How do you defend the Animal Cruelty in the Bible to skeptics?

[BelleC]

There is a question that has been bugging my mind and deals with the allowing of Animal Slaughtering for sacrifices. I've heard the philosophies/explanation of it -- The reason being the wages of sin was death... but i still have difficulty in finding reason for it.

An example is during the story of Abraham Gen 22 v13, in where after he passed the test involving Isaac and in replacement he killed a Ram that had it's horns stuck.

And then in the NT where Jesus allows the demons to enter pigs that eventually ran off the cliff.

How can you just defend this? I guess to some who think "they are just animals" this is a silly question but i think that point of view is seriously disturbing.

What happens if a guy justifies his abuse towards animals using stuff like this as an example?

I think taking the bible as a whole one would really have to twist things to use it to justify cruelty.

Firstly, the bible shows that we are not meant to be meat eaters, both in Genesis and again in the way Daniel and his friends were healthier not eating it. God personally gave Ezekiel a recipe to eat completely without it for 2years. Eating meat and all death is a result of the fall. It was only allowed post flood when there would not have been other things to eat for a time but things like grass, not edible by humans, would have recovered quickly. Even then God placed restrictions such as not taking a limb off an animal and keeping the rest alive to "harvest" later.

If you look at clean and unclean meats you will also notice that the animals with higher intelligence are off the list. No whales, no pork, no dogs, no chimps, no dolphins, no cats large or small are allowed. Those allowed had to be killed quickly and not in front of the other animals. I don't believe any of these rules were random. I dislike the way we often shrug and just say, well we're not bound by those rules without first investigating if there are good reasons for the restrictions. It's not about our own salvation but our meat habits may cause those who have to work day by day in the CAFO and slaughter industry to become numb inside to the death and cruelty that surrounds them.

Neither of those were industries in Bible times. Like others have already said the sacrifices were eaten and it would not have been a flippant thing to take a precious animal you raised and guarded, fed and cared for to pay for your own sin. Look at the parable of the lost sheep. The listeners understood how distraught they would feel to lose even one sheep and that even their neighbors would rejoice when it was found. We should be repulsed by the high cost of our sin, the innocent blood shed for it!

Jesus himself is seen by John as a lamb bleeding on His throne. Jesus said God cares even for the sparrow. His care for animals comes through to me loud and clear.

When Legion was allowed to enter the pigs we can only trust that Jesus had good reason. We are only getting a tidbit of the full story. Also, why would a Hebrew village be keeping a herd of swine? Perhaps they were better off dead than being kept.

I think all in all it is easier to defend mercy for animals from the Bible than cruelty.

 

[BelleC]

Yes, in modern times it is possible to artificially synthesize B-12 from bacteria found in various places. This is not a natural diet. And the vegetables that people eat result in tremendous animal death from the plowing of fields. Likewise the building of houses and making of cars, etc.

It's just not avoidable, animal death.

The healthiest diet demonstrated is piscatarianism.

Nearly every ancient civilization was closer to vegan than our current version of American omnivore. When was eaten it was in very small amounts, more of a flavoring accent than a steak on a plate or half a rotisserie chicken. Even then it was infrequent.

Even with vegetarianism there will still be animal death. It is not avoidable in a fallen world. Animals kill other animals even if we do not and the populations of animals would need to be culled.

But human meat eating is far from necessary in the modern world. All Blue Zone populations are vegetarian or near vegetarian with extremely small amounts of animal foods.

 

[Cis.jd]

I think taking the bible as a whole one would really have to twist things to use it to justify cruelty.

Firstly, the bible shows that we are not meant to be meat eaters, both in Genesis and again in the way Daniel and his friends were healthier not eating it. God personally gave Ezekiel a recipe to eat completely without it for 2years. Eating meat and all death is a result of the fall. It was only allowed post flood when there would not have been other things to eat for a time but things like grass, not edible by humans, would have recovered quickly. Even then God placed restrictions such as not taking a limb off an animal and keeping the rest alive to "harvest" later.

If you look at clean and unclean meats you will also notice that the animals with higher intelligence are off the list. No whales, no pork, no dogs, no chimps, no dolphins, no cats large or small are allowed. Those allowed had to be killed quickly and not in front of the other animals. I don't believe any of these rules were random. I dislike the way we often shrug and just say, well we're not bound by those rules without first investigating if there are good reasons for the restrictions. It's not about our own salvation but our meat habits may cause those who have to work day by day in the CAFO and slaughter industry to become numb inside to the death and cruelty that surrounds them.

Neither of those were industries in Bible times. Like others have already said the sacrifices were eaten and it would not have been a flippant thing to take a precious animal you raised and guarded, fed and cared for to pay for your own sin. Look at the parable of the lost sheep. The listeners understood how distraught they would feel to lose even one sheep and that even their neighbors would rejoice when it was found. We should be repulsed by the high cost of our sin, the innocent blood shed for it!

Jesus himself is seen by John as a lamb bleeding on His throne. Jesus said God cares even for the sparrow. His care for animals comes through to me loud and clear.

When Legion was allowed to enter the pigs we can only trust that Jesus had good reason. We are only getting a tidbit of the full story. Also, why would a Hebrew village be keeping a herd of swine? Perhaps they were better off dead than being kept.

I think all in all it is easier to defend mercy for animals from the Bible than cruelty.

Thank you for this. This was very informative. I apologies for my skepticism, and i think watching too much of the animal abuse videos just got me very emotional. I don't know, i guess i have been building anger inside of me towards God for a while due to certain issues in my life and other negative things i've seen in this world it's Just like a pot of boiling water in where bits of the water is spilling out due to the heat. I was this close to losing my faith but i am very grateful for your post, it really made me understand a lot.

If you don't mind me asking. What is your view about the part in the gospel of Mary and Joseph killing doves?

 

[BelleC]

Thank you for this. This was very informative. I apologies for my skepticism, and i think watching too much of the animal abuse videos just got me very emotional. I don't know, i guess i have been building anger inside of me towards God for a while due to certain issues in my life and other negative things i've seen in this world it's Just like a pot of boiling water in where bits of the water is spilling out due to the heat. I was this close to losing my faith but i am very grateful for your post, it really made me understand a lot.

If you don't mind me asking. What is your view about the part in the gospel of Mary and Joseph killing doves?

I am so glad you were comforted!

Concerning the doves I am far from a Bible expert so I can only offer my thoughts and some of the relevant bible verses. We can read in Leviticus 12 that for a set time after childbirth women were ceremonially impure and therefore unable to take part in services until a period of time elapsed and they went make an offering at the temple. They were to offer a lamb, however poor women could offer two doves or pigeons instead. Pigeons were (and still are) a clean food animal. They are still eaten in the Middle East today. If you were to find it here in a restaurant it would be called squab. So Mary brought pigeons because she was poor but was fulfilling the Law as required.

Anyway, I'm sure you are wondering why anything at all had to be offered. When I look at Genesis 3 the part of the curse after the fall pertaining to Eve was not only that childbirth would be painful but in the KJV it says conception would be greatly increased. Obviously if originally humans were going to live forever an adult female wouldn't be fertile and giving birth every two to three years. So something about human reproduction must have fundamentally changed. Now basic fertility and childbirth involves bloodshed, something I suppose was that never meant to be.

Genesis 9 talks about God keeping an accounting of all blood that is shed, whether human or animal and whether by a human or animal. Pre Moses humans were commanded not to eat any meat with the "lifeblood" still in it. Clearly bloodshed is a weighty matter to God.

So my long winded "short" answer is that Mary offered two pigeons because she was poor but devout in keeping the Law.

 

[Cis.jd]

I am so glad you were comforted!

Concerning the doves I am far from a Bible expert so I can only offer my thoughts and some of the relevant bible verses. We can read in Leviticus 12 that for a set time after childbirth women were ceremonially impure and therefore unable to take part in services until a period of time elapsed and they went make an offering at the temple. They were to offer a lamb, however poor women could offer two doves or pigeons instead. Pigeons were (and still are) a clean food animal. They are still eaten in the Middle East today. If you were to find it here in a restaurant it would be called squab. So Mary brought pigeons because she was poor but was fulfilling the Law as required.

