Godly dominion over animals versus cruelty

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
First, lets start with an amusing news story:

I can't seem to link it, but google something like "Aussie boy feeds zoo's animals to alligators." About a 7 year old that broke in and fed other animals to the crocs. CAN I HAVE A LINK PLEASE?

It is amusing and made me think of my son (not the breaking and entering part, but the animals part)




Me and my boy like to catch animals. Bugs, frogs, flies, lizards, spider, ants.

The lizards we don't harm. The ants we smush, the spider gets a dinner of ants and then the spiders get fed to the snake.

The other animals are tainted with vegetarianism and our cuscus likes apples (he's a bit effeminate I think), but the snake and our giant lizard get a steady diet of other bugs.

When not feeding bugs to the lizards, it is also fun to smash the ants that threaten our home. Sometimes we smash some ants just for looking at our home. Sometimes we do it for fun.

We let little lizards go so that we do not hurt them and never try to hurt lizards. Bugs we don't hurt slowly, but we squish ants fast and if we don't like spiders we have a fun time whopping the spider with a broom..but we are not allowed to pull legs off of grashoppers or wings off flies, though we are allowed to kill them outright.

He is also fascinated when I kill chickens and wants to see which guts we keep and which we throw away. He wants to try to kill a chicken when he gets older he says. He also wants to shoot pigs.

I also know that many parents teach their children how to hunt, which is maybe a useful trait here, but not so much in the West.




How do we teach the care and gentleness to animals and at the same time teach them to gut and kill animals? Also, how much should we play with bugs and squish them? Is it wrong to have fun squishing ants? Do I need just cause and what is that just cause? How about spidiers? How about lizards? How about birds? He slapped his kitty cats head so I spanked him, and then later in the afternoon we went and smashed spiders.



Any advice?
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Paul threw a poisonous snake into a fire to kill it. There are a dozen places in Scripture where one can infer that it is fair and good to destroy animal that are a threat to humans. Jumping on a lion in a pit, killing a lion on a road, etc...and when the Scripture speaks of the devouring locust, one would have to be willingly ignorant not to see that it's considered natural and good to protect your livelihood from them.

You take those example with the conservation Scriptures we spoke about the other day, and you have balance.

Sounds to me that you've got things pretty much worked out. On that Island, the people told us that torturing animals was OK since they don't have souls, but you're setting a good example.

I've never seen a snake eat a spider. What kind is it? I assume you have it in a cage? There are carnivorous plants in your area that if you can find love ants, and your kid will get a treat feeding them to a plant.
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
I think you have the right idea about the bugs. Don't pull off legs or wings just kill them. When it comes to animals, make a distinction between animals being used for food and non food animals. That being said, all animals being raised by you need to be treated kindly regardless if they end up as dinner or not. Teach your children to be kind to the chickens as well as cats. Since the distinction between food and non food animals is mostly cultural, you might end up some place where a "pet" will end up as dinner.

I have taught my children the same as my father taught me. Eat what you kill. I think hunting can be fun and educational, but don't hunt for trophies. Sometimes you might have to kill an animal out of necessity. When you or your pets are threatened or as an act of mercy. That is the only exception to the eat what you kill rule.

BTW lizards can be very tasty to eat depending on the species you have around. If you blur the distinction between food and pet it is a helpful way to teach children that all animals are to be treated kindly.

Anyway I hope that helps.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Paul threw a poisonous snake into a fire to kill it. There are a dozen places in Scripture where one can infer that it is fair and good to destroy animal that are a threat to humans. Jumping on a lion in a pit, killing a lion on a road, etc...and when the Scripture speaks of the devouring locust, one would have to be willingly ignorant not to see that it's considered natural and good to protect your livelihood from them.

You take those example with the conservation Scriptures we spoke about the other day, and you have balance.

Sounds to me that you've got things pretty much worked out. On that Island, the people told us that torturing animals was OK since they don't have souls, but you're setting a good example.

