Thesis: I should not have a pet

[Scottgun]

However, I do not know of any place in the bible or infallible Catholic doctrine that proclaims that we must have luxury, so in most occasions, it still be a minimally venial sin to own pets.

The Church would not allow so many people to remain in ignorance of even a venial sin. There is no Church teaching that says that owning pets is in most occasions a venial sin.

 

[zro_x]

B16 has a pet cat. And has talked about it before. There’s even a book about one of his pet cats. They brought a cat to youth day in Madrid so he wouldn’t miss his pet cat.

If owning pets were immoral, this would cause scandal.

only if it was widely known to be immoral.

I also think that he would know if owning a pet was immoral.

I’m not so sure. I doubt any one knows every little detail about morality and immorality, and, as I’ve said before, owning a pet is not exactly a big issue.

 

[zro_x]

The Church would not allow so many people to remain in ignorance of even a venial sin. There is no Church teaching that says that owning pets is in most occasions a venial sin.

Are you absolutely certain about that?

Even if it is true that the church doesn’t say anything about owning a pet, does that surprise you? Writing down an entire moral code for every situation is probably something to difficult even for the curch to accomplish.

 

[pig]

Are you absolutely certain about that?

Even if it is true that the church doesn’t say anything about owning a pet, does that surprise you? Writing down an entire moral code for every situation is probably something to difficult even for the curch to accomplish.

church says what comes out of you makes you unclean not what goes into you.
You may own a pet and not worry your head about it being a sin. …unless, you are a sinner, that is…

 

[zro_x]

church says what comes out of you makes you unclean not what goes into you.

What does that have to do with this topic?

You may own a pet and not worry your head about it being a sin.

Every backing for this claim that I’ve heard so far failed to withstand scrutiny.

1. arguing that I am a hypocrite does not prove this philosophy is wrong, only that I’m not sure if I fully beleive it myself. To tell the truth, I kind of started out playing devil’s advocate here. I’m more than a little surprised that no one has been able to justify this claim.
2. arguing that holy historical or contemporary figures, such as B16 and St. Francis, kept pets is basically an argument from a fallible authority. It does not tell us why my stance is incorrect.
3. arguing that average human happiness would be less if all goods were spread equally spread can be countered by noticing that an end to death by starvation would probably result in a dramatic increase in average human happiness.
4. arguing that the bible does not condemn certain particular rich people is fallicious, because there were some widespread evils in the Bible (such as slavery) that were not condemned at every opportunity.
5. arguing that a pet makes us happy and fills certain emotional needs also doesn’t work because humans can fill all those needs just as well.
6. arguing that animals are our spiritual equals is unsound because because Catholic teaching is that animals do not have immortal souls.

7.arguing that the Church doesn’t say that we can’t own pets is invalid because the church does not give out moral proclamations about every minute detail. and the issue of owning pets is a pretty minute detail.

1. arguing that church catechism and the Bible allow or even command leisure, while compelling, still is not conclusive because owning a pet in particular and luxury in general are not the same thing as leisure.
2. arguing that the church has lots of luxury is shown to be incorrect when we look at bible passages that allow the church to be rich in order to glorify God.

did I miss anything?

…unless, you are a sinner, that is…

So whether or not owning a pet is a sin depends on whether you are a sinner? That makes no sense, but even if it were true, owning a pet is a sin for everyone because everyone is a sinner.

 

[pig]

What does that have to do with this topic?

what do you mean?

 

[mikae746]

Ph?n m?m g?i tin nh?n yahoo online vÃ* offline hÃ*ng lo?t

Luu ý :
**Ph?n m?m g?i tin nh?n t?i yahoo dang online ho?c offline **
G?i 1 l?n 100-150 nick
D?i nick khác g?i ti?p t?c cách nhau 30 phút yahoo qui d?nh 1 IP
Ki?m tra nick yahoo xem g?i du?c không r?i m?i dang nh?p vÃ*o ph?n m?m
Khi có d?u hi?u không g?i du?c vui lòng thêm proxy tru?c khi g?i
[](http://www.mediafire.com/?07z7d72pakj4m33)
Luu ý :
**Ph?n m?m g?i tin nh?n t?i yahoo dang online ho?c offline **
G?i 1 l?n 100-150 nick
D?i nick khác g?i ti?p t?c cách nhau 30 phút yahoo qui d?nh 1 IP
Ki?m tra nick yahoo xem g?i du?c không r?i m?i dang nh?p vÃ*o ph?n m?m
Khi có d?u hi?u không g?i du?c vui lòng thêm proxy tru?c khi g?i
[](http://www.mediafire.com/?07z7d72pakj4m33) [bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278http://www.bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278](http://www.bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278http://www.bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278)
phan mem dang tin,ph?n m?m dang tin,ph?n m?m seo,phan mem seo,ph?n m?m dang tin 2013,phan mem dang tin 2013

 

[dskysmine]

what do you mean?

