creation under the bondage of decay. Animals that weren’t under the bondage of decay before the Fall came under that bondage when Adam sinned. Adam’s sin brought death into the world. **Catechism of the Catholic Church

Man’s first sin

397** Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.

… Aquinas admits that after the transition to glory (in our case at the second coming) there would indeed be no more decay. And how would this happen? By the absence of mixed bodies. By the breaking down of all combinations of matter (except the human body united to the human soul) into their basic, incorruptible constituents. Indeed he saw there as being no more decay, but it was not because animals would not die…but rather because there would be no more animals, because he sees animals as Naturally corruptible!

You have already said that Aquinas believed that man was naturally corruptible, and that it is only because of the preternatural gift of bodily immortality that man did not die. I have no problem with that. Unfortunately for Aquinas, scripture does not support his assertion that animals will not be set free from the bondage of decay. Paul said that ALL creation is groaning to be set free from the bondage of decay (and certainly the higher animals are doing the loudest of that groaning), and Paul infallibly teaches that at the Second Coming of Christ that ALL creation will be set free from its bondage to decay.

The saints are going to possess glorified bodies - real physical bodies - and they will be dwelling in a physical place with plants and animals. But the corruption of Death will not touch anything in the new creation. Neither plants nor animals will die in the new creation.

Animals will be immortal after the restoration of creation to its original state because their bodies will no longer be composed of corruptible elements.

But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.

For whom is it unreasonable that the lion should eat straw? Not for God! The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isaiah 11:7

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

It is not that animals suffering is intrinsically bad, it happens in the wild all the time…even in Eden…and was good. Things eat things, end of story.

Nature is “red in tooth and claw” in the Fallen world that is corrupted by sin, no doubt about that. But when the creation is restored to its original state, the lion will once again eat straw like the ox.

Animal suffering is NOT, as you are arguing, intrinsically GOOD. Animals suffer because Adam’s sin brought them that suffering.

If animal suffering is intrinsically good, then man cannot sin by taking delight in watching animals suffer the pain of death.

 

[nobody]

batteddy:

BUT to cause it needlessly, for some sick pleasure, degrades the HUMAN, not the animal.

The last 2 popes, at least, would disagree with you on this.

“Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the realtionship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.” - Pope Benedect XVI
**
**
Note that he said “degrading of living creatures”, not degrading of the humans that caused it.

I found the article here, though you can find it many places:

animalrightsmalta.com/pope.html

 

[batteddy]

Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.

No, you’re interpretting this wrong. See, it say it is man’s harmony with creation which has been broken. It has become alien and hostile to us. But this is a problem on OUR end of the line, not creation’s. What decay is creation subject to? OURS.

And since creation was then serving things with a natural destiny, instead of a supernatural destiny, its dignity was lowered…but only subjectively, inasmuch as it was meant to serve US and WE fell, so its purpose and end had been lowered.

As for the Popes, John Paul II said in his apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris:

It is obvious that pain, especially physical pain, is widespread in the animal world. But only the suffering human being knows that he is suffering

Animals do not have rational souls. They are not conscious, or at least are not conscious of their consciousness, or conscious of their consciousness of their consciousness, etc. They are like organic robots, not created in the image of God like Man and the Angels. They can have pain, but their is no irreducible Self to ultimately “feel” that pain. It is just a bio-chemical reaction in their nervous systems. A command line in the neural computer program that makes up the animal brain, causing a certain mechanical reaction in their bodies. They are one of the most complex and beautiful creations of God, but they are not self-aware, they are not conscious anymore than a computer. They are still in the category of “things” not persons.

Have you ever seen an animal die (in real life, not on tv)? Did it not tug at your heart and make you sad?

Yes. My dog had breast cancer. One morning, when we were all having breakfast, she came to us, vomited up a bunch of blood, and died. Was I sad, sure, of course, but emotions are not the judge of right and wrong. And I knew that she was made of what stars are made of and was going to go on to become parts of trees, and other plants, and other animals. Someday some of that matter which for a time made up my dog might have the dignity of finding its way into a baptismal font and being the instrument bringing someone to eternal salvation, or being absorbed by some wheat, made into a host, and transubstantiated into God Himself.

