The Slaughtering of Animals in Factories. Moral dilemmas in the modern world

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
springbreeze:
Dear friend

I don’t find anything about this amusing, why do you find any of this amusing at all?

Why can’t you allow someone to hold an opinion contrary to yours of which yours is based on a theory after all? Do you think I am stupid I need to you to underline and labour your point to me?

I don’t accept what you say and it is as simple as that. I don’t accept it because I don’t see as human theory can ever restrict God’s desire to Create and Re-create at will.

Your theory does not excuse mankind from wilful misuse or abuse of animal life and of all creation. If you cannot see the pattern between how animals have and are been treated and how now we are attempting to treat humans, then who am I to point it out to you?

Was not the Garden of Eden in full communion with God and were there not animals there? Have you ever considered that animals need not worship because they cannot offend God and as such will come into heaven as part of their created being anyway and it is only humans (after the fall) as a higher created creature who are capable of sinning and therefore must earn their salvation, in, by and through Christ Jesus.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
Click to expand...
What is happening here is that you are missing truth for the sake of feeling. You are not required to believe what I am positing but then again you are not required to believe in anything. That is the beauty of human nature - free will.

The problem is that you are equating a deductive theory with an inductive theory. A theory posited in a deductive matter is not wrong and in particular St. Thomas is very rarely if ever wrong. If you have a problem with deductive theory then I suggest that it would be contrary for you to believe in the Sacraments as the Church understands them because in truth the proof of them is merely based upon a theory - the hylomorphic theory to be exact. The reason why I continue to focus on this issue this way is because your position is wrong and not in keeping with the Catholic faith. It is my contention that your view of stewardship is a bit skewed. Further your understanding of pneumatology is quite off. The problem is not that animals do not have a spiritual soul (that is irrelavent) it is a condition of them not having a rational soul that does not give them entry into heaven or even to the recreated earth in the eskaton because animals do not receive the ressurection which is a condition of corporeal things after the consumation of the world. Don’t let emotional sidebar arguments get in the way of objective truth which I keep and ‘fix’ keeps placing before your feet. Veritas veritatem est.
 
40.png
aurora77:
So, unless I go kill an animal and eat it, I can’t understand animal rights/welfare?
Click to expand...
No, what I am saying is that it is a lack of willingness to do it. Activism of any sort tese days is born directly out of urbanization and modernity. We are so spoiled and bored that we find spurious things to focus our energies. While activism in and of itself is not worng per se the problem is that today in our culture we want things done right but are not willing to get our hands dirty. It is similar to rich Liberals in the US complaining about oil consumption as they board their private jet or enviornmentalist, Kyoto treaty wakos complaining about the treatment of ‘mother earth and foliage depleation’ when in fact their efforts do more harm than good and us unspoken conservationalists just sake our heads as we chop down as much forrest as is necessary to sake lives. This all reminds me of the environmentalist that want to protect the baby seal but if it is an endagered mesquito they don’t care because the mesquito isn’t cute enough or they want nature to be nicely manicured. I am all for stewardship (I was a staff member at Philmont Scout Ranch for pete’s sake) but what we are talking about here is out of hand.
 
40.png
aurora77:
Do you?

Well, the fact of the matter is, pretty much anyone who has access to this forum doesn’t have much need to produce their own food. Modern U.S. society is such that we have many more choices available to us in the past, we don’t have to “dress out deer or scrape a hog.”
Click to expand...
That’s exactly my point – people can sit around and eat packaged meat and sneer at the people who produced it for them. They can eat vegetables and wear fibers and hide from the knowledge of the environmental damage caused to produce those things. They can feel superior – even though they have done worse by proxy than any hunter or small farmer.
 
vern humphrey:
That’s exactly my point – people can sit around and eat packaged meat and sneer at the people who produced it for them. They can eat vegetables and wear fibers and hide from the knowledge of the environmental damage caused to produce those things. They can feel superior – even though they have done worse by proxy than any hunter or small farmer.
Click to expand...
So, unless we live an entirely self-sustained life, we’re bad people? Are you providing your own electricity to power your computer?
 