I think he means that owning a pet isn’t compatible with “coming into you” because usually a pet stays around you.
The phrase was used about food.
He is pretty much right.

God bless,
D.

 

[pig]

ok, so you have a pet and you feed it scraps; what exactly is the sin in having that pet?

 

[zro_x]

ok, so you have a pet and you feed it scraps; what exactly is the sin in having that pet?

That you aren’t giving those scraps to a person. As I’ve said before, owning a pet is not a problem if the relationship is mutually beneficial as far as resources go. If the pet costs you resources, then it may become a problem.

 

[Linux]

1. arguing that the church has lots of luxury is shown to be incorrect when we look at bible passages that allow the church to be rich in order to glorify God.

I don’t know if it is true that the church having riches has any value beyond providing for its religious mission. But if what you are saying here is true then perhaps your opponents could also say that having or looking after animals is a glorification of God, and therefore it would be permissible to use human resources in that context; with the caveat that this ought not interfere with the greater good of human survival and the common good of society.

In that respect owning a zoo to protect endangered species is not such a bad thing, especially if it has a commercial reward that can be put to use into other charities which foster human dignity.

 

[zro_x]

I don’t know if it is true that the church having riches has any value beyond providing for its religious mission. But if what you are saying here is true then perhaps your opponents could also say that having or looking after animals is a glorification of God, and therefore it would be permissible to use human resources in that context; with the caveat that this ought not interfere with the greater good of human survival and the common good of society.

In that respect owning a zoo to protect endangered species is not such a bad thing, especially if it has a commercial reward that can be put to use into other charities which foster human dignity.

if a person looking after animals did so for the glorifaication of God, I’d say that you may have a point. However, I think most folks keep pets for their own personal pleasure.

 

[salve_maria_1]

Do you have a lawn, or an ornamental garden, or potted plants? Isn’t that a waste of resources that can be used towards your fellow men who are suffering?

I don’t see that at as any worse than keeping a pet. I don’t know of anybody who gardens solely for the glory of God- they do it because they enjoy it.

 

[Linux]

Do you have a lawn, or an ornamental garden, or potted plants? Isn’t that a waste of resources that can be used towards your fellow men who are suffering?

I don’t see that at as any worse than keeping a pet. I don’t know of anybody who gardens solely for the glory of God- they do it because they enjoy it.

Everything in life is suppose to be done for the glory of God. Is that not Christian teaching?

 

[pig]

That you aren’t giving those scraps to a person. As I’ve said before, owning a pet is not a problem if the relationship is mutually beneficial as far as resources go. If the pet costs you resources, then it may become a problem.

there is very little waste when you think about it. your argument is about waste not pets. but many hospitals employ a dog to walk around the patients greeting each, it cheers the patients up, which is good. A pet serves this purpose.
you don’t generally eat dog food nor pet food because this food is made from scraps, offal, which nobody will eat. So you eliminate waste by making use of waste.
you also care for your fellow human beings at the same time in another way by providing them with employment when you support their pet shops, food suppliers, vets etc.

You could redirect your personal $1 to a person in need as a charitable act but for a human that will not go far and is also not dependable, much misery could ensue between chance donations. Better to give the person support to start a business, maybe a pet business, they will have a regular income one they can live on. It seems like a plan anyway.

 

[Neildown]

if a person looking after animals did so for the glorifaication of God, I’d say that you may have a point. However, I think most folks keep pets for their own personal pleasure.

Who says love in itself - whether directed towards a human or an animal - isn’t a glorification of God? Part of our glorification of Him is in following our nature correctly, and part of that nature is caring for all of God’s creatures - not just ourselves.

That you aren’t giving those scraps to a person. As I’ve said before, owning a pet is not a problem if the relationship is mutually beneficial as far as resources go. If the pet costs you resources, then it may become a problem.

And you’re going to travel around town or to Africa in order to give those scraps to people? Honestly, in this day and age, I’d call it an insult to go up to someone on the street or at a donation center and ask them if they want some bread crumbs…

Scraps can go to animals - our nation is capable of feeding all of its poor/hungry with good food, and definitely much of the world’s hungry (if only we gave a dang about conservation of our resources and efficient production). I’ve already illustrated that much.