My point is, cartoon dogs can die too. And dog’s acting in movies. And animatronic dogs can die. And all of this can tug at our heartstrings. But there is nothing intrinsically bad about any of these things. You are too sentimentally attatched to these animals. Its just matter shifting from one form to another. Organic robots breaking down, who never had a conscious immortal soul, going on in the circle of life to become something else. And its okay, its good.

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

No, you’re interpretting this wrong.

I don’t believe that I am not interpreting this wrong. It is true that the problem is "on OUR end of the line, not creation’s”. It is certainly not creation’s fault that it has been subjected to futility, and that it is now hostile to man. Adam’s sin is the cause of that hostility.

But you are still asserting that creation was subject to the bondage of decay even *before * the Fall, which is clearly not what the Catechism is teaching.

Man was once above creation, but because Adam made the terrible choice for the created above the Creator, man is now subject to creation. When Adam chose disobedience to God, he didn’t free himself from God, he enslaved himself to Satan. Creation which was once under man’s dominion now came under the dominion of man’s new master, Satan. Creation became alien and hostile to man because creation’s new master is alien and hostile to man.

The doctrine of the Redemption involves more than Christ purchasing man from Satan; Redemption also involves freeing creation from Death.

[Animals] are one of the most complex and beautiful creations of God, but they are not self-aware, they are not conscious anymore than a computer.

What makes you believe that the higher primates are not self-aware? A scientist once painted a mark on the head of a chimp when the chimp was asleep. When the chimp awoke and looked at himself in the mirror, he tried to rub the paint off his head. The chimp’s response showed that he was aware that the reflection of in the mirror was a reflection of himself.

There have also been experiments with dolphins that indicate that they are self-aware. To assert that dolphins and chimps are no more self-aware of themselves than a toaster oven seems unbelievable.

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

As for the Popes, John Paul II said in his apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris: “It is obvious that pain, especially physical pain, is widespread in the animal world. But only the suffering human being knows that he is suffering …”

Let us look at this quote from Salvifici Doloris in its context:It is obvious that pain, especially physical pain, is widespread in the animal world. But only the suffering human being knows that he is suffering and wonders why; and he suffers in a humanly speaking still deeper way if he does not find a satisfactory answer. This is a difficult question, just as is a question closely akin to it, the question of evil. Why does evil exist?Why is Pope John Paul II linking human suffering with the knowledge of evil? Because earlier in this letter he wrote: Even though Paul, in the Letter to the Romans, wrote that “the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now”(3), even though man knows and is close to the sufferings of the animal world, nevertheless what we express by the word “suffering” seems to be particularly essential to the nature of man. … Man suffers in different ways, ways not always considered by medicine, not even in its most advanced specializations. Suffering is something which is still wider than sickness, more complex and at the same time still more deeply rooted in humanity itself. A certain idea of this problem comes to us from the distinction between physical suffering and moral suffering. This distinction is based upon the double dimension of the human being and indicates the bodily and spiritual element as the immediate or direct subject of suffering. Insofar as the words “suffering” and “pain”, can, up to a certain degree, be used as synonyms, physical suffering is present when “the body is hurting” in some way, whereas moral suffering is “pain of the soul”. Pope John Paul is not suggesting that animals cannot feel physical suffering (pain). What he is saying is that man can feel the suffering that is both physical AND moral. Since animals have no knowledge of the moral law, their suffering can only be the suffering of physical pain, and not the spiritual suffering that angels and men can know.

Nowhere is Pope John Paul II teaching that the physical suffering of animals is intrinsically good, as you keep asserting.

 

[batteddy]

What makes you believe that the higher primates are not self-aware? A scientist once painted a mark on the head of a chimp when the chimp was asleep. When the chimp awoke and looked at himself in the mirror, he tried to rub the paint off his head. The chimp’s response showed that he was aware that the reflection of in the mirror was a reflection of himself.