Anyway, I'm sure you are wondering why anything at all had to be offered. When I look at Genesis 3 the part of the curse after the fall pertaining to Eve was not only that childbirth would be painful but in the KJV it says conception would be greatly increased. Obviously if originally humans were going to live forever an adult female wouldn't be fertile and giving birth every two to three years. So something about human reproduction must have fundamentally changed. Now basic fertility and childbirth involves bloodshed, something I suppose was that never meant to be.

Genesis 9 talks about God keeping an accounting of all blood that is shed, whether human or animal and whether by a human or animal. Pre Moses humans were commanded not to eat any meat with the "lifeblood" still in it. Clearly bloodshed is a weighty matter to God.

So my long winded "short" answer is that Mary offered two pigeons because she was poor but devout in keeping the Law.

That ref of Gen 9 is interesting. Anyway, wouldn't you still consider it a sin on Mary's behalf, regradless of it being law? I assume that killing Pigeons right now for any religious law would not only be considered against civil laws but also morality.

Why was it still needed to kill doves as a religious tradition?

 

[Vicomte13]

Nearly every ancient civilization was closer to vegan than our current version of American omnivore. When was eaten it was in very small amounts, more of a flavoring accent than a steak on a plate or half a rotisserie chicken. Even then it was infrequent.

Even with vegetarianism there will still be animal death. It is not avoidable in a fallen world. Animals kill other animals even if we do not and the populations of animals would need to be culled.

But human meat eating is far from necessary in the modern world. All Blue Zone populations are vegetarian or near vegetarian with extremely small amounts of animal foods.

To your point: Abel didn't kill a sheep to offer its body. He offered the first milk of many ewes. That's what the Hebrew says: ewes, and the word translated as "fat" is also the word for meat, but there was no sacrifice - the word translated "sacrifice" is the word "rising" (as in rising smoke), but the word for what Abel did was simply a "gift", something of a very different nature than the sacrifices of Judaism.

So, Abel was a milk eater, and he offered milk of many ewes, not the dead fat of a slaughtered sheep. Abel did not sacrifice. He made a goodwill offering.

All of which is to your point.

 

[BelleC]

That ref of Gen 9 is interesting. Anyway, wouldn't you still consider it a sin on Mary's behalf, regradless of it being law? I assume that killing Pigeons right now for any religious law would not only be considered against civil laws but also morality.

Why was it still needed to kill doves as a religious tradition?

Mary would have been sinning if she hadn't offered the doves. She was under the Mosaic covenant. Goes was the one who determined the penalty, not Mary. Mary, as the mother of Christ, knew probably more than any human the high cost of our sins. The very baby in her arms that she brought with her to the temple that day was going to be sacrificed for all one day. As a mother myself I cannot imagine her suffering.

These were not traditions in the sense that it was just an empty ritual, like pumkin pie for Thanksgiving. They were the only way to in some way recognize death penalty we all were under and pointed to the ultimate sacrifice. Our sin is so costly the blood of the perfect Lamb, the Only Begotten Son of God was shed for it. God allowed us to shed His own innocent blood for it.

It is because God Himself paid the price that we no longer have blood sacrifices.

 

[Cis.jd]

But if she killed these doves at this time, would it be a sin?

 

[BelleC]

But if she killed these doves at this time, would it be a sin?

If she were a person alive today yes. It would be a very grave sin to try to offer an animal sacrifice to God after He already made the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

 

[Cis.jd]

If she were a person alive today yes. It would be a very grave sin to try to offer an animal sacrifice to God after He already made the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

I guess i will respect your view on that. I can clearly understand your case with all the other things i asked, and it was answered marvelously. I am not fully contented with the doves part (it was ok back then but now it is a sin logic) but that is alright. From you, i know there will be a great answer for that very soon because 95% of what i was complaining about was all greatly answered by you.

 

[ScottA]

There is a question that has been bugging my mind and deals with the allowing of Animal Slaughtering for sacrifices. I've heard the philosophies/explanation of it -- The reason being the wages of sin was death... but i still have difficulty in finding reason for it.

An example is during the story of Abraham Gen 22 v13, in where after he passed the test involving Isaac and in replacement he killed a Ram that had it's horns stuck.

And then in the NT where Jesus allows the demons to enter pigs that eventually ran off the cliff.

