Are there any Scriptures that say that God cares about animals?

[Johnny Skeptic]

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

[spacedOut]

Matt. 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.

Luke 12:6
Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.

Doesn't really imply compassion or care, just that God keeps tabs on them (I guess Luke found a better deal on sparrows...)

[gnosis92]

balaam was beating the crap out of a donkey and the donkey said please stop beating me

[Bang]

This is an interesting topic and I would like to learn more. I hope the Christians step up to the plate and tell it like it us. What I am saying, is that it has been my experience that Christians look upon animals differently than humans. They do not seem to respect them (animals) What is this attitude all about anyway?

I am wondering if this ( differentiating animals from humans ) is just there line in the sand, so to speak. Making humans look more important than animals and perhaps justifying creationism. They just have to have this attitude to make it all believable, I guess.

Notice, for example, how Christians look unfavourably on the idea that animals have emotions and feelings. This is telling I think.

[ROB13]

"naml" in arabic is a word for ants

surah naml verse 18-19
(18) Until when they reached a valley of "namlî", one of the
"namlat(un)" conveyed: O you company of namlû go into your dwellings
lest Solomon and his armies crush you unbeknownst to them.


(19) So he smiled, amused by her message, and said: O my Lord! Order me
that I may be grateful for Your favours which you have bestowed on me
and on my parents, and that I may work righteousness that will please
You. And admit me, by Your Grace, to the ranks of Your righteous
servants."

interesting commentry on this verse by a Muslim :

Here is a King that possesses an army unlike any of his time, and when
he marches it would cause the ground to shake. God Almighty, who
hears everything, draws attention to a conversation among these tiny
little creatures in the midst of the army. I mean, what message can
be conveyed by the Loving Creator who listens and draws attention to
what we even think are among the most insignificant creatures. Who
alone would care for the conversation of ants in the middle of a great
army, of which many conversations were probably going on. Further,
God allows Sulayman (AS) to hear this conversation. Reread the
response of this great King, and than ask yourself what is the lesson
to be learned:


Normal kings would raise their chins up in pride, and would pay little
attention to those weaker than him. Yet, here is that wonderful man,
at the apex of his power, glorifying and thanking his Lord for the
mercy and bounty that was given to the Prophet. Surely, we can take
many lessons from this.

[lee_merrill]

Matt. 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.

Luke 12:6
Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.

Doesn't really imply compassion or care, just that God keeps tabs on them (I guess Luke found a better deal on sparrows...)
But how do these verses not indicate care? Mt. 10:29 is even more literally "apart from your Father."

Psalm 50:11 I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.

And this prophecy even indicates God's care for the order of nature, where animals eat each other:

Isaiah 11:6-7 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

So the situation will some day change.

Romans 8:20-21 ... in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Blessings,
Lee

[WishboneDawn]

This is an interesting topic and I would like to learn more. I hope the Christians step up to the plate and tell it like it us. What I am saying, is that it has been my experience that Christians look upon animals differently than humans. They do not seem to respect them (animals) What is this attitude all about anyway?

I am wondering if this ( differentiating animals from humans ) is just there line in the sand, so to speak. Making humans look more important than animals and perhaps justifying creationism. They just have to have this attitude to make it all believable, I guess.

Notice, for example, how Christians look unfavourably on the idea that animals have emotions and feelings. This is telling I think.

:rolleyes:

So do many scientists.

Sometimes the practice of assigning general attributes or shortcomings to all christians get pretty ridiculous.

Take me for instance, I tend to think animals do have emotions and when I, a christian, bring an animal into the family it's not as a pet but as a full fledged member of the pack. When I brought up a problem I was having with mice in my basement to a christian group I belong to the consensus was to get some humane traps so I could catch and release. Why? Because the mice would obviously be feeling creatures and deserve their little lives.

However, I use snap traps and kill the little buggers. Feelings or not, they don't get to poop on my canned goods. But I'm mean when it comes to uninvited guests. You should see the snap traps I've got set out for the JW's.