This is not what I meant by self-aware. True self-consciousness cannot be tested by any scientific means. A robot could someday be programmed which would recognize itself in the mirror based on a series of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut tests and corresponding reaction functions.

What I am talking about is irreducible self-knowledge that cannot be explained physically because it would require infinitely discreet particles or else an infinite ammount of matter. Only a spiritual soul can explain it, only personal experience of it in oneself can convince one of it, and nothing but faith can prove its existence in other beings.

Take the square pictured below as one’s “plane of consciousness” for example. It is the “stage” containing everything you are conscious of (represented by the colored dots in the various compartments):

http://www.geocities.com/mistereanonymous/untitled.bmp

BUT in order to truly be conscious of these things, you must be conscious of your consciousness of them. To truly see something, you must see your sight of it…otherwise, you are just like a video camera which records the images in the brain, and isn’t necessarily truly conscious of your consciousness. So your consciousness itself must be a formal object (the primary object in fact) of your consciousness in order for it to be true self-consciousness:

http://www.geocities.com/mistereanonymous/untitled2.bmp
BUT in order for this self-referencing of your consciousness to truly represent your consciousness, it must contain the consciousness of your consciousness, in order to truly be consciousness of your consciousness so…:
http://www.geocities.com/mistereanonymous/untitled3.bmp
As you can see, this cycle must continue infinitely, because now to be truly conscious of your consciousness, truly self-aware, your consciousness of your consciousness will have to contain your consciousness of your consciousness which must contain your consciousness of your consciousness etc, in an infinitely long recursive loop…

And matter alone cannot explain this “self-seeing eye” of the soul. Its like a camera filming the screen which it is transmitting too…there are just smaller and smaller TV’s, until the quality gets totally diluted to the restrictions of pixels and even photons. But our self-consciousness does not “decrease in quality” as it deepens, it is absolutely simple and irreducible, as only spirit in the image of God could be.

But this soul at the core of our being does not do anything that material observations alone can testify too. And yet you know that your consciousness itself is always a formal object of your consciousness, the primary object in fact…and yet this is impossible with mere finite matter.

No robot or animal could ever do this. Robots and animals with enough programming or neural modification could someday do everything we are able to do. We could simply create a computer that perfectly copies the human brain’s neural circuitry, replacing free will (another function only possible with the soul) with a complex “yes/no” generating algorithm, and it could do everything which we can do observably and perfectly imitate observable human behavior. But it would NEVER truly be self-conscious for the “fractal” explanation given above. True consciousness of one’s consciousness would require infinite matter, infinite continuing divisions of discreet particles, or infinite time, none of which is required for our self-consciousness, because we have irreducible souls.

No scientific test can test this metaphysical ability. Only faith can let one know that anything outside oneself has a rational soul. And the Catholic Faith teaches that animals do not.

 

[JimG]

Animals can be conscious, but only man is conscious of his consciousness.

Animals can be aware, but only man can reflect upon his awareness.

It is this final extension of consciousness back upon itself that allows us to form abstract ideas. And that requires a soul that is also a spirit, i.e. non-material.

 

[batteddy]

Exactly.

It allows us to be conscious of universal, abstract, simple ideas… instead of just rough imitations of such based on a series of discreet concrete rules or qualifications.

A computer could never know “circle” as a simple abstract idea. It could have a set of rules making it measure “is every point on this object the same distance from it center” in order to determine whether something is a circle, and even more complex programming could even have it deduce things from the concrete properties of circles and even someday perhaps imitate human discourses on the circle, but it would never truly “know” the “abstract idea” of “Circle” in the Platonic sense.

Consciousness is only true consciousness when it includes itself. Pain is only really bad when we are actually conscious of our consciousness of it etc. Otherwise it is just a particular electrical firing in the brains and biochemical reaction no different than a computer working. It is having an irreducible “Self” to actually “feel” and be conscious of the pain that makes it truly suffering. Otherwise its just a particular interplay of matter.

PS. the pictures dont seem to be working on my computer right now…but they were, and should be again soon. This has happened before when I’ve uploaded pictures, and they’ve always shown up again soon enough.