40.png
mosher:
What is happening here is that you are missing truth for the sake of feeling. You are not required to believe what I am positing but then again you are not required to believe in anything. That is the beauty of human nature - free will.

The problem is that you are equating a deductive theory with an inductive theory. A theory posited in a deductive matter is not wrong and in particular St. Thomas is very rarely if ever wrong. If you have a problem with deductive theory then I suggest that it would be contrary for you to believe in the Sacraments as the Church understands them because in truth the proof of them is merely based upon a theory - the hylomorphic theory to be exact. The reason why I continue to focus on this issue this way is because your position is wrong and not in keeping with the Catholic faith. It is my contention that your view of stewardship is a bit skewed. Further your understanding of pneumatology is quite off. The problem is not that animals do not have a spiritual soul (that is irrelavent) it is a condition of them not having a rational soul that does not give them entry into heaven or even to the recreated earth in the eskaton because animals do not receive the ressurection which is a condition of corporeal things after the consumation of the world. Don’t let emotional sidebar arguments get in the way of objective truth which I keep and ‘fix’ keeps placing before your feet. Veritas veritatem est.
Click to expand...
Dear friend

Who made you judge of my faith?

You have nothing to back up what you say, save one Saint who presented a theory and not doctrine. I have not read anywhere in the Church that it is doctrine that animals do not have any place whatsoever in heaven.This is your theory adopted because it suits you to adopt it. Period.

Whilst I have held a civil tone, I see you are not, I have not attacked your faith, why should I, who am I to pontificate on your faith, then who are you to pontificate on mine as though you can search the hearts of people and know, just as you cannot know many things, just as you cannot know 100% animals are not in heaven. You KNOW nothing in this respect, nothing at all and prudence dictates, if you do not know remain open to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit instead of closing the Good Book firmly on Him.

This adamance suggests to me you would like to hold firm to a theory simply to justify your own personal relationship with creation.

My position is not wrong at all, it is stated that animals do not have spiritual souls, but it is not known categorically if God will allow animals into heaven or if at the end of time He will re-create them. There are alot of rotten bodies in graves, God will re-create those…if not only a handful are in heaven!.

Tell me this, God is Love, Love is eternal, what is the point to any love if it does not have infinite value, why then should we be kind and show love to animals or to any craeture or the environment if there is not infinite value to it?

You and I are nothing, nothing at all, this creature created in the image of God is nothing. God is everything and God created everything, why then would anything He has created be pointless and not worthy of love and kindness? If God is love and we are called to live in the Image of God and love, why wastee this precious love on a creature that is according to you, a bio-machine, a nothing that will not live on? To not love animals and be kind to them is to contradict Church teaching, so tell me how do you reconcile this?

This theory is something you want to believe, you believe it because it suits your agenda, you believe it because it excuses you and I tell you, you are not excused, none of us are!

As far as I know this teaching you keep referring to is not an infallible teaching of the Church, it is a THEORY and this is something you are not grasping.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
vern humphrey:
No – but you should realize that you live off the efforts of the people you denegrate.

Nope – and I don’t denegrate the people who provide it, either.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
Where did I denigrate anyone? Please show me where I did. I’ve never said eating meat was bad, that farming or hunting was bad (I said I couldn’t be a hunter, there is a difference). I think, and you may agree with this, maybe we should consider our actions and their wider ramifications. Not that it matters, you’ll continue to read whatever you want into my statements.
 
40.png
aurora77:
Where did I denigrate anyone? Please show me where I did. I’ve never said eating meat was bad, that farming or hunting was bad (I said I couldn’t be a hunter, there is a difference). I think, and you may agree with this, maybe we should consider our actions and their wider ramifications. Not that it matters, you’ll continue to read whatever you want into my statements.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you – your actions finance things like “factory farms.”
 
40.png
springbreeze:
Dear friend

Who made you judge of my faith?

You have nothing to back up what you say, save one Saint who presented a theory and not doctrine. I have not read anywhere in the Church that it is doctrine that animals do not have any place whatsoever in heaven.This is your theory adopted because it suits you to adopt it. Period.

