R
redhen
Guest
Ok, I’m ignorant as to the purpose of animal suffering. I will have to wait until I’m dead then to find out the answer. Hopefully it will be worth the wait.
- Status
R
redhen
Guest
Is this not an example of holding animals to account for “murdering” humans? Same as Exodus 21:28 “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.”
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
Never thought of that. Would the inference here be then that an Ox is capable of making a malevolent decision? And therefor, like humans, should be held accountable for his actions? or would it be more along the lines of putting a dog down because he has rabies…? There is also the example of Balaam’s donkey.
B
buffalo
Guest
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels.
Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. The gaps in alignment are present in about equal amounts in the chimp and human sequences. They occur equally in repeated and nonrepeated sequences, as detected by REPEATMASKER (ftp.genome.washington.edu/RM/RepeatMasker.html).
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Problem of Evil
Please explain to me this acronym.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
if youve read my previous statements in the thread on the subject, i dont think its rational to anthropomorphize animals. i dont take their conditions as “suffering” any more than a broken roomba “suffers” yes, they have sophisticated pain and survival response systems, but that doesnt equate to the human concept of “suffering”.
that said, even if animals did “suffer” it would still fall to the same problem that defeats the POE, it is always possible that there is a perfectly good reason for it, even if we dont possess the necesssary information to determine what that reason might be.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
I found an interesting article with some arguments I would like to share.
bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_4.shtml
"Theologians and philosophers have tried to deal with animal suffering - here are some of their attempts.
Animals don’t feel pain
This argument hasn’t found much support, because of the cumulative effect of points like these:
Go to the link to see the rest. It is really quite interesting and good research for part two of my blog
thecontinualramblingsofshinobibombay.blogspot.com/2009/08/differences-in-animals-and-humans-part.html
bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/animals_4.shtml
"Theologians and philosophers have tried to deal with animal suffering - here are some of their attempts.
Animals don’t feel pain
Code:
* Animals don't feel pain
o Although animals behave as if they feel pain, this behaviour is not accompanied by unpleasant mental states
* Since animals don't feel pain, they don't suffer
* Therefore animal suffering is only apparent and does not conflict with the idea of a loving God.
Code:
* animals behave in similar ways to human beings when they are hurt
* higher animals have similar neurological structures to humans
* the same points could, with a little adaptation, be used to argue that human beings (other than ourselves) don't feel pain
o telling others that we're in pain is just more behaviour - it doesn't prove anythingthecontinualramblingsofshinobibombay.blogspot.com/2009/08/differences-in-animals-and-humans-part.html
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
these of course are the normal reasons given tol justify anthropomorphization, yet because we can duplicate them all with machines, then they cannot rationally be the basis for a validation of anthropomorphization.
ive argued this topic for a lot of posts and so far i have never heard an explanation that didnt attempt to justify anthropomorphization with rationally invalid premises such as simularity of systems, equates to identical states of a system.
you may wonder why i argue so strongly against this common position. i think that it is immoral. last year a homeless man froze to death not far from here, at the same time there were several “humane” shelters where stray animals had food, warmth, shelter, a soft place to lay down, medical treatment and love. meanwhile, another human being, a few miles away was dying, for food, he had the leftovers the city could afford, for shelter, he had a few pieces of newspaper and plastic, his soft place to lay down was a concrete sidewalk where other people simply walked by him, for medical treatment he had nothing, for love, for love he had only G-d. surely he is now satisfied at the feet of our Lord. just as surely there is a special place in hell for those that walked by him that night.
Christ never mentioned animals, but he did mention the way in which we are to treat our fellow man, until every humans needs are satisfied animals are of no importance.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
Hey, warpspeedpetey!:wave:How’s it going?
So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. <-----that’s a food trough used to feed animals hay and alfalfa
Luke 2:16
At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, He saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Mark 1:9-11
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.
John 10:14
Jesus is referred to as The Lion of Judah.
Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Revelation 5:5
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen?COLOR] gathers her chicks{/COLOR] under her wings, but you were not willing.
Matthew 23:37
Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb?COLOR] of God”.
I’m just sayin…
"Anthropomporphiization", - That is a cool word. Don’t get to use it very often in normal conversation. I can see why you like it so much. With all due respect, I really think it is an unsubstantial argument. When my daughter discovered the ‘profusely’ she couldn’t use it enough.I guess she used it profusely
** It is a shame indeed for the homeless man. Having been homeless myself, I can certainly sympathize. Does your community not have a shelter? Where I was homeless at does. If you really feel this strongly perhaps you should consider volunteering to help or donate food or toilet paper or something. I know that the shelters are always in need of something. Be the change you want to see in the world. Just because there is an animal shelter nearby that doesn’t mean that all people care more about animals than they do humans.**
Well, they are certainly shown to be a part of his life. Whether he ate them are not is of no importance. However, I imagine he would be upset if he saw them abused.
So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. <-----that’s a food trough used to feed animals hay and alfalfa
Luke 2:16
At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, He saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Mark 1:9-11
Code:
At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended Him.
Mark 1:12-13John 10:14
Jesus is referred to as The Lion of Judah.
Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Revelation 5:5
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen?COLOR] gathers her chicks{/COLOR] under her wings, but you were not willing.
Matthew 23:37
Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb?COLOR] of God”.
I’m just sayin…
R
redhen
Guest
As an agnostic, I am ignorant in the CCC and other dogma. Is warpseedpetey’s view in line with the teachings of the RCC ?
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
**Hi redhen:wave:
More or less. I do not want to talk about other members of the forum. It just isn’t polite.
However, check it out**
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
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.
Hope that helps!
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
**Hi redhen:wave:
More or less. I do not want to talk about other members of the forum. It just isn’t polite.
However, check it out**
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
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.
I took too long editing my last post, so i want to add
Of course, this is where he is getting the anthropomorphism thing. I personally see a conflict of interests between 2817 and 2418 on the surface. However, the qualifying words in 17 are "if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.This leads me to believe that if the animal is already suffering then attempts to cure them could be apllied to medical and scientific knowledge. I think that inflicting the illness or injury would qualify as "suffer or die needlessly". It might also be why I am not personally aware of any Church sanctioned animal shelters. Seeing as 18 statesIt is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.
**So, I do agree with the Catechism.
Personally, as it is my personal conviction, I do not eat animals (as everyone is probably well aware of by now). To me in inflicts** needless suffering. But it is not my place to tell others what they should or should not eat.
Philippians 2:12…so work out your salvation in fear and trembling.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
**Hey, warpspeedpetey!:wave:How’s it going?"Anthropomporphiization", - That is a cool word. Don’t get to use it very often in normal conversation. I can see why you like it so much. With all due respect, I really think it is an unsubstantial argument. When my daughter discovered the ‘profusely’ she couldn’t use it enough.I guess she used it profusely
So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. <-----that’s a food trough used to feed animals hay and alfalfa
Luke 2:16
At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, He saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Mark 1:9-11
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.Code:At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended Him. Mark 1:12-13
John 10:14
Jesus is referred to as The Lion of Judah.
Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Revelation 5:5
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen?COLOR] gathers her chicks{/COLOR] under her wings, but you were not willing.
Matthew 23:37
Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb?COLOR] of God”.
I’m just sayin…
i see that rationalism cannot convince you, thats ok, and yes having been homeless once myself as a young man i take care of my charitable responsibilities, i know how hard life is. you know as well as i that shelters in big cities are dirty and dangerous, most homeless dont frequent them unless they have too. i never did anything but get food there myself.
and this is one of the ways i try to affect change in the greater society, by making rational arguements against what i see as a great immorality.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
yes, given the choice between a stray animal and human needs i am well within the bounds of the teachings of the church. our priority should always be our fellow man.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
I sort of actually agree with you. I just don’t see how being concerned with the welfare of animals is anthropomorphizing them.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
im not really trying to say that concern for the welfare of animals is anthropomorphizing them, but to assign them human qualities based on anything but actual, irrefutable evidence is. then to use that irrational argument as people like peta do to promote things like devoting resources to stray animals while our brothers suffer is immoral.
thats not what you would do with it, but thats because you as well as i are concerned with, “Philippians 2:12…so work out your salvation in fear and trembling.” as you posted. but there are those singerites that dont, they value animal life above human life and they are only growing in strength and numbers. they have a seat at the table of government, and they can affect our laws, policy, and culture. so let us call their position out for the irrational emotion fest that it really is, after all these are the same people who would allow a baby to be murdered while in its mothers womb, but campaign for laws that make it illegal to to raise chickens in a cage.
L
liquidpele
Guest
That logic bothers me, as it depends on a belief that humans are superior based on your religious beliefs. Many animals are quite intelligent, including dogs and dolphins. Also, while I agree PETA can be a bit crazy, I’m not sure what you mean by “devoting resources”… most of their work is against poor human treatment of animals even if their requests are unrealistic.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
**I agree with you wholeheartedly! I have gone on Vegan forums have gotten ripped apart for my pro life stance.
Also, it is this very reason why I try to remind people that we do not live in a democracy, or at least we aren’t supposed to. The pledge of allegience says," and the REPUBLIC for which it stands. Even Ben Franklin, when asked what had happened after the first congress said something like, “It’s a republic, if you can keep it!” (He was a vegetarian by the way**)
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
we are superior because we can show that we have free will, that we can act beyond our programming. thats the same reason we are superior to roombas, deep blue, hal 9000, or a meatbot. we are obviously not deterministically driven. (yes, i can defend free will, if you want to go there.)
as we have earlier discussed any behavior that can be copied by the appropriate programming, sensors, and processors cannot be a rational reason to anthropomorphize animals. by extension that anthropomorphization (hey bill! 20 letters!) cannot then be used to claim any equality for animals.
the resources they use, and other organizations use to provide for stray animals instead of our fellow man who suffers is immoral. i dont mean that you cant feed a stray dog, only that the humane shelters are much better funded then the human shelters. it is an immoral allocation of resources. surely you dont think that a hungry child on an indian reservation really cares if fido is comfy do you?
- Status