I've never seen a snake eat a spider. What kind is it? I assume you have it in a cage? There are carnivorous plants in your area that if you can find love ants, and your kid will get a treat feeding them to a plant.
Not sure if it ate it or just bit it out of self-defense - when we went back it was still half in the cage. I think the snake is a green tree viper.


There are a lot of carnivorous plants that look like litte pots of water, the bugs crawl into drink and die in the ooze. Can you recommend any books on plants here? I know local names only.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I think you have the right idea about the bugs. Don't pull off legs or wings just kill them. When it comes to animals, make a distinction between animals being used for food and non food animals. That being said, all animals being raised by you need to be treated kindly regardless if they end up as dinner or not. Teach your children to be kind to the chickens as well as cats. Since the distinction between food and non food animals is mostly cultural, you might end up some place where a "pet" will end up as dinner.

I have taught my children the same as my father taught me. Eat what you kill. I think hunting can be fun and educational, but don't hunt for trophies. Sometimes you might have to kill an animal out of necessity. When you or your pets are threatened or as an act of mercy. That is the only exception to the eat what you kill rule.

BTW lizards can be very tasty to eat depending on the species you have around. If you blur the distinction between food and pet it is a helpful way to teach children that all animals are to be treated kindly.

Anyway I hope that helps.

The last one I ate was AWFUL! Blahhhh. It was part of the upper arm and head cooked over a burning log. Crunchy skin, charcoal and bones. (Recite the mantra: "Where He leads I'll follow, what they feed me I'll ty to swallow.")
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
Never tried lizard with skin on. The last one I ate reminded me of grilled tuna. It was very tasty to eat. Only thing that grossed me out was that it seemed to move around as it was grilled.
 

Webservant

Puritan Board Sophomore
I always tell my kids that how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Rich:

"Animals that feel pain?" Even worms writhe when squished.

It is hard for me to draw lines. My dad allowed me to shoot frogs and lizards as a kid, but we don't kill lizards here ("they're our friends..they eat skeeters" my son recites by heart).

It all comes down to needing a good reason to kill the animals. But then I am not consistent because sometimes we squish ants for sun.

Maybe I will start another thread on the sentience of animals.
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
Personally I would be very careful about the issue of animals feeling pain. To me it seems that the conclusion of such teaching would lead to a vegetarian life style.

Lots of times, and this is especially true with young hunters, one will miss the kill zone with their shot and just end up wounding the animal. Then there is the process of tracking the wounded animal and then killing it. I would not want my children worrying about how much pain the animal will feel. I want them to learn the difference between trying to kill the animal as quickly as possible and just wounding it to see it die slowly.

I am a catch and release fisherman and my children are the same because of me. Again I wouldn't want them to stop fishing this way because the fish might feel pain.
 

Webservant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Personally I would be very careful about the issue of animals feeling pain. To me it seems that the conclusion of such teaching would lead to a vegetarian life style.

Lots of times, and this is especially true with young hunters, one will miss the kill zone with their shot and just end up wounding the animal. Then there is the process of tracking the wounded animal and then killing it. I would not want my children worrying about how much pain the animal will feel. I want them to learn the difference between trying to kill the animal as quickly as possible and just wounding it to see it die slowly.

I am a catch and release fisherman and my children are the same because of me. Again I wouldn't want them to stop fishing this way because the fish might feel pain.
I never said don't kill animals, and I never said don't eat them (perish the thought!). Gratuitous killing is wasteful, and if you have a choice between a slow, painful death for a creature and a quick, merciful-as-possible death, why wouldn't you choose the latter?
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
Personally I would be very careful about the issue of animals feeling pain. To me it seems that the conclusion of such teaching would lead to a vegetarian life style.

Lots of times, and this is especially true with young hunters, one will miss the kill zone with their shot and just end up wounding the animal. Then there is the process of tracking the wounded animal and then killing it. I would not want my children worrying about how much pain the animal will feel. I want them to learn the difference between trying to kill the animal as quickly as possible and just wounding it to see it die slowly.

I am a catch and release fisherman and my children are the same because of me. Again I wouldn't want them to stop fishing this way because the fish might feel pain.
I never said don't kill animals, and I never said don't eat them (perish the thought!). Gratuitous killing is wasteful, and if you have a choice between a slow, painful death for a creature and a quick, merciful-as-possible death, why wouldn't you choose the latter?

How do you reason how much pain is acceptable for an animal to feel? How can a child reason how an animal feels pain? The only standard a child can make is how they process pain. Is that the same as an animal? If so, then isn't being shot a horrible pain? Should we not shoot animals because as you have said:

how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
You have created an equality between men and animals that simply doesn't exist.

Before we had guns and other quicker ways to kill animals, people would generally cut the throats of pig, sheep, goats, etc. to kill them. This, while a relatively quick death might not be as fast as shooting them in the head or braining them with a sledgehammer. Does this mean that people of older times had a more cruel heart?
 

Webservant

Puritan Board Sophomore
Personally I would be very careful about the issue of animals feeling pain. To me it seems that the conclusion of such teaching would lead to a vegetarian life style.

Lots of times, and this is especially true with young hunters, one will miss the kill zone with their shot and just end up wounding the animal. Then there is the process of tracking the wounded animal and then killing it. I would not want my children worrying about how much pain the animal will feel. I want them to learn the difference between trying to kill the animal as quickly as possible and just wounding it to see it die slowly.

I am a catch and release fisherman and my children are the same because of me. Again I wouldn't want them to stop fishing this way because the fish might feel pain.
I never said don't kill animals, and I never said don't eat them (perish the thought!). Gratuitous killing is wasteful, and if you have a choice between a slow, painful death for a creature and a quick, merciful-as-possible death, why wouldn't you choose the latter?

How do you reason how much pain is acceptable for an animal to feel? How can a child reason how an animal feels pain? The only standard a child can make is how they process pain. Is that the same as an animal? If so, then isn't being shot a horrible pain? Should we not shoot animals because as you have said:

how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
You have created an equality between men and animals that simply doesn't exist.

Before we had guns and other quicker ways to kill animals, people would generally cut the throats of pig, sheep, goats, etc. to kill them. This, while a relatively quick death might not be as fast as shooting them in the head or braining them with a sledgehammer. Does this mean that people of older times had a more cruel heart?
Brother,

Re-read my post and answer my question (the one I really asked) and I will answer yours.
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
I never said don't kill animals, and I never said don't eat them (perish the thought!). Gratuitous killing is wasteful, and if you have a choice between a slow, painful death for a creature and a quick, merciful-as-possible death, why wouldn't you choose the latter?

How do you reason how much pain is acceptable for an animal to feel? How can a child reason how an animal feels pain? The only standard a child can make is how they process pain. Is that the same as an animal? If so, then isn't being shot a horrible pain? Should we not shoot animals because as you have said:

how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
You have created an equality between men and animals that simply doesn't exist.

Before we had guns and other quicker ways to kill animals, people would generally cut the throats of pig, sheep, goats, etc. to kill them. This, while a relatively quick death might not be as fast as shooting them in the head or braining them with a sledgehammer. Does this mean that people of older times had a more cruel heart?
Brother,

Re-read my post and answer my question (the one I really asked) and I will answer yours.

Sorry the whole premise of your question presupposes that animals capacity to feel is equal to man. Just as your original statement. It is a false premise both biblically and scientifically.

I posted earlier that we should treat animals with kindness, whether they are pets or food. Only I didn't add the condition of pain.

Do you think buying store raised beef is less cruel then shooting a deer?
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
Show me where I said that please. Specifically, which part of my statement even hints at that?
How then does an animal feel pain? Explain it to me.
Sorry brother. You made an assertion, and it's up to you to defend it.
:lol:


I always tell my kids that how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
You made the assertion. You need to defend it first. :p
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
How do you reason how much pain is acceptable for an animal to feel? How can a child reason how an animal feels pain? The only standard a child can make is how they process pain. Is that the same as an animal? If so, then isn't being shot a horrible pain? Should we not shoot animals because as you have said:
Just because we have a soul and an animal doesn't have a soul, doesn't mean we don't share physiological similarities with other animals. We and other mammals at least feel pain the same way, need the same food, have the same drive to reproduce and a very long list of other things.