 

[batteddy]

“The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information.
Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later.”

I apparently uploaded too much at once to my site. So the pictures should be up within an hour. So if your are up this late, please be patient…the pictures are really much more illustrative than my ramblings…and if you are a moderator, please don’t delete them. They should be up within the hour, according to my site.

 

[nobody]

This thread is about animal suffering and whether it is intrinsically good or bad.

You said you have seen your own dog die, and it made you sad. (By your description of it, I would guess you were around 7-11 years old when it happened.) Perhaps someday you will see an animal you never saw before die. My guess is that will make you sad (it makes me sad). And I/you will not be sad not because we will miss the animal (we never saw it before).

I think this sadness comes from the goodness and sympathy inside of us. I don’t think this sadness comes from our “fallen nature”. This is why I can not imagine animals suffering in paradise.

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

It is not that animals suffering is intrinsically bad, it happens in the wild all the time…even in Eden…and was good. Things eat things, end of story.

ComradeAndrei:

So, what do you think about killing animals for food?

JimG:

Maybe meat was not eaten in Eden.

Mr. Bean:

… a friend of mine who is a Christian (methodist) is a vegitarain because she believes that in Eden meat was not eaten, only plant life that could regrow itself.

Scriptures teach that in Eden, man and all the animals ate plants for food. God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.
Gen 1:29-30When creation is restored, the lion will eat green plants for food once again.

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

Even St. Francis welcomed Sister Bodily Death, because it is naturally good. Humans were not meant to die, but death itself is still good and beautiful taken simply in and of itself, because it exists, and all that exists is good because it is of God.

Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.
CCC 1008
St. Francis of Assisi’s quote about “sister bodily Death” is mentioned in the CCC in this section: **Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 11
“I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY”

**Death **

1006** “It is in regard to death that man’s condition is most shrouded in doubt.” In a sense bodily death is natural, but for faith it is in fact “the wages of sin.” For those who die in Christ’s grace it is a participation in the death of the Lord, so that they can also share his Resurrection.

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.

1009 Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will. The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing.

1014 The Church encourages us to prepare ourselves for the hour of our death. In the ancient litany of the saints, for instance, she has us pray: “From a sudden and unforeseen death, deliver us, O Lord”; to ask the Mother of God to intercede for us “at the hour of our death” in the Hail Mary; and to entrust ourselves to St. Joseph, the patron of a happy death.

Every action of yours, every thought, should be those of one who expects to die before the day is out. Death would have no great terrors for you if you had a quiet conscience. . . . Then why not keep clear of sin instead of running away from death? If you aren’t fit to face death today, it’s very unlikely you will be tomorrow. . . .[589]

Praised are you, my Lord, for our sister bodily Death,
from whom no living man can escape.
Woe on those who will die in mortal sin!
Blessed are they who will be found
in your most holy will,
for the second death will not harm them.[590]
589 The Imitation of Christ,1,23,1.
590 St. Francis of Assisi, Canticle of the Creatures.​

 

[LSK]

I am not as smart as the people on this thread. First of all, I do not understand why it is considered silly and foolish to feel grief because something I loved died. I am far too simple and stupid to understand why that is foolish. When my beloved pet, Roddy MacDuff, died on October 20, I cried because he was a part of the process that lead me back to the Holy Mother Church. As a creature of God, he was a gift from my Creator. Loving Roddy allowed me to see that I was capable of love, a love that grew to include people and later my Creator. Love for my Creator lead me back fully to the Church. When Roddy died, I cried and I felt grief.

Oftentimes, I read the posts by the OP and others and I see such glee in trying to trip people up on theology. I don’t understand this underlying anger. I am a Catholic. I am, today, an Obedient Daughter of the Holy Mother Church. I feel, today, and whether those feelings are joy or sorrow I am so very glad that Jesus imparted a message to St. Faustina …a message which was for me to trust Him enough to bring all of me to Him and not be afraid. No matter what I am feeling, no matter how foolish it may appear to be to others (even to my fellow Catholics) it is not foolish to Him, and I am so very glad of that because if I had had to turn to any of you when I said good bye to the little Scottish Terrier that helped lead me back to the Holy Mother Church I would have been told my tears meant I was foolish and silly. I would have cried alone.