Whilst I have held a civil tone, I see you are not, I have not attacked your faith, why should I, who am I to pontificate on your faith, then who are you to pontificate on mine as though you can search the hearts of people and know, just as you cannot know many things, just as you cannot know 100% animals are not in heaven. You KNOW nothing in this respect, nothing at all and prudence dictates, if you do not know remain open to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit instead of closing the Good Book firmly on Him.

This adamance suggests to me you would like to hold firm to a theory simply to justify your own personal relationship with creation.

My position is not wrong at all, it is stated that animals do not have spiritual souls, but it is not known categorically if God will allow animals into heaven or if at the end of time He will re-create them. There are alot of rotten bodies in graves, God will re-create those…if not only a handful are in heaven!.

Tell me this, God is Love, Love is eternal, what is the point to any love if it does not have infinite value, why then should we be kind and show love to animals or to any craeture or the environment if there is not infinite value to it?

You and I are nothing, nothing at all, this creature created in the image of God is nothing. God is everything and God created everything, why then would anything He has created be pointless and not worthy of love and kindness? If God is love and we are called to live in the Image of God and love, why wastee this precious love on a creature that is according to you, a bio-machine, a nothing that will not live on? To not love animals and be kind to them is to contradict Church teaching, so tell me how do you reconcile this?

This theory is something you want to believe, you believe it because it suits your agenda, you believe it because it excuses you and I tell you, you are not excused, none of us are!

As far as I know this teaching you keep referring to is not an infallible teaching of the Church, it is a THEORY and this is something you are not grasping.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
Click to expand...
I am not juding your faith I am saying that your just wrong accourding to authentic Catholic Systematic Theology. You have not, obviously, read St. Thomas and to assume that he is just one saint among others is false. Remember his title is “Universal Doctor of the Church” There is not one other source other than Dogmatic utterances given in Council or by the Holy Father himself excathedra this more authoritative than St. Thomas in matter os faith and morals. That is the whole point of proclaiming Doctors of the Church of which he is the only one to be proclaimed twice over a Doctor with the tiltes of both Universal an Angelic. To shrug aside the propositions of St. Thomas is absure because a vast majority of our Dogma rests upon his theological propositions.

Again here is the problem, what happens when a person gives this type of degree to animals then they are doing exactly what is contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church when citing other Church Documents it states: “One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.” of which the full passage has been quoted here often.

This reminds me of when I was in the seminary a brother seminarian decided that he was going to categorically disagree with a proposition given by Jacques Maritan to which the Professor responded “Who are you to disagree with him?” (The professor was a New Yorker). But this is similar, as Catholics we do not just say that St. Thomas was wrong. One would have to prove his postulate incorrect or invalid and to this day not one person has been able to do so without compromising something else that is a matter of faith. I would suggest a prayerful read of the questions in he Summa that I cited earlier and then tell me that you can argue against his (and St. Augustine’s - also a Doctor of the Church - postulate) that animals do not participate in the divine life of heaven and the recreation of the earth.

And as I stated earlier it is not a matter of them not having a ‘spiritual’ soul (which is redundant) but it is a matter of them not having a rational soul which is unique to humans and angels.
 
If I thought for one second that the Catholic Church was so hard-hearted and legalistic as to officially declare that there was no way innocent animals were allowed in heaven, then I would immediately renounce my Catholic faith for one more in line with mercy, kindness, and love.

But I know that it’ll never happen. I’m more confident of some things held by faith than I am in man’s arrogant “answers.”

I will say that had I encountered the posturing, preening, snotty side of the Church before I converted, I might not have ever done so.
 
40.png
seeker63:
If I thought for one second that the Catholic Church was so hard-hearted and legalistic as to officially declare that there was no way innocent animals were allowed in heaven, then I would immediately renounce my Catholic faith for one more in line with mercy, kindness, and love.

But I know that it’ll never happen. I’m more confident of some things held by faith than I am in man’s arrogant “answers.”

I will say that had I encountered the posturing, preening, snotty side of the Church before I converted, I might not have ever done so.
Click to expand...
Again, this is the same problem of emotionalism over reason. Animals are neither innocent or guilty they live in an amoral world because they have no capacity for reason. The concepts of stewardship has nothing to do with the animal per se but has everything to do with human practice of virtue in using God’s gifts that he as given us in an ethical way. A good article on this point that has a primary source of Tibor Machen (noted philosopher) is the following:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZANIMWEL.HTM

Of course it is wrong to be cruel to animals but to insist that they are in any way equivalent to human persons is contrary to the faith evven on a Scriptural Basis.

