Why do animals suffer?

[That_one_guy]

Here is a segment from the Catechism that seems to indicate that ANIMALS SUFFER(cats and dogs)
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[cathybramble]

Here is a segment from the Catechism that seems to indicate that ANIMALS SUFFER(cats and dogs)
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

golly. the catechism doesn’t use any quotes around the word SUFFER. so i’m guessing that by suffer they mean… suffer…

 

[That_one_guy]

:bigyikes:

I take it you don’t have any pets.

Dear cats and dogs.I find it ironic that you take the position you do with the moniker you chose.

 

[cathybramble]

“suffering entered into the world as a direct result of Adam and Eves disobedience”.

If you read the OT especially Genesis, it is clear that all God’s creatures were first created to eat of the vegetation and not of each other. When God created all the animals and creatures He was well pleased and blessed them declaring their goodness. As you say here, the fall of Adam and Eve lead to many ill ways including that of carnivorous behavior. Going a step further, in Revelations, it is revealed that it will become all creatures lying side by side in harmony again.

With that consideration in mind, how would we explain the state of the earth and its inhabitants that He has left to us as His custodians?

exactly. we call it the fall of mankind but that first step was a doozy… it brought death and suffering to the entire world - prior to that, it didn’t exist.

 

[redhen]

Here is a segment from the Catechism that seems to indicate that ANIMALS SUFFER(cats and dogs)
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Thanks for looking that up. I knew there had to be a more extended circle of compassion in there somewhere.

I’ve always had an affinity with St. Francis. Here’s a video I recently found you might enjoy. And no, there are no animals in it.
(except for a few horses)

youtube.com/watch?v=SvPjdEOKsVY

 

[Smber2c]

All this hub-bub about “Cats and Dogs” and “Fox” having bad names due to their opinions reminds me of the presidential candidates posturing by trying to make their opponent look a certain way.

Just because someone doesn’t think an animal is less than human, or because they think that an animal is a tool for our wellfare, or whatever else - in no way means that person hates animals.

A painter may love his art (or his supplies) and yet acknowledge that it suffers no emotions.

---

To the suggestion that animals pre-fall were all leaf eaters… what? Again, why is it evil or disordered for a lion to eat a lamb? Please someone explain to me what pain or suffering would be evil for an animal. Since they were not the purpose of creation and were instead a part of our human environment (like plants, planets, elements, bodies of water) - why would one killing the other no occur in a perfect world?
It’s like saying that in the perfect world we wouldn’t need to breath because all that poor oxygen gets clumped up with carbon in our lungs and “dies off” as CO2.
Or perhaps like claiming that no canyon would be turned into a lake in the perfect world, because the canyon would be lost.​

Also from a practicality stand point:
Do you really believe that at the moment of the fall the physical properties of 1000’s of species suddenly changed? Were all parisites, certain spiders and preying mantises (that eat their mates), harmful bacteria, pure carnivores, etc…poofed into creation when Adam and Eve bit from the forbidden fruit?
Or scavangers and those plants that thrive on rotting corpses of other plants and mushrooms, tress, and plants that only grow after a great blaze burned down a whole forest - these plants just appeared with the fall?

 

[Fox]

yes, in that case you are right, but you are missing the point. Had Adam and Eve not disobeyed God, Jesus would not have had to suffer for our sins either…

I’m beginning to wunder about you guys with animal names…:whackadoo:

I agree, blasted Adam and Eve. We with animal names are a eccentric but good bunch.

 

[twb1621]

Animal “suffering” is not SUFFERING.

What you see as “animals suffering” WAS created by God before the fall, and it is not suffering. It is merely what animals do and what they are for.

They DON’T suffer! They are food or “accident” victims, both before and after the fall.

Since they don’t suffer at all, they don’t suffer needlessly. Their apparent suffering is not suffering. It is their function. It’s what they do because of what they are.