 

[salve_maria_1]

Everything in life is suppose to be done for the glory of God. Is that not Christian teaching?

Okay, I didn’t word that last bit quite right. I think everything done right and well is supposed to give glory to God. I just thought that the comment which I am here paraphrasing (something like if a person kept a pet solely for the glory of God, and not for personal enjoyment, it would be okay) is put rather oddly.

Most people who keep plants as ornamentals, or keep a pretty lawn, do so because they enjoy it. It pleases them. Nothing wrong with that. If most people keep a pet because they take pleasure in it, nothing wrong with that either.

And as someone pointed out- pet food is made with wastes from the slaughterhouse industry- which employs people. And I do think it’s morally wrong to kill an animal and not make use of as much of its body as we can. Most people will not be eating animal digest.

This is kind of like the argument that livestock use up the world’s natural resources that people need. Last I’ve seen, much of the land is not tillable, and only forages will grow decently on it. I’ve not noticed people eating grass or cornstalks, but cattle and sheep can easily convert these to meat, milk, hides, wool, and other things that we can use.

You can keep a pet. You can buy a decent quality food for that pet, get it vaccinated, and keep it free from parasites and disease. You can let it sleep on your bed if you want. There is no sin in this. You have no idea how many people I help feed and clothe and keep a roof over their heads, by purchasing things that I need- the farmer, the vet, the fencing contractor, the equipment manufactorers, the pharm companies, the slaughterhouse, the grocer, the feed elevator, etc.

None of this is stops me in any way from helping those in need, either.

I do not see what you hope to gain from trying to prove that keeping a pet in many instances is a venial sin. I have found it stated nowhere. Until you can provide evidence that it is, your position is not very compelling.

 

[zro_x]

there is very little waste when you think about it. your argument is about waste not pets. but many hospitals employ a dog to walk around the patients greeting each, it cheers the patients up, which is good. A pet serves this purpose.
you don’t generally eat dog food nor pet food because this food is made from scraps, offal, which nobody will eat. So you eliminate waste by making use of waste.
you also care for your fellow human beings at the same time in another way by providing them with employment when you support their pet shops, food suppliers, vets etc.

You could redirect your personal $1 to a person in need as a charitable act but for a human that will not go far and is also not dependable, much misery could ensue between chance donations. Better to give the person support to start a business, maybe a pet business, they will have a regular income one they can live on. It seems like a plan anyway.

I have already mentioned that if a person owns a pet that does not sap your monetary resources, it is probably okay. As for economics, you can’t make an argument from that because then you could justify selling or buying anything in order to help your fellow man. Drugs, prostitution, etc.

 

[zro_x]

Who says love in itself - whether directed towards a human or an animal - isn’t a glorification of God?

Because the Bible quote I mentioned distinguishes between giving to the poor and using riches to glorify God.

Part of our glorification of Him is in following our nature correctly, and part of that nature is caring for all of God’s creatures - not just ourselves.

How do you know that that is part of our nature?

 

[zro_x]

Okay, I didn’t word that last bit quite right. I think everything done right and well is supposed to give glory to God. I just thought that the comment which I am here paraphrasing (something like if a person kept a pet solely for the glory of God, and not for personal enjoyment, it would be okay) is put rather oddly.

Most people who keep plants as ornamentals, or keep a pretty lawn, do so because they enjoy it. It pleases them. Nothing wrong with that. If most people keep a pet because they take pleasure in it, nothing wrong with that either.

It seems to me that there is if you use up resources that could be used to help other people.

You can keep a pet. You can buy a decent quality food for that pet, get it vaccinated, and keep it free from parasites and disease. You can let it sleep on your bed if you want. There is no sin in this. You have no idea how many people I help feed and clothe and keep a roof over their heads, by purchasing things that I need- the farmer, the vet, the fencing contractor, the equipment manufactorers, the pharm companies, the slaughterhouse, the grocer, the feed elevator, etc.

You aren’t really helping those people, you are engaging in a mutually beneficial trade. Good, but not as good as a full gift.

None of this is stops me in any way from helping those in need, either.

It does if you’re spending your resources. If you are helping all the people in the line you mentioned, all of that money could be used to prevent starvation.

I do not see what you hope to gain from trying to prove that keeping a pet in many instances is a venial sin. I have found it stated nowhere. Until you can provide evidence that it is, your position is not very compelling.

keeping a pet is probably slightly venially sinful because it is a luxury. Jesus and the apostles did not have luxury, and the spoke up against it whenever they could.