The further question that I would ask is if the requirement of Animal Sacrifice that God commanded was cruel to animals? Today we don’t sacrifice animals which was much more cruel than the way in which we treat animals today. I suggest a read of the Old Testament to see what exactly was proscribed by God in the manner in which animals were sacrificed and the numbers in which the Patriarchs would sacrifice them to Him. We are talking about thousands at a time (a hecatome in some cases).
 
40.png
mosher:
Again, this is the same problem of emotionalism over reason. Animals are neither innocent or guilty they live in an amoral world because they have no capacity for reason. The concepts of stewardship has nothing to do with the animal per se but has everything to do with human practice of virtue in using God’s gifts that he as given us in an ethical way. A good article on this point that has a primary source of Tibor Machen (noted philosopher) is the following:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZANIMWEL.HTM

Of course it is wrong to be cruel to animals but to insist that they are in any way equivalent to human persons is contrary to the faith evven on a Scriptural Basis.

The further question that I would ask is if the requirement of Animal Sacrifice that God commanded was cruel to animals? Today we don’t sacrifice animals which was much more cruel than the way in which we treat animals today. I suggest a read of the Old Testament to see what exactly was proscribed by God in the manner in which animals were sacrificed and the numbers in which the Patriarchs would sacrifice them to Him. We are talking about thousands at a time (a hecatome in some cases).
Click to expand...
Dear friend

I have not said that they are equivalent to humans, they are not. Animals and other creatures are not made in the image of God, humans are God’s unique creation this should not give way to arrogance over the rest of creation though.

What is it exactly you do not like about the world God has created for you to live in that you would not be happy to share in with in the next life? Is it a personal revulsion for created creatures or is it a matter of superiority that causes you to lack love or even consider that other creatures may be permitted to live forever?

You cannot prove it, it is a THEORY"!!! How many times do I have to say this to you before you accept it is just a theory!!! Just as it was once said there was no salvation outside of the Catholic faith and now it is understood that there is salvation outside of the Catholic faith, just as it was once said babies who died before baptism went to limbo and there was no salvation for them, now it is not said, there is salvation for them…so you say animals have no salvation, I say it is highly possible they do…let’s wait and see friend.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
40.png
springbreeze:
Dear friend

I have not said that they are equivalent to humans, they are not. Animals and other creatures are not made in the image of God, humans are God’s unique creation this should not give way to arrogance over the rest of creation though.

What is it exactly you do not like about the world God has created for you to live in that you would not be happy to share in with in the next life? Is it a personal revulsion for created creatures or is it a matter of superiority that causes you to lack love or even consider that other creatures may be permitted to live forever?

You cannot prove it, it is a THEORY"!!! How many times do I have to say this to you before you accept it is just a theory!!! Just as it was once said there was no salvation outside of the Catholic faith and now it is understood that there is salvation outside of the Catholic faith, just as it was once said babies who died before baptism went to limbo and there was no salvation for them, now it is not said, there is salvation for them…so you say animals have no salvation, I say it is highly possible they do…let’s wait and see friend.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
Click to expand...
The deductive proof given by St Thomas is sufficient. To be attached to worldly things and the things of this world is a vice. It has nothing to do with disliking creation. It is just a matter of what we have always believed as Catholics.

Further and as an aside we sill believe that there is no slavation outside the Church … it happens to be a de fide dogma (extra ecclesia non solus). That is something that cannot be changed. Just as our position on Limbo which has the level also of De fide. The dogma is “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God”

I would submit that poor education and formation in th epost concilear Church has lead people to believe that we don’t believe these things anymore which in fact is false because an De Fide statement is an article of faith and to deny it is to place a person outside the Church.
 
40.png
mosher:
The deductive proof given by St Thomas is sufficient. To be attached to worldly things and the things of this world is a vice. It has nothing to do with disliking creation. It is just a matter of what we have always believed as Catholics.

Further and as an aside we sill believe that there is no slavation outside the Church … it happens to be a de fide dogma (extra ecclesia non solus). That is something that cannot be changed. Just as our position on Limbo which has the level also of De fide. The dogma is “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God”

I would submit that poor education and formation in th epost concilear Church has lead people to believe that we don’t believe these things anymore which in fact is false because an De Fide statement is an article of faith and to deny it is to place a person outside the Church.
Click to expand...
Dear friend

What you say is not true and I suggest you submit your questions the the Ask an Apologist. You totally ignore Baptism of Desire, you totally ignore Vatican II. If you honestly believe everyone who isn’t catholic is going to hell, then what is to be done for the man in the jungle who never heard of Jesus. It is not their fault they do not know Him, this theory is not withstanding and it is not such today. The Holy Spirit convicts hearts, not you with your doom and gloom philosophy with God who would throw everyone into hell because He is merciless and does not listen to what people actually know of God. You have God all figured out don’t you, shame you didn’t keep up with Church teaching.

If you do not know what you are talking about I suggest you do not present error as fact as you have done throughout this thread

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
40.png
springbreeze:
Dear friend

What you say is not true and I suggest you submit your questions the the Ask an Apologist. You totally ignore Baptism of Desire, you totally ignore Vatican II.

If you do not know what you are talking about I suggest you do not present error as fact as you have done throughout this thread

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
Click to expand...
You may or may not trust that my theological formation is sound however my education on the matter happens to be from some of the most respected catholic educators in the US.

Again, with this spurious idea that Vatican II changed anything. It is a basic tenant of our faith that Dogma cannot be recinded and Vatican II very specifically did not modify Church dogmatic proclomations because to do so would then cause the Council to have taught heresy which it did not.

Baptism of desire is troughly addressed in Trent and also infaliable ignorance but the fact remains the dogmas are as they are and not even the Pope has the authority to change them (again another de fide dogma of the Church).

Don’t confuse reformulation of dogma with change of dogma.
 
BTW: my STB thesis is on the dogma of Extra Ecclesia Non Solus & the Second Vatican Council it happens to be a particular study of mine.
 
40.png
mosher:
You may or may not trust that my theological formation is sound however my education on the matter happens to be from some of the most respected catholic educators in the US.

Again, with this spurious idea that Vatican II changed anything. It is a basic tenant of our faith that Dogma cannot be recinded and Vatican II very specifically did not modify Church dogmatic proclomations because to do so would then cause the Council to have taught heresy which it did not.

Baptism of desire is troughly addressed in Trent and also infaliable ignorance but the fact remains the dogmas are as they are and not even the Pope has the authority to change them (again another de fide dogma of the Church).

Don’t confuse reformulation of dogma with change of dogma.
Click to expand...
Dear friend

Is this intellectual bullying?.. I perceive it is. Did you not know that the spirit of the law is above the letter of the law, unless it enters the heart it is as dead as a stone.

You have ignored these teachings I have outlined and you have also ingored many questions I have posed to you,they have struck you dumb as to ignore them and you have ignored them because they do not fit your argument. I have seen many people argue in the fashion you have without actually answering any of my questions, they are those who love only the law, but do not love anything else.

You can tell me many things but you can never clarify a theory until it has susbstance…you live on a theory.

I tell you the heart is above the intellect, the spirit is above the law. I tell you that Love is the law and if Love is the law all these small details fall into place.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
Teresa,

This guy is gonna shout down everyone who disagrees with him, or wait until he just exhausts everyone and they turn to other threads. Then he can think he proved his point, got in the last word, and can stand atop his little heap of earth victorious.

Mosher,

Am I making ad hominem attacks? You bet I am! I repeat, you’re being a rude, obnoxious, and arrogant bully. You may have read more theology than most, you may have read Aquinas cover to cover, but again, your obsession with the letter of the law has blinded you to its spirit.
 
40.png
mosher:
BTW: my STB thesis is on the dogma of Extra Ecclesia Non Solus & the Second Vatican Council it happens to be a particular study of mine.
Click to expand...
Did you read Fr. Sullivan’s Salvation Outside the Church? I’m wondering what you thought of it if you did read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top