How can you just defend this? I guess to some who think "they are just animals" this is a silly question but i think that point of view is seriously disturbing.

What happens if a guy justifies his abuse towards animals using stuff like this as an example?

It's even worse than that.

It is not that "they are just animals"...but "they are just made up." - That is the definition of "created."

So...not to worry...no animals were harmed in the manifestation of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Seriously...time is an illusion, matter is light and energy, and every living thing is not [actually] alive unless is it born again of the spirit of God, in Christ (the only begotten). Of the entire creation story and history of the world - there is only One who has died...and He died upon a cross, that we might live through Him.

A comparable example would be the "life" and times of a cartoon character. Within the cartoon ("created" of light and energy) the characters don't know they're not actually alive. In this case, the only wooden toy who becomes a real boy...is Christ.

 

[Cis.jd]

snip

Forgive me for asking you one more question, it's just your view on this is just really good.

I recall you talking about God restricting specific meats (clean/unclean) as biblical reference to his love for animals... but what about in the NT in where all meats were claimed as ok or in Gen 1:30?

 

[BelleC]

Forgive me for asking you one more question, it's just your view on this is just really good.

I recall you talking about God restricting specific meats (clean/unclean) as biblical reference to his love for animals... but what about in the NT in where all meats were claimed as ok or in Gen 1:30?

I was raised Seventh Day Adventist so I'm sure my views on this have been colored by that lens. Just so you know and look at the verses and context and make up your own opinion. So, the verses that people usually refer to in declaring all meats "clean" are Acts 10:9-16 where Peter has a dream where God shows him all kinds of animals both clean and unclean and tells him to eat. Peter can't believe it at first so God tells him again. Here's the thing about that dream. It's not about meat at all. It's about Peter accepting gentile Christians as they are and not making them become Jews first to convert to Christianity. Read it for yourself, in context, in a bible with a concordance to you can check all the little footnotes. Then decide.

Adventists don't look at those meats as making someone "ceremonially unclean" but rather believe that God never changes or makes arbitrary rules. Even if those animals don't make us ceremonially unclean as 1 Corinthians 10:23 says just because something is lawful for us doesn't make it beneficial. So we can seek to understand why those animals were banned as food in the first place. Many of those animals that were banned were scavengers like shellfish, pigs, rats, or hyenas. So their purpose is to clean up pretty gross things from the earth like refuse and rotting flesh. If we are what we eat what does that tell you? Other banned animals are smart carnivores, like tigers, eagles, and cats. We now know through science that toxins concentrate higher in the food chain. So the rules protected the Israelites from things they didn't even know existed. If you read the lists in Levitcus I think you will get a picture of what I mean. Those animals that seem to be natural companions to humans also seem to be off the list, like dogs and horses.

I hope your day is bright and you look and see how trustworthy and loving God is to all His creatures!

 

[BelleC]

I guess i will respect your view on that. I can clearly understand your case with all the other things i asked, and it was answered marvelously. I am not fully contented with the doves part (it was ok back then but now it is a sin logic) but that is alright. From you, i know there will be a great answer for that very soon because 95% of what i was complaining about was all greatly answered by you.

When Christ died He so definitively ended the sacrifices that the curtain in the temple where the priests would sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices tore in two! By itself, all the way from top to bottom the big heavy curtain to the holy of Holies tore in two. God was clearly saying the times for animal sacrifices were over. That's how we can be sure it has been wrong to try to sacrifice animals for religious purposes since then. So for the last 2000ish years it has been a sin to do so.

 

[rjs330]

There is a question that has been bugging my mind and deals with the allowing of Animal Slaughtering for sacrifices. I've heard the philosophies/explanation of it -- The reason being the wages of sin was death... but i still have difficulty in finding reason for it.

An example is during the story of Abraham Gen 22 v13, in where after he passed the test involving Isaac and in replacement he killed a Ram that had it's horns stuck.

And then in the NT where Jesus allows the demons to enter pigs that eventually ran off the cliff.

How can you just defend this? I guess to some who think "they are just animals" this is a silly question but i think that point of view is seriously disturbing.

What happens if a guy justifies his abuse towards animals using stuff like this as an example?

One VERY important thing to recognize is that the word of God is NOT a book on morality. It is a book on the sinfulness of man vs the holiness of God and it is a book on redemption on how God provides a way for sinful man to have a relationship with a holy God. Whatever God commands is holy and righteous. He is righteous.
Deuteronomy 32:4
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

So his law is righteous and holy. Romans 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

If the law is holy and commandments are holy then whatever is contained within them including animal sacrifice is holy. It is God who has declared it so and he sets the standards. It would be sinful to NOT obey the law. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is a big mistake to look at scriptures as a book on morality. It is not. It is sin and redemption that is all. You can be a good moral person, but still a sinner because our own righteousness is as filthy rags.

Now does that mean that we should go out and torture and maim animals? No of course not. We have been given dominion over nature and the animals. We can eat them, breed them and use them for our needs and clothing. But that doesn't mean we should torture or abuse them. You see morality is subjective. Some would tell you that eating them or using them for clothing is cruel and immoral. Others say it is not. That's subjective morality. The bible deals in sinfulness in the heart of man and then defines what sin is.

In Jesus case he casts the demons into the pigs. Why? I don't know, but since he is God it was not sinful for him to do so. And morality had nothing to do with it. If there are those that say they are more moral than God because they are vegans, then that is pride which is sin.

 

[Issac1198]

There is a question that has been bugging my mind and deals with the allowing of Animal Slaughtering for sacrifices. I've heard the philosophies/explanation of it -- The reason being the wages of sin was death... but i still have difficulty in finding reason for it.

An example is during the story of Abraham Gen 22 v13, in where after he passed the test involving Isaac and in replacement he killed a Ram that had it's horns stuck.

And then in the NT where Jesus allows the demons to enter pigs that eventually ran off the cliff.

How can you just defend this? I guess to some who think "they are just animals" this is a silly question but i think that point of view is seriously disturbing.

What happens if a guy justifies his abuse towards animals using stuff like this as an example?

I am fighting with this. You are not alone.

 

[Joyous Song]

There is a question that has been bugging my mind and deals with the allowing of Animal Slaughtering for sacrifices. I've heard the philosophies/explanation of it -- The reason being the wages of sin was death... but i still have difficulty in finding reason for it.

An example is during the story of Abraham Gen 22 v13, in where after he passed the test involving Isaac and in replacement he killed a Ram that had it's horns stuck.

And then in the NT where Jesus allows the demons to enter pigs that eventually ran off the cliff.

How can you just defend this? I guess to some who think "they are just animals" this is a silly question but i think that point of view is seriously disturbing.

What happens if a guy justifies his abuse towards animals using stuff like this as an example?

Biblical slaughter was far more human. Animals lived at least a full year, and when killed were killed with a blade so sharp it barely hurt and put them to death in a sleep like state. Everything was cleaned after so no blood smell remained ad the blade was never used twice.

Yet as even this was, we believe, for the people who needed a blood sacrifice before the Messiah came, HaShem, praise be He, gave us, through His Son, a bloodless sacrifice.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Anyone making this objection first has to establish that (1) there is a universal moral standard for how we should treat animals, as opposed to someone's personal preference; and (2) God should be held to that standard. This is a tall order.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyone making this objection first has to establish that (1) there is a universal moral standard for how we should treat animals, as opposed to someone's personal preference; and (2) God should be held to that standard. This is a tall order.

I think we live in a society that places animals on the same level as humans (Which is not right). This is not to say that we should not love animals, but we are also allowed to eat animals, too. God also created the animals, and so they would not have existed if it wasn't for Him. Would God be cruel for not creating animals? They are after all His creation. I am of the view that animals that die here on this earth will be in God's New Kingdom one day.

“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Romans 8:19-21).

So the animal is not really perishing (although God has a right to make them go back into non-existence because He created them). The animal is transitioning to one day be in God's kingdom.

 

[morse86]

Have you seen animals in the wild??? How about a lion + crocodile + zebra.....see what happens, let's see if VEGAN$$$ fake utopia is real after all "humans" are animals too.

Vegans state humans are equal to animals. Then I say, how about the animals in the wild that rip each other to shreds??

Veganism is a money making fake one person's delusional dream utopia. It has nothing to do with reality.