:shamrock2:

It would be highly recommended with all due respect that you study Genesis more closely. As far as animals not suffering, I live in a very remote area compared to where I was raised in the city. I have learned a great deal about animals in there own natural environment and about people’s interaction with them. Trust me, they suffer greatly and very frequently at the hands of humanity for absolutely no reason other than man’s entertaining himself. As far as accident victims, sometimes… sometimes targets for fools who try and often succeed running over them deliberately. I suppose you believe automobiles were God’s gift to man also. Although we have created a society dependant on them, they were really nothing more than an invention made for man’s convenience but which has in many ways been destroying the environment in the mean time. This is what occurs with most of the things we invent for our “convenience”, they have consequences that we later find in one way or another are harmful to us. People with the inclination that living creatures feel no pain and do not suffer are absurd. If you don’t think God would be extremely displeased with what we do to His creation that He found to be so good, very good, you are fooling yourself and in denial. That I can tell you in total confidence knowing God as an all loving and merciful God. We have a lot to answer for when our times come.

 

[twb1621]

By “persons” I mean persons. Descendants of Adam and Eve.

I have no idea if those “beings classified recently by scientists as separate species that you speak of” were persons or not, but if they were persons then they suffered as only persons can suffer, and if they weren’t persons then they didn’t suffer as only persons can suffer.

Making fire, tools, burying the dead or twisting knobs on an assembly-line are not determiners of whether a being is a person or not.

The only thing that matters is whether they were descendants of Adam and Eve. I don’t know if they were or not, and since I don’t I don’t know whether they were persons or not.

Because they had thumbs and were cold?

Do beavers make little “river houses” because some Adambeaver was given the “forbidden trout” by his Evebeaver?

Yes. Problem solved,… except in your hyperactive mind.

Animals do not suffer.

Were those “species” you mentioned animals or persons?

I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter. Persons suffer. Animals don’t.

They suffered, or not, depending on what they actually were. End of “argument”.

:shamrock2:

It seems your problem is you relate to an animal suffering as though it makes it have a soul. The soul is not the same thing if that is your point. Humans have souls and those souls are affected by sin or good works and sincerity of heart in the devotion to God. Animals do not need a soul because animals can not sin, they do not have the so called reasoning of man (which sometimes I wonder about) but whether or not animals have some sort of being, if I had to choose a position I would definitely say they do. They certainly have a pleasing quality to God since He created them. If you lived among them and watched them, you may begin to think so too.

 

[twb1621]

All this hub-bub about “Cats and Dogs” and “Fox” having bad names due to their opinions reminds me of the presidential candidates posturing by trying to make their opponent look a certain way.

Just because someone doesn’t think an animal is less than human, or because they think that an animal is a tool for our wellfare, or whatever else - in no way means that person hates animals.

A painter may love his art (or his supplies) and yet acknowledge that it suffers no emotions.

---

To the suggestion that animals pre-fall were all leaf eaters… what? Again, why is it evil or disordered for a lion to eat a lamb? Please someone explain to me what pain or suffering would be evil for an animal. Since they were not the purpose of creation and were instead a part of our human environment (like plants, planets, elements, bodies of water) - why would one killing the other no occur in a perfect world?
It’s like saying that in the perfect world we wouldn’t need to breath because all that poor oxygen gets clumped up with carbon in our lungs and “dies off” as CO2.
Or perhaps like claiming that no canyon would be turned into a lake in the perfect world, because the canyon would be lost.​

Also from a practicality stand point:
Do you really believe that at the moment of the fall the physical properties of 1000’s of species suddenly changed? do you believe in scripture? Were all parisites, certain spiders and preying mantises (that eat their mates), harmful bacteria, pure carnivores, etc…poofed into creation when Adam and Eve bit from the forbidden fruit? Do you doubt that God can “poof”?
Or scavangers and those plants that thrive on rotting corpses of other plants and mushrooms, tress, and plants that only grow after a great blaze burned down a whole forest - these plants just appeared with the fall?

To all of your points, my answer is study Genesis, it will provide the answers you are looking for.