The message of the Catechism is that I have an eternal soul, my pets do not. I accept that teaching. I also know that nothing is impossible with God and that God used one of His creatures to bring this lost lamb home, and I am so glad He did. And I am so glad He doesn’t care how foolish and silly I am, He only cares that I am home.

 

[johnshelby]

LSK:

I am not as smart as the people on this thread. First of all, I do not understand why it is considered silly and foolish to feel grief because something I loved died. I am far too simple and stupid to understand why that is foolish. When my beloved pet, Roddy MacDuff, died on October 20, I cried because he was a part of the process that lead me back to the Holy Mother Church. As a creature of God, he was a gift from my Creator. Loving Roddy allowed me to see that I was capable of love, a love that grew to include people and later my Creator. Love for my Creator lead me back fully to the Church. When Roddy died, I cried and I felt grief.

Oftentimes, I read the posts by the OP and others and I see such glee in trying to trip people up on theology. I don’t understand this underlying anger. I am a Catholic. I am, today, an Obedient Daughter of the Holy Mother Church. I feel, today, and whether those feelings are joy or sorrow I am so very glad that Jesus imparted a message to St. Faustina …a message which was for me to trust Him enough to bring all of me to Him and not be afraid. No matter what I am feeling, no matter how foolish it may appear to be to others (even to my fellow Catholics) it is not foolish to Him, and I am so very glad of that because if I had had to turn to any of you when I said good bye to the little Scottish Terrier that helped lead me back to the Holy Mother Church I would have been told my tears meant I was foolish and silly. I would have cried alone.

The message of the Catechism is that I have an eternal soul, my pets do not. I accept that teaching. I also know that nothing is impossible with God and that God used one of His creatures to bring this lost lamb home, and I am so glad He did. And I am so glad He doesn’t care how foolish and silly I am, He only cares that I am home.

you smarter than smart, you have wisdom…

 

[batteddy]

I think this sadness comes from the goodness and sympathy inside of us. I don’t think this sadness comes from our “fallen nature”. This is why I can not imagine animals suffering in paradise.

Sadness is an emotion. It is a physical passion stirred up from seeing certain things which biologically, for evolutionary reasons, cause a certain reaction. It is a corporeal phenomenon in our sensitive appetite which is unreliable since the Fall and concupiscence.

The catechism says:

[1768](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1768.htm’) Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed.

I can induce sadness with the right drugs. It is a biochemical, neuro-eletrical reaction that cannot be expected to be rational or controllable. If were able to view animal death and pain with a rightly ordered mind, completely cold and not effected by our lower appetite, we would not see it as bad.

Animals do not suffer. They may be “conscious of pain” but if they are not conscious of the fact that they are conscious of pain, if they have no Self at their core who is referenced as being ultimately and irreducably conscious of everything including itself, it can hardly be said that there is any true consciousness or suffering.

I can make an animatronic robot have pain: I can have certain tactile sensory (name removed by moderator)ut cause the robot to engage in certain responses such as yelping, screaming, running, or even crying. That’s all animal pain is, a programmed reaction to a certain piece of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut being picked up by the nerves and transmitted electrically to the great “circuit board” of the brain. It doesn’t mean the robot is actually conscious of or feeling anything, because it doesn’t have a soul, and isn’t conscious of its consciousness, and thus is not truly conscious of anything it percieves in sense. Does the Set of all Sets contain itself? It would have to…but this would require something to go on infinitely, or loop back on itself…

Animals are like organic robots. Think of it that way.

 

[nobody]

batteddy:

Animals are like organic robots. Think of it that way.

Athiests can say all those same things for people.

I see by your profile you are 15 years old. Some things can only be learned by life experiences. God Bless you on your journey.

Peace.

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

I can make an animatronic robot have pain: I can have certain tactile sensory (name removed by moderator)ut cause the robot to engage in certain responses such as yelping, screaming, running, or even crying. That’s all animal pain is, a programmed reaction to a certain piece of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut being picked up by the nerves and transmitted electrically to the great “circuit board” of the brain. It doesn’t mean the robot is actually conscious of or feeling anything, because it doesn’t have a soul, and isn’t conscious of its consciousness, … Animals are like organic robots.

It is true that your animatronic robot would have no soul, since it is an inanimate object, and thus it could not be conscious of itself. Animals, however do have living souls [Hebrew: *nephesh chayah], and that is why your analogy between inanimate machines and living animals doesn’t work.During a public audience in 1990, Pope John Paul II reminded listeners that “also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren”, that they are the “fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect”, and that they are “as near to God as men are”.

Animals and justice

---

According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read “living creatures.” The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is “nephesh chayah,” or “living soul.” This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament. Thus, Genesis 1:30 should more accurately read: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for meat.”

Animals Have Souls

---

The book of Genesis tells us that animals, like humans, were created as nefesh chaya–living souls. (Genesis 1:29,30; 2:7,19) But unless you understand the Hebrew language, there is no way to know this. Those who translate the Bible have obscured the fact that animals, like men, have been endowed by their Creator with a soul.

Scholars have done this by translating the same Hebrew expression differently, depending on whether it refers to a human or an animal being. Genesis 2:7 reads "The Lord God formed the man of the dust of the ground…and man became a living soul. But when the Hebrew uses the exact same term in referring to animals, it is translated differently.

ANIMAL AND HUMAN COMPANIONS

 

[Matt16_18]

batteddy:

Animals do not suffer. They may be “conscious of pain” but if they are not conscious of the fact that they are conscious of pain, if they have no Self …

Rabbi Schneerson would disagree with you.

The fact that an animal has a living soul (nephesh chayah), would mean that it is “a conscious entity with a sensation of self”. As a self-conscious entity, the animal is aware of of its physical suffering. However, the animal is unlike humans that have a knowledge of good and evil, and thus the animal cannot know spiritual suffering.
As is well known, the entire spiritual cosmos is divided into four types of worlds (which parallel the four forms of earthly existence: inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans). … The difference between inanimate matter and plants is that with regard to inanimate matter, we see only the actual physical entity; it does not express life at all. Although it possesses a “soul,” i.e., a source of spiritual, life-energy, there is no outward manifestation of that spiritual energy. With regard to plants, by contrast, it is obvious that they contain spiritual life-energy which cannot be perceived by our five senses.

… on the whole, the plant kingdom can be considered closer to inanimate matter than to animals or humans. Indeed, when the four forms of existence — inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans — are divided into two categories: those which are predominantly associated with the body and those which are predominantly associated with the soul, the plant kingdom, together with inanimate matter, are placed in the category of the body.

Animals and humans, by contrast, are placed in the category of soul. Indeed, the very Hebrew name for the plant kingdom, tzomei’ach, which means “growing,” is a marked contrast from the name for the animal kingdom, chai, which means “living.” The distinction between the two is reflected in the fact that before the flood, mankind was allowed to eat only plant-life and was not allowed to eat animals.

The reason for this difference can be explained as follows. There are two qualities which distinguish the life-energy of an animal:

a) The life-energy is associated with a soul, a conscious entity with a sensation of self. For this reason, an animal possesses the power of will (which expresses the soul); and

b) Because the body and the soul are unified, the body is naturally affected by the will of the soul and carries out its desires to the extent that the definition of the body changes. It does not see itself as matter, but is identified with the soul. [38]

footnote 38. … the relationship of the body to the soul can be defined as mahus and metzius. …An entity’s mahus is its fundamental identity, what that entity is. Metzius means “existence,” the entity’s outward existence.

The soul is the mahus of the body. In other words, the body does not see itself as a separate entity in which the soul is lodged. Instead, it is identified with the soul to the extent that it defines itself in terms of the soul. The soul is its “I.”
From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson​