Why do Creationists Hate Animals?

[Notedstrangeperson]

(The title is a bit of an exaggeration but this idea irritates me )


Creationists wrongly assume that there was literally no death before the Fall. This means there was no predation or extinction. This is turns leads to more wrong assumptions - such as carnivores are sinful and natural selection is against God's will. So with that in mind:

• Why should animals suffer because of something humans did?
• Doesn't this show that eating meat is a sin? If so why aren't most Christians vegetarian or vegan, like Hindus and Buddhists?
• If predation is the result of human sin why don't we try and save carnivorous animals by converting to Christianity?
• Does God only like herbivores - since they only eat plants, like all animals did before the Fall? Why weren't all animals cursed?

----------------------------------
Examples:

From Why do we look so much like apes?

Perhaps if you showed God thinks lions and ravens eating prey is bad, then you could build a case from that. Unfortunately God doesn't share your aversion to other animals eating meat.

I disagree 100%.
You seem to think animals reside in Heaven and are acting on God's will.
Not so.
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Under God's will animals don't eat each other.
Genesis 9:10 and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth.

From When did the predators come on the scene?

Have you actually read what the book of Genesis says? It is plainly revealed that God gave all animals a vegetarian diet at the beginning before the fall and subsequent curse.

From Reasons to believe in Young Earth Creationism?

Man and animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30, plants are not "living creatures," as people and animals are, according to scripture) But Adam and Eve sinned, resulting in the judgment of God on the whole creation. Instantly Adam and Eve died spiritually, and after God's curse they began to die physically.

From AnswersInGenesis:

"The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."​

 

[ProScribe]

Why do Creationists Hate Animals?

They don't.

 

[shernren]

You may find it interesting to interact with the viewpoint here: What does the Bible say about vegetarianism?

After the flood, why did God now deem it fit for His creation to eat each other? A possible clue that comes to mind is this: Man's wickedness had just reached its fullness, and God had destroyed almost all of the inhabitants of the earth because of it. That flood had somehow changed the order of things--and it was as if Noah and his family were like Adam and Eve, beginning things all over again, but without the innocence of Adam and Eve. The first world, which had been created in perfection, was ruined because of sin. For man to function in the post-flood world, evidently God allowed for the eating meat that would become a part of our existence. The distinguishing mark on this particular era of history would be having to live with the blight of sin.

In a broad sense, it illustrates to us, the devouring nature of our sin and of the devil. Since the devil was given authority in the earth (Luke 4:6), we know that his kingdom is one that kills and devours itself...Satan who is the author of fear, would also rule this domain with fear. Because of this, the animal and human creatures would have fear and dread of each other. They would feed off of each other to survive. Many people accuse God of being cruel and unjust when they study nature and the insect world.​

As for eating meat:

God's original and perfect plan excluded the eating of flesh. However, because He Himself has given us permission to eat flesh, it should not be considered wrong or a sin--in the age we are presently living in.​

My problem with that is what then do you make of Mark 10:2-11 and Matthew 19:3-9? After all, wasn't this exactly the argument of the Pharisees?

God's original and perfect plan excluded the breaking up of marriages. However, because He Himself has given us permission to divorce, it should not be considered wrong or a sin--in the age we are presently living in.​

The only justification Jesus gives for the sinfulness of divorce is the primal condition: it was not like this from the beginning. Implicit in His command is the recognition that those who seek the will of God desire to undo the depredations of sin in all its forms and means. Quite frankly, it is far easier to stop eating meat than to save a floundering marriage, especially in this day and age; why should "in the beginning" compel us to do the latter but not the former?

 

[Gozreht]

Creationists wrongly assume that there was literally no death before the Fall. This means there was no predation or extinction. This is turns leads to more wrong assumptions - such as carnivores are sinful and natural selection is against God's will. So with that in mind:

• Why should animals suffer because of something humans did?
• Doesn't this show that eating meat is a sin? If so why aren't most Christians vegetarian or vegan, like Hindus and Buddhists?
• If predation is the result of human sin why don't we try and save carnivorous animals by converting to Christianity?
• Does God only like herbivores - since they only eat plants, like all animals did before the Fall? Why weren't all animals cursed?

As you read my post keep in mind all I am doing is answering your questions. I am not debating you so I am not ridiculing you and I expect the same respect in return.

All the world suffers due to man. It doesn't seem fair. The soil was cursed. It will now produce thistles and thorns instead of producing perfect plants to eat. The woman now has pain during childbirth and has her "desire" for her husband. Man now has to work for everything in life. Mankind now dies (both physical and spiritual). It doesn't seem fair the world suffers because of us but it also doesn't seem fair that I have to die because of what one man did 6000 years ago. Animals are part of creation. All of creation suffers and is going through pangs until the Messiah returns. This can be judged by Romans 8:20-22.

Eating meat is not a sin. Genesis 9:3. Meat was at least at this time needed because if the world had been flooded then plant life was ruined for a while. Food was needed. Before this, eating meat just wasn't a desire nor a necessity. All animals are cursed and now have a fear of man and also now have to fight for food. They are not sinful since they do not have the spirit of God in them. Predation is not wrong for animals nor man. It is part of survival. But it is not part of natural selection. The earth was given to man to subdue. Natural selection assumes man has no control.

The reason why "creationists" believe there was no death is because when God was finished with creation He said it was good. Death is not good. It was used as punishment. So to say that death for anything that had a soul would be assuming too much. However in defense of death, the verse that says man will die is clearly for man that he die. Perhaps animals and plants could have. But God also called this creation good too. God just allowing His creation to suffer and die for no reason is not part of a loving God's plan. Since man destroyed this first covenant, man will now suffer taking the world that was his down with him.

Again, it doesn't seem fair. But I am not God, so I do not know His whole plan. I would have done it a whole different way. But I am willing to accept that there is a plan and He holds it.

Now, if you disagree with my assessment, fine and go ahead and comment. If you would like to personally attack my ideas, which I have seen on this site, then send me a PM.

 

[mathetes123]

(The title is a bit of an exaggeration but this idea irritates me )





Creationists wrongly assume that there was literally no death before the Fall. This means there was no predation or extinction. This is turns leads to more wrong assumptions - such as carnivores are sinful and natural selection is against God's will. So with that in mind:

• Why should animals suffer because of something humans did?
• Doesn't this show that eating meat is a sin? If so why aren't most Christians vegetarian or vegan, like Hindus and Buddhists?
• If predation is the result of human sin why don't we try and save carnivorous animals by converting to Christianity?
• Does God only like herbivores - since they only eat plants, like all animals did before the Fall? Why weren't all animals cursed?

----------------------------------
Examples:

From Why do we look so much like apes?


From When did the predators come on the scene?


From Reasons to believe in Young Earth Creationism?


From AnswersInGenesis:

"The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."​

The Bible is pretty clear that before the fall, all the animals were herbivores. As for eating meat, even Jesus ate fish.

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

[SkyWriting]

[/LIST]As you read my post keep in mind all I am doing is answering your questions. I am not debating you so I am not ridiculing you and I expect the same respect in return.

All the world suffers due to man. It doesn't seem fair. The soil was cursed. It will now produce thistles and thorns instead of producing perfect plants to eat. The woman now has pain during childbirth and has her "desire" for her husband. Man now has to work for everything in life. Mankind now dies (both physical and spiritual). It doesn't seem fair the world suffers because of us but it also doesn't seem fair that I have to die because of what one man did 6000 years ago. Animals are part of creation. All of creation suffers and is going through pangs until the Messiah returns. This can be judged by Romans 8:20-22.

Eating meat is not a sin. Genesis 9:3. Meat was at least at this time needed because if the world had been flooded then plant life was ruined for a while. Food was needed. Before this, eating meat just wasn't a desire nor a necessity. All animals are cursed and now have a fear of man and also now have to fight for food. They are not sinful since they do not have the spirit of God in them. Predation is not wrong for animals nor man. It is part of survival. But it is not part of natural selection. The earth was given to man to subdue. Natural selection assumes man has no control.

The reason why "creationists" believe there was no death is because when God was finished with creation He said it was good. Death is not good. It was used as punishment. So to say that death for anything that had a soul would be assuming too much. However in defense of death, the verse that says man will die is clearly for man that he die. Perhaps animals and plants could have. But God also called this creation good too. God just allowing His creation to suffer and die for no reason is not part of a loving God's plan. Since man destroyed this first covenant, man will now suffer taking the world that was his down with him.

Again, it doesn't seem fair. But I am not God, so I do not know His whole plan. I would have done it a whole different way. But I am willing to accept that there is a plan and He holds it.

Now, if you disagree with my assessment, fine and go ahead and comment. If you would like to personally attack my ideas, which I have seen on this site, then send me a PM.

God grant you the wisdom to know what you can and cannot change.
You have no control over how people respond to you. This wisdom
applies to the entire world, so it's a good lesson to pick up on.

The concept of fairness applies to human decisions. God is Just.
You say it's not fair that
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

But that's just the facts. The facts are a part of the environment.
It's just as fair as rain on your birthday, or darkness when you want
to play outside. The facts are fair.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So tell me...

If by one man sin had NOT entered, would all the then-existing animals still be alive today along with A&E? Are "No-Deathers" saying every living thing upon the face of the earth would not have died? What about all plant life? No death for any trees? Every blade of grass from XXXXX BC would have survived? Insects? Rodents?

Lay it all out, please. And how does this all correlate to the Tree of Life and partaking of its fruit?

 

[mathetes123]

So tell me...

If by one man sin had NOT entered, would all the then-existing animals still be alive today along with A&E? Are "No-Deathers" saying every living thing upon the face of the earth would not have died? What about all plant life? No death for any trees? Every blade of grass from XXXXX BC would have survived? Insects? Rodents?

Lay it all out, please. And how does this all correlate to the Tree of Life and partaking of its fruit?

What does the Bible say about heaven? Will there be death in heaven?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What does the Bible say about heaven? Will there be death in heaven?

You've "answered" with a question. I'm not addressing heaven, and I'm not espousing any view at this point. I'm asking a series of questions to "No-Deathers". I'm a creationist.

 

[Papias]

PPSoma-

I'm interested too in how the "no-deathers" answer you questions.

I didn't get any good answers to my similar questions here, when I asked about the MANTISPLOSION:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7542459/#post56943417

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It doesn't seem fair the world suffers because of us but it also doesn't seem fair that I have to die because of what one man did 6000 years ago. Animals are part of creation. All of creation suffers and is going through pangs until the Messiah returns. This can be judged by Romans 8:20-22.
...
Eating meat is not a sin. Genesis 9:3. Meat was at least at this time needed because if the world had been flooded then plant life was ruined for a while. Food was needed. Before this, eating meat just wasn't a desire nor a necessity. All animals are cursed and now have a fear of man and also now have to fight for food. They are not sinful since they do not have the spirit of God in them. Predation is not wrong for animals nor man. It is part of survival. But it is not part of natural selection.

The Bible is pretty clear that before the fall, all the animals were herbivores. As for eating meat, even Jesus ate fish.

These are the ideas that seem contradictory: because there was literally no death before the Fall, and because God offered us every kind of plant to eat, we think this means there were no carnivores in Eden. Animals only began eating one another after the Fall. This leads to the idea that animals eating one another is somehow sinful.

At the same time, Christians are allowed to eat meat because Jesus and Moses allowed us to do so. So to put it simply - there is nothing wrong with humans eating animals, but the fact that animals eat one another is a sign that there is something terribly wrong with the world. This is a bizarre idea and I don't know of any other religion which would support it. It makes us look irrational, hypocritical even.

I think the problem stems from taking Genesis too literally. After all, God Adam and Eve warned that if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge they would die - if He was being literal presumably they would have dropped dead after they took the first bite and the human race would not exist.

(I originally intended to discuss the idea that animals were capable of sin but ended up sounding like an outraged PETA fanatic. )

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So tell me...

If by one man sin had NOT entered, would all the then-existing animals still be alive today along with A&E? Are "No-Deathers" saying every living thing upon the face of the earth would not have died? What about all plant life? No death for any trees? Every blade of grass from XXXXX BC would have survived? Insects? Rodents?

Lay it all out, please. And how does this all correlate to the Tree of Life and partaking of its fruit?

Yes, that's another problem with taking Genesis too literally. Plants after all are living things, and die when they are picked and eaten. Even a purely vegetarian and herbivorous world wouldn't be free from death.

 

[shernren]

I rarely repost in support but this:

So to put it simply - there is nothing wrong with humans eating animals, but the fact that animals eat one another is a sign that there is something terribly wrong with the world.

put it amazingly well. It's not just that it's somehow unfair for animals to suffer for humans' sins - it's that, by their actions of eating animals, creationists give living proof that they don't actually believe that animal death is bad - or at least don't live as if it's true.

 

[Gozreht]

These are the ideas that seem contradictory: because there was literally no death before the Fall, and because God offered us every kind of plant to eat, we think this means there were no carnivores in Eden. Animals only began eating one another after the Fall. This leads to the idea that animals eating one another is somehow sinful.

In what way would it lead one to believe it is sinful? This is something I have never heard anyine say before.

At the same time, Christians are allowed to eat meat because Jesus and Moses allowed us to do so. So to put it simply - there is nothing wrong with humans eating animals, but the fact that animals eat one another is a sign that there is something terribly wrong with the world. This is a bizarre idea and I don't know of any other religion which would support it. It makes us look irrational, hypocritical even.

This is another one I have never heard before. Could you expand on why animals eating animals and us eating animals is bizarre? I am not quite following why it would be sinful or bizarre.

I think the problem stems from taking Genesis too literally. After all, God Adam and Eve warned that if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge they would die - if He was being literal presumably they would have dropped dead after they took the first bite and the human race would not exist.

It doesn't say they would die right then and there. As I stated in my first post, this death is both physical and spiritual. Death spiritual means we lost oneness with God and we would have to sacrifice animals in our place to get it back. Life for life. The animal became our stead. Death physical means that our bodies would no longer be perfect. We would age. We would waste away. And now we no longer had access to the Tree of Life. I think the Tree is the key. As long as there was the Tree then life was everlasting, a symbol of Jesus.

(I originally intended to discuss the idea that animals were capable of sin but ended up sounding like an outraged PETA fanatic. )

Not at all. They are very sincere sounding questions. That is why I hope this discussion can remain civil and not condescendning on either side.

put it amazingly well. It's not just that it's somehow unfair for animals to suffer for humans' sins - it's that, by their actions of eating animals, creationists give living proof that they don't actually believe that animal death is bad - or at least don't live as if it's true.

No death is good. But some is necessary. All is necessary to gain heaven, but no one (sanely) wants to go through it to get there. Why would you say "creationist" think animal death is okay?

If by one man sin had NOT entered, would all the then-existing animals still be alive today along with A&E? Are "No-Deathers" saying every living thing upon the face of the earth would not have died? What about all plant life? No death for any trees? Every blade of grass from XXXXX BC would have survived? Insects? Rodents?

Lay it all out, please. And how does this all correlate to the Tree of Life and partaking of its fruit?

Yes, that's another problem with taking Genesis too literally. Plants after all are living things, and die when they are picked and eaten. Even a purely vegetarian and herbivorous world wouldn't be free from death.

If is a big word. If sin would not have entered into the world there would be a lot of things not here as well. Jesus being one of those things. If the ground didn't produce thorns and thistles and the like and was watered by constant mist with paradise' sunshine, then I would say yes. But no one knows that.

As to the plants being living things, yes, but they have no soul. They are not "living" as by definition of the bible. They are in complete reliance upon the environment. Animals have a soul and rely on the environment and can respond with reasoning. Man relies on the environment, can respond with reasoning, and has a relationship with God, a spirit. Therefor death for us is way different than death from an animal and especially death of a plant. I hope this makes sense. It is passed my bedtime.

 

[mmksparbud]

Animals eating animals, humans eating animals--disgusting, isn't it?--So, I suggest that, since this seems to be taken as the fault of creationists--all non-creationists should certainly not be eating any meat--after all----it is you who claim we come from them and so it is you who are hypocritical by eating your own relatives.

This will be corrected, from a creationists point of view, when Christ returns. And I certainly can not in any way shape or form, equate the eating of fruits and leaves (the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations) in any way means death--It is the purpose of the tree of life and other fruits to be eaten to keep us alive. The whole tree, or bush or whatever doesn't die--the fruit, is not a living soul. Meat eating was allowed after the flood since, obviously--there were no tree, plants yet-it would take a while for those seeds in the ground to germinate and grow. This world is not fair--who said it was?--Sin is ugly--that's why God hates it. The repurcussions of sin can be awful. When you kill another human being, you are doing much more than cutting off the life of one person--you affect the entire family of that person, including their friends. It hurts a lot of people--so does adultry, and so on. No, it isn't fair. When someone steals from me they do not simply take away something that I feel belongs to me--they take away the time that it took for me working to acquire the means to get it--that time can never be regained, the article they took can be replaced--but never the time it took to get it. Not fair--esp when some people will never have the time or ability to replace something that was stolen.

 

[Keachian]

mmksparbud:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

 

[Gozreht]

And let the rude comments begin...

Stop now. Both of you before this discussion ends up in a cycle of "i have to prove you wrong" kind of thing.

 

[Gozreht]

With that said...

And I certainly can not in any way shape or form, equate the eating of fruits and leaves (the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations) in any way means death--It is the purpose of the tree of life and other fruits to be eaten to keep us alive. The whole tree, or bush or whatever doesn't die--the fruit, is not a living soul. Meat eating was allowed after the flood since, obviously--there were no tree, plants yet-it would take a while for those seeds in the ground to germinate and grow. This world is not fair--who said it was?--Sin is ugly--that's why God hates it. The repurcussions of sin can be awful. When you kill another human being, you are doing much more than cutting off the life of one person--you affect the entire family of that person, including their friends. It hurts a lot of people--so does adultry, and so on. No, it isn't fair. When someone steals from me they do not simply take away something that I feel belongs to me--they take away the time that it took for me working to acquire the means to get it--that time can never be regained, the article they took can be replaced--but never the time it took to get it. Not fair--esp when some people will never have the time or ability to replace something that was stolen.

That would be true. I didn't even think that it is the fruit we eat. But sometimes we eat root plants. But it still all comes down to the fact that these do not have "life" in them as we know.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand

Sounds like a literal interpretation of what Paul said to Peter. Although there was of course another meaning behind what he said to him, this can be applied as well in the physical realm.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

In what way would it lead one to believe it is sinful? This is something I have never heard anyine say before.

The idea is that before Adam and Eve sinned animals only ate plants, but after the Fall animals began eating each other. Predation was the result of human sin. It doesn't make sense to me but it's an argument I've heard creationists use - such as the diagram from AnswersInGenesis I posted in my OP.

This is another one I have never heard before. Could you expand on why animals eating animals and us eating animals is bizarre? I am not quite following why it would be sinful or bizarre.

Eating meat isn't a sin, nor is abstaining from meat. We can eat what we want. The idea I find bizarre is Creationists argue that predation only began after the Fall (see above) while at the same time they often say that animals only exist so that we have something to eat.

This doesn't make sense to be either. Is animal death a bad thing or not?

It doesn't say they would die right then and there. As I stated in my first post, this death is both physical and spiritual. Death spiritual means we lost oneness with God and we would have to sacrifice animals in our place to get it back. Life for life.

That's the position most theistic evolutionists take - but if death was spiritual rather than literal, that probably means there was physical death before the Fall.

As to the plants being living things, yes, but they have no soul. They are not "living" as by definition of the bible.

So do animals have souls? I originally wanted to discuss whether animals can be sinful - I don't think they can. But presumably that means they can't be good either. After all, if they can't go to hell how can they go to heaven?

Animals eating animals, humans eating animals--disgusting, isn't it?--So, I suggest that, since this seems to be taken as the fault of creationists--all non-creationists should certainly not be eating any meat--after all----it is you who claim we come from them and so it is you who are hypocritical by eating your own relatives.

Technically we're related to plants too. Humans and bananas share 50% of their genes.

 

[mmksparbud]

Technically we're related to plants too. Humans and bananas share 50% of their genes.[/quote


Good grief--like it's not enough to be compared to a gorilla, now we have to be compared to a banana as well!!!