 

[twb1621]

I agree, blasted Adam and Eve. We with animal names are a eccentric but good bunch.

I’m sure you are… your opinions are not unusual…

 

[That_one_guy]

All this hub-bub about “Cats and Dogs” and “Fox” having bad names due to their opinions reminds me of the presidential candidates posturing by trying to make their opponent look a certain way.

Just for the record,…I got reprimanded for being insensitive to another poster and was reminded of my signature.

Just because someone doesn’t think an animal is less than human, or because they think that an animal is a tool for our wellfare, or whatever else - in no way means that person hates animals.

Yes, it does.Or at least it implies that they don’t recognize the sentience of the animal.

A painter may love his art (or his supplies) and yet acknowledge that it suffers no emotions.

That’s just,…(aargh) …:banghead: …such a wrong comparison in so many ways,…

---

To the suggestion that animals pre-fall were all leaf eaters… what? Again, why is it evil or disordered for a lion to eat a lamb?

Saint Jerome
The eating of meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw in front of the grumbling sensual people in the desert. Jesus Christ, who appeared when the time had been fulfilled, has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat.

Please someone explain to me what pain or suffering would be evil for an animal. Since they were not the purpose of creation and were instead a part of our human environment (like plants, planets, elements, bodies of water) - why would one killing the other no occur in a perfect world?

The needless killing of animals by humans for ‘sport’,or even just the dysfunctional adolescent who ties cats tails together or puts a firecracker in a frogs mouth,…is that not sheer cruelty?It is evident that there is a predator/prey relationship in nature.And I don’t think we could teach the lion to not hunt.

It’s like saying that in the perfect world we wouldn’t need to breath because all that poor oxygen gets clumped up with carbon in our lungs and “dies off” as CO2.

It’s not like saying that at all!Oxygen is a necessary fuel for existence.Spraying bunny rabbits with hairspray is not.

Or perhaps like claiming that no canyon would be turned into a lake in the perfect world, because the canyon would be lost.

this appears somewhat non-sequiter

---

Also from a practicality stand point:
Do you really believe that at the moment of the fall the physical properties of 1000’s of species suddenly changed?

This is a mystery I have to accept on faith,…,I don’t know.

Were all parisites, certain spiders and preying mantises (that eat their mates), harmful bacteria, pure carnivores, etc…poofed into creation when Adam and Eve bit from the forbidden fruit?

Again, I don’t know.But,I do believe they have a vital role in the function of the planets self-sustaining cycles.

Or scavangers and those plants that thrive on rotting corpses of other plants and mushrooms, tress, and plants that only grow after a great blaze burned down a whole forest - these plants just appeared with the fall?

Scavangers clean up the dead stuff.Sort of like the garbage man.

When I hear this sort of reasoning I have to wonder if you are merely playing the devils advocate? or is your heart really that cold?
Animals are sentient beings.They are happy, sad, they learn and think and even reason in ways peculiar to their species.

Maybe you should,like,get a puppy or something. Or maybe not.That might be cruel to the puppy…

 

[twb1621]

something worth viewing;

sonnyradio.com/DogHero.html

 

[That_one_guy]

something worth viewing;

sonnyradio.com/DogHero.html

And anyone can see how far an animal will go to protect its offspring,also.
But,THIS? This is precious…it reminds me of when I was little and a neighbor dog attacked our cat.Our dog went after the other dog,which was considerably larger.(we had a cockapoo-the other dog was some mix of ‘I-don’t-know-what’.)

The rationalization that animals don’t have feelings or possess a soul is just one of the ways people lie to themselves so they don’t feel guilty for the way humans treat other non-human sentient beings.

Kudos to you,twb!!!
you rock!

 

[twb1621]

And anyone can see how far an animal will go to protect its offspring,also.
But,THIS? This is precious…it reminds me of when I was little and a neighbor dog attacked our cat.Our dog went after the other dog,which was considerably larger.(we had a cockapoo-the other dog was some mix of ‘I-don’t-know-what’.)