[Johnny Skeptic]

But how do these verses not indicate care? Mt. 10:29 is even more literally "apart from your Father."

Psalm 50:11 I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.

And this prophecy even indicates God's care for the order of nature, where animals eat each other:

Isaiah 11:6-7 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

So the situation will some day change.

Romans 8:20-21 ... in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Now really, Lee. Do you actually wish to argue with me in this thread and embarrass yourself again after the beating that I just gave you in the thread on prophecy? If so, I am ready for some more fun. You are way out of your league when it comes to debating the nature of God. That topic is my specialty, and I have some arguments that will quickly chase you right out of town.

[Truth_Seeker]

Are there any Scriptures that say that God cares about animals?

Proverbs 12:10- A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast....

Not sure how I remembered this verse....nevertheless, I recalled it from a Sunday school class of long ago. Of course, I can point to countless more that indicate god doesn't give a shit about animals.....or little kids.....or women.....or handicap people.....or.....well, you get the picture.

[jesus_is_creepy]

gen. 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alter.

God clearly liked the sweet smell of burnt animal flesh

[Dr Rick]

Now really, Lee. Do you actually wish to argue with me in this thread and embarrass yourself again after the beating that I just gave you in the thread on prophecy? If so, I am ready for some more fun. You are way out of your league when it comes to debating the nature of God. That topic is my specialty, and I have some arguments that will quickly chase you right out of town.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that's not much of an argument, nor is it conducive to one.

[Black Feather]

But how do these verses not indicate care? Mt. 10:29 is even more literally "apart from your Father."

Psalm 50:11 I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.

And this prophecy even indicates God's care for the order of nature, where animals eat each other:

Isaiah 11:6-7 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

So the situation will some day change.

Romans 8:20-21 ... in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Blessings,
Lee



All the verses you posted only discuss a future state of being--not that anyone cares about the animals. Just because they are mentioned does not imply caring.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Now really, Lee. Do you actually wish to argue with me in this thread and embarrass yourself again after the beating that I just gave you in the thread on prophecy? If so, I am ready for some more fun. You are way out of your league when it comes to debating the nature of God. That topic is my specialty, and I have some arguments that will quickly chase you right out of town.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that's not much of an argument, nor is it conducive to one.

You are not qualified to make an assessment of this matter because you do not know my background with Lee Merrill, nor do you have any idea whatsoever what I meant by "some arguments that will quickly chase you right out of town". I have debated Lee Merrill for years at the Theology Web, the Secular Web, and for a short time in private e-mail debates. Lee Merrill has refused to debate a number of important issues with me, including Biblical inerrancy, and the nature of God. The reason that I did not state my argument is because I already know from past experience that Lee Merrill will refuse to reply to it. The argument that I was referring to is my nature of God argument, and Lee refuses to debate that topic because he does not want to embarrass himself.

Now then, what is your opinion about the topic of this thread?

[Apikorus]

In the command to observe the Sabbath day in Deut 5:12-15, beasts of burden are also included in the provision to rest and do no work. A small glimmer of some concern...

[Gamera]

Gen 1:20 - And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22

Gen 1:24 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[Gamera]

Mat 6: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31

Dealing with plants but the idea is the same. God "provides" for the nonhuman world.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Mat 6: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?

Yes, God will do much more than clothe Christians. He killed one fourth of the people in Europe with the Bubonic Plague, the majority of whom were Christians. The Bubonic Plague was caused by bacteria. Where do you think the bacteria came from? Have you ever heard of cruel and unusual punishment?

[lee_merrill]

Lee: But how do these verses not indicate care? Mt. 10:29 is even more literally "apart from your Father."

Psalm 50:11 I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.

And this prophecy even indicates God's care for the order of nature, where animals eat each other:

Isaiah 11:6-7 The wolf will live with the lamb...

Black Feather: All the verses you posted only discuss a future state of being--not that anyone cares about the animals. Just because they are mentioned does not imply caring.
The first two verses are about God's present actions, and a future change indicates a present concern, I would say. If you plan to make a change, I would say you are concluding the change is for the better.

And the verses Apikorus and Gamera posted are good, too...

Regards,
Lee

[Chris Weimer]

In the command to observe the Sabbath day in Deut 5:12-15, beasts of burden are also included in the provision to rest and do no work. A small glimmer of some concern...
But according to both the Talmud and the Scrolls, rescuing a lamb which fell into a pit is a violation of the Sabbath, but rescuing a human would not be.

[greyline]

If God cares about animals, why does he make them suffer so much?

[SkepticBoyLee]

Shit, God only cares about the apes (homosapiens are apes) who buy his partiuclar favorite story book (which is called "the Bible" according to Christians.

We have to ask ourselves weather the Christian God gives enough of a shit about humans, the Earth or anything in general other than his own self and those who lick his ass.

What is it that God does care about? And what the hell is "God" in the first place. Its a nonsense word to begin with.

[Chris Weimer]

If God cares about animals, why does he make them suffer so much?

God doesn't exist, so it's a moot point.

[greyline]

God doesn't exist, so it's a moot point.

When discussing the character of BibleGod on this board, one assumes for the sake of argument that he exists. That's SOP around here and this kind of post adds nothing to the discussion. Very odd.

So: why would God create a world in which he could have made animals not suffer, but he made them suffer? Many animals live in fear and pain, or at least great discomfort, their entire lives. Most don't even survive to adulthood.

[Chris Weimer]

When discussing the character of BibleGod on this board, one assumes for the sake of argument that he exists. That's SOP around here and this kind of post adds nothing to the discussion. Very odd.
The OP introduced the question whether any scripture says that God cares about animals, not does God care about any animals. If you want to talk about God caring about animals, that's more appropriate for GRD, where you can feel free to ask all the questions about this imaginary entity. But BC&H is a place where people talk about the Bible and early Christian history. It is your post that is irrelevant to the discussion.

[greyline]

The OP introduced the question whether any scripture says that God cares about animals, not does God care about any animals. If you want to talk about God caring about animals, that's more appropriate for GRD, where you can feel free to ask all the questions about this imaginary entity. But BC&H is a place where people talk about the Bible and early Christian history. It is your post that is irrelevant to the discussion.

I see where you're coming from but I think it's implicit in my question that I was looking for scriptural references to animals' suffering. For example, are animals being punished for Adam & Eve's sin, and so on.

[Chris Weimer]

I see where you're coming from but I think it's implicit in my question that I was looking for scriptural references to animals' suffering. For example, are animals being punished for Adam & Eve's sin, and so on.
Sorry, I didn't see that. It sounded like a general question of why would god do such a thing, instead of where in the Bible does it talk about it. Try to be a little more explicit.

[Gamera]

Yes, God will do much more than clothe Christians. He killed one fourth of the people in Europe with the Bubonic Plague, the majority of whom were Christians. The Bubonic Plague was caused by bacteria. Where do you think the bacteria came from? Have you ever heard of cruel and unusual punishment?

My my don't we have an agenda. Just answering the question posed by the original thread on what the Christian texts say. You need to discuss with a priest your theological issues beyond that.

[Gamera]

If God cares about animals, why does he make them suffer so much?

What makes you think God makes them suffer, and what's the alternative to suffering, except nonexistence, which isn't much of an alternative?

[greyline]

What makes you think God makes them suffer, and what's the alternative to suffering, except nonexistence, which isn't much of an alternative?

According to scripture, everything that happens is God's will - therefore the suffering of animals is God's will. As to whether he "makes" them suffer: he made animals, he made the ecosystem, he made the interactions between animals and the each other and the environment. He's responsible for how animals live and die. Not in specific instances, I suppose, but certainly in general - for example, he's responsible for the parasites that infest animals and cause them endless misery.

One alternative to suffering from parasites would be: God could have not made parasites, or made fewer parasites. He could've put that effort into making a more beetles instead.

[Johnny Skeptic]

What makes you think God makes them suffer,

Who do you suppose created animals and the conditions under which they suffer?

and what's the alternative to suffering, except nonexistence, which isn't much of an alternative?

Whether regarding humans or animals, a good alternative to sickness is good health, but obviously God is only sporadically interested in such a minor issue as the suffering of animals and humans. However, he was quite interested in creating (or allowing) Hurricane Katrina and sending it to New Orleans. He already knows who he will injure or kill next, including some of his most faithful servants. Fundies will tell us that God's behavior is justified because Adam and Eve ate some fruit without having any idea whatsoever about what the extent of the consequences would be.

[Gamera]

Who do you suppose created animals and the conditions under which they suffer?

I think evolution created animals and the conditions under which they suffer.

Whether regarding humans or animals, a good alternative to sickness is good health, but obviously God is only sporadically interested in such a minor issue as the suffering of animals and humans. However, he was quite interested in creating (or allowing) Hurricane Katrina and sending it to New Orleans. He already knows who he will injure or kill next, including some of his most faithful servants. Fundies will tell us that God's behavior is justified because Adam and Eve ate some fruit without having any idea whatsoever about what the extent of the consequences would be.

Sickness is not the alternative to good health for bacteria. It's reversed for them. See your problem now? Ecosystems are complex, and yet they permit life and existence to flourish. Do you have an alternative that doesn't involve killing off organisms you don't like?

Fundies aren't Christians, so whatever they say isn't derived from the gospel. Historical Christianity has a much more complex view of "evil" such as hurricane katrina. The most obvious would be -- the disaster was caused by greedy exploitative people who let the poor live in substandard, exposed conditions subject to flooding because they don't love others Don't blame God for peoples greed and selfishness.

[Gamera]

According to scripture, everything that happens is God's will - therefore the suffering of animals is God's will. As to whether he "makes" them suffer: he made animals, he made the ecosystem, he made the interactions between animals and the each other and the environment. He's responsible for how animals live and die. Not in specific instances, I suppose, but certainly in general - for example, he's responsible for the parasites that infest animals and cause them endless misery.

One alternative to suffering from parasites would be: God could have not made parasites, or made fewer parasites. He could've put that effort into making a more beetles instead.


Well, now we're getting somewhere. So if everything is a result of God's plan, then maybe we should inquire about the plan and see how the suffering fits in.

For instance, there would be no suffering if there were nothing. That's one way to avoid suffering. But I don't particularly like that. Certainly, if I were a parasite and your plan to avoid suffering was to nullify my existence, I might protest.

So what's the alternative? From what you've written you seem to be saying the alternative to suffering is nonexistence for some entities. Presumably, if you caused suffering during your life to others (and I'm willing to be you did), then following your logic, we should terminate your existence.

I see a problem with that. Do you? I think existence is preferable to nonexistence, even existence with suffering. And maybe that's the plan at work.

[greyline]

I see a problem with that. Do you? I think existence is preferable to nonexistence, even existence with suffering. And maybe that's the plan at work.

God could've made the parasites in such a way that they don't cause suffering. Simple as that.

Since I agree with you that "evolution created animals and the conditions under which they suffer", and I don't have time to play Devil's Advocate, I'll withdraw from the discussion insofar as it relates to the Creationist perspective.

[Gamera]

God could've made the parasites in such a way that they don't cause suffering. Simple as that.

Not that simple at all. Your answer to suffering is to not have parasites, but some other creature. Like I say, that's calling for the nonexistence of parasites, which were I a tapeworm, I might resent. Not to mention a lion, a whale, a chimp, a praying mantis, etc.

It appears the world you posit as an alternative will have nothing in it but cows, and even they will have to be careful where they walk. No thanks. I'll take this universe, parasites and all.

But let's get back to you. You cause suffering in others. Are you willing to be "altered" so that you don't have the free will to cause suffering in others? I'm not. It would be a life not worth living to have no moral choice.

Since I agree with you that "evolution created animals and the conditions under which they suffer", and I don't have time to play Devil's Advocate, I'll withdraw from the discussion insofar as it relates to the Creationist perspective.

Good, we agree creationists are fools.

[greyline]

Not that simple at all. Your answer to suffering is to not have parasites, but some other creature.

That's not what I said at all.

"God could've made the parasites in such a way that they don't cause suffering."

[Gamera]

That's not what I said at all.

"God could've made the parasites in such a way that they don't cause suffering."

Sorry, that means that they would not be parasites, but something else. Even God can't make a parasite that not a parasite. Honestly, you're quibbling.

I can't help noting that you keep mentioning parasites and not your own life and the suffering you cause. You haven't responded to what we (as God) should do about that. Please elaborate on what should be done to prevent you from causing suffering to others.

[greyline]

Sorry, that means that they would not be parasites, but something else. Even God can't make a parasite that not a parasite. Honestly, you're quibbling.

He can make a parasite that doesn't cause suffering or even that causes vastly less suffering. Even I can envisage that, so I'm sure God can too.


I can't help noting that you keep mentioning parasites and not your own life and the suffering you cause. You haven't responded to what we (as God) should do about that. Please elaborate on what should be done to prevent you from causing suffering to others.

I didn't respond to it because for you, this follows from your previous assumption about parasites causing suffering and the only solution being to terminate their existence (or never create them in the first place). Since I don't agree with that, there's no point proceeding yet.

[Gamera]

He can make a parasite that doesn't cause suffering or even that causes vastly less suffering. Even I can envisage that, so I'm sure God can too.

You can and then it's not a parasite. Which was my point - to exclude suffering you are suggesting nonexistence for those who cause suffering, and if I were a happy parasite, I might take umbrage at that proposal.

I didn't respond to it because for you, this follows from your previous assumption about parasites causing suffering and the only solution being to terminate their existence (or never create them in the first place). Since I don't agree with that, there's no point proceeding yet.

You're sidestepping the issue by blaming my analysis. Give your own. You cause suffering. Tell us how you would as God avoid that result. It sounds like your resolution is that you'd have God create a greyline who couldn't choose to do bad things that harmed others. I.e., you would not have moral choice. You would be a robotically good entity. Of course, I think that would be a meaningless existence, much worse than nonexistence. And so if that's your proposal, I for one reject it and would rather keep my moral sovereignty even if it meant that your free will might lead to my suffering.

[greyline]

You can and then it's not a parasite. Which was my point - to exclude suffering you are suggesting nonexistence for those who cause suffering, and if I were a happy parasite, I might take umbrage at that proposal.

You can't conceive of a parasite that doesn't cause suffering, or that can go about its business and cause less suffering than "God" currently "created" it to make?

As I said, I can. Which means I know God can.

There are many other examples of suffering in the animal kingdom that could easily be reduced or eliminated by God, but he chose not to - the baby hyena thing comes to mind.


You're sidestepping the issue by blaming my analysis. Give your own. You cause suffering. Tell us how you would as God avoid that result. It sounds like your resolution is that you'd have God create a greyline who couldn't choose to do bad things that harmed others. I.e., you would not have moral choice. You would be a robotically good entity. Of course, I think that would be a meaningless existence, much worse than nonexistence. And so if that's your proposal, I for one reject it and would rather keep my moral sovereignty even if it meant that your free will might lead to my suffering.

I don't require God to eliminate all suffering, particularly not for humans who as you point out, have free will. God could have reduced much of the suffering in the world, especially relating to non-human living things and the weather. This isn't about my free will and moral choices. It's about some very basic things God could have done and didn't.