But we are allowed to inflict death on certain animals, even though it causes them pain. We are instructed by Scripture to do it as mercifully as possible. These are two separate truths that aren't contradictory. The wise man regards the life of his beast (even when he slaughters it) but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Cruel meaning inflicting needless pain.

So, you slaughter a food animal without any more pain that the minimum necessary. That would even count for protective killing. Paul didn't torture the snake, he shook it off into a fire which kills snakes quickly. Sampson's example of tying the tails of foxes or whatever animal he used to set fire to his enemies crops to me is a problematic verse, and I personally think it was just descriptive, like his drunkenness and fornication rather than something that would implicitly allow a repetition of that sort of behavior.
 

Webservant

Puritan Board Sophomore
How then does an animal feel pain? Explain it to me.
Sorry brother. You made an assertion, and it's up to you to defend it.
:lol:


I always tell my kids that how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
You made the assertion. You need to defend it first. :p
That's not what you accused me of. This is, "Sorry the whole premise of your question presupposes that animals capacity to feel is equal to man." Nice try, though. Brother, do you know what a logical fallacy is?
 

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
How do you reason how much pain is acceptable for an animal to feel? How can a child reason how an animal feels pain? The only standard a child can make is how they process pain. Is that the same as an animal? If so, then isn't being shot a horrible pain? Should we not shoot animals because as you have said:
Just because we have a soul and an animal doesn't have a soul, doesn't mean we don't share physiological similarities with other animals. We and other mammals at least feel pain the same way, need the same food, have the same drive to reproduce and a very long list of other things.

But we are allowed to inflict death on certain animals, even though it causes them pain. We are instructed by Scripture to do it as mercifully as possible. These are two separate truths that aren't contradictory. The wise man regards the life of his beast (even when he slaughters it) but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Cruel meaning inflicting needless pain.

So, you slaughter a food animal without any more pain that the minimum necessary. That would even count for protective killing. Paul didn't torture the snake, he shook it off into a fire which kills snakes quickly. Sampson's example of tying the tails of foxes or whatever animal he used to set fire to his enemies crops to me is a problematic verse, and I personally think it was just descriptive, like his drunkenness and fornication rather than something that would implicitly allow a repetition of that sort of behavior.
You need to show how animals and man feel pain in the same way. That is very presumptuous.

Even you have problems with your biblical examples you have mentioned.

Are there quicker/less cruel ways to kill animals other than cutting their throats?
 
Last edited:

gene_mingo

Puritan Board Junior
Sorry brother. You made an assertion, and it's up to you to defend it.
:lol:


I always tell my kids that how you treat creatures which can feel pain is a reflection of what's in your own heart.
You made the assertion. You need to defend it first. :p
That's not what you accused me of. This is, "Sorry the whole premise of your question presupposes that animals capacity to feel is equal to man." Nice try, though. Brother, do you know what a logical fallacy is?
Silly.

Since you refuse to define your original assertion then we are at an impasse.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
You need to show how animals and man feel pain in the same way. That is very presumptuous.
Not unless you count some sort of spiritual pain. When I pulled my milk goat off the sharp tree stump that had gone through her udder she acted exactly like my daughter when she put her foot through the glass door. I would say that the burden of proof lies with one who makes the remarkable statement, not the other way around.

Are there quicker/less cruel ways to kill animals other than cutting their throats?
Not really. Perhaps a bullet through the brain with a larger animal like a cow, but that's a maybe. For a sheep, if you do it right it's very quick. Bullets and axes is the way I do it. Why do you ask?

We had some neighbors that would torture animals before slaughtering them, like letting their young boys twist the beaks off geese, etc...From my experiences on the island Perg lives, I can well imagine what he regularly sees, and understand why he brought this subject up. Needless cruelty is simply a part of life for most of the unChristianised world, and it leads to a regard for human life that has to be seen to be believed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top