The rationalization that animals don’t have feelings or possess a soul is just one of the ways people lie to themselves so they don’t feel guilty for the way humans treat other non-human sentient beings.

Kudos to you,twb!!!
you rock!

Thanks T O G…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Do beavers make little “river houses” because some Adambeaver was given the “forbidden trout” by his Evebeaver?

I’m sorry, I thought that Adm and Eve lived in nakedness until they ate of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Then afterwards they covered themselves. Is this not true?

Yes, that’s true.

And your point would be…?

Quote:
Were those “species” you mentioned animals or persons?
I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter. Persons suffer. Animals don’t.
They suffered, or not, depending on what they actually were. End of “argument”.

What we have here is a conceptual claim. All hominids (existing and extinct) are part of the Animal kingdom. So, yes there were animals, and so are we.

You define persons as those organisms descended from Adam and Eve. So, I need you to clarify when Adam and Eve lived. Then we can determine what genus and species they were.

I have no idea when Adam and Eve lived.

And I’m NOT making a conceptual claim. I’m specifically NOT making any claim to know whether the various other “species” you specified were persons or animals.

I’m merely claiming that if these other “species” were persons, then they suffered, and if they weren’t persons but only animals, that they didn’t suffer.

I, personally, am not in the least interested in whether these other “species” were persons or not. They are gone now, and for good reason (of which I have no clue), and are of interest only to those who have interest in them.

But, suffering in only possible for persons. That is the only important aspect in any of this “discussion”.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Here is a segment from the Catechism that seems to indicate that ANIMALS SUFFER(cats and dogs)
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Animals suffer pain. But they don’t suffer as persons do. They do not have “redemptive suffering”.

It is certainly wrong to be cruel and inflict needless pain. It is also wrong to not help alleviate the pain of animals when possible.

Human suffering is to be given to God as an offering. Animals are not “called” to do that.

That is why it is kind to euthanize animals, and evil to euthanize persons.

:shamrock2:

 

[cathybramble]

Yes, that’s true.

And your point would be…?

I have no idea when Adam and Eve lived.

And I’m NOT making a conceptual claim. I’m specifically NOT making any claim to know whether the various other “species” you specified were persons or animals.

I’m merely claiming that if these other “species” were persons, then they suffered, and if they weren’t persons but only animals, that they didn’t suffer.

I, personally, am not in the least interested in whether these other “species” were persons or not. They are gone now, and for good reason (of which I have no clue), and are of interest only to those who have interest in them.

But, suffering in only possible for persons. That is the only important aspect in any of this “discussion”.

:shamrock2:

then the only task you would seem to have is simply to justify that statement with some facts that support it. can you do it?

 

[cathybramble]

Animals suffer pain. But they don’t suffer as persons do. They do not have “redemptive suffering”.

It is certainly wrong to be cruel and inflict needless pain. It is also wrong to not help alleviate the pain of animals when possible.

Human suffering is to be given to God as an offering. Animals are not “called” to do that.

That is why it is kind to euthanize animals, and evil to euthanize persons.

:shamrock2:

animals do not need redemptive suffering. they are innocent.

but they suffer physically and emotionally nonetheless, in much the same way that we do.

i thought the question was about animals suffering, not animals “suffering redemptively like humans do”?

sorry, i meant redemptively, not pre-emptively LOL

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Dear cats and dogs.I find it ironic that you take the position you do with the moniker you chose.

I have had several dogs, and I have (and presently do) love my dog(s) very much. But I love them as DOGS, and not as “little doggy people”.

I do, though, think that cats are true demon spawn! <chuckle, chuckle!>

It is wrong (as per that CCC section [2418?]) to see animals as persons, or persons as animals.

The so-called suffering of animals is simply a mechanistic aspect of the material universe. The suffering of persons is always and everywhere of redemptive value.

There is NO comparison between these two types of “suffering”.

:shamrock2: