Why do Creationists Hate Animals?

[mathetes123]

Who said creationists hate animals and on what basis is such a general statement made?

 

[Montalban]

Creationists wrongly assume that there was literally no death before the Fall.

You're mixing things here.

Christians believe that there was no death before the fall.

It's a part of Christianity to believe that creation was perfect and that death is a consequence of sin.

This means there was no predation or extinction.

That's a logical conclusion

This is turns leads to more wrong assumptions - such as carnivores are sinful and natural selection is against God's will.

That's called a non-sequitur. We eat meat too. Are you saying that by virtue that we eat meat we're sinning?

 

[Gozreht]

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.

I would say yes to that. Why would that be a problem to you? Because of the "no death" arguement? Keep in mind predation is not THEE result of human sin by a by-product of it.

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.

No animals are meant for a lot of things. Eating them only came 1600 years after creation. I think any sane person can see that animals have other purposes besides food.

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

No death is good. But again some is necessary and all is necessary for humans to go be with God. It is appointed for all man once to die. But no death is "good". Paul did say however for him to die is gain.

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.

No-no. That's not what is being said here. There was not spiritual death nor physical death before sin. Now both were introduced. Both kinds of death are meant by this passage. For death was brought into the world by one man.

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?

Souls, yes. A soul is different than a spirit. The soul means things like, personality, thought process, emotions. If these things control man, he is lost. Paul says we need to live by the spirit. This spirit is given to us directly from God, something animals do not have. God's truth is so sharp it can split the soul and spirit. Animals do not go to heaven or hell. They have no spirit. But there are animals with bad attitudes (soul) and react based on its stimuli. If man does that then we are not living as spiritual beings. We would be no better than animals. People like serial killers kill the flesh and have no remorse because the spirit is subdued by them and they do not live by the spirit. And those who do not know the spirit thinks all of these things are foolishness.

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

I am sure some of us are closely related to nuts too. Just a joke... for some of us.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's called a non-sequitur. We eat meat too. Are you saying that by virtue that we eat meat we're sinning?

Creationists say that animals eating other animals is the result of human sin - and then they say there's nothing wrong with humans eating meat. It doesn't make sense.
------------------------

I would say yes to that. Why would that be a problem to you? Because of the "no death" arguement? Keep in mind predation is not THEE result of human sin by a by-product of it.

I'm not sure what you mean - how is it a by-product rather than a result?

No death is good. But again some is necessary and all is necessary for humans to go be with God. It is appointed for all man once to die. But no death is "good". Paul did say however for him to die is gain.

Shernren made a good point about this: we argue that animal death is bad - the result of human sin - yet we're quite happy to eat meat. Presumably if we really thought animal death was the result of human sin we'd all be vegetarians.

There was not spiritual death nor physical death before sin. Now both were introduced. Both kinds of death are meant by this passage. For death was brought into the world by one man.

That goes back to my original criticism: if Adam brought physical death into the world, presumably he would have died as soon as he took a bite from that apple. Besides, if nothing ever died eventually we'd be horribly overcrowded.

 

[Montalban]

Creationists say that animals eating other animals is the result of human sin - and then they say there's nothing wrong with humans eating meat. It doesn't make sense.

Why not say "Creationists hate grass because animals eat grass as a result of human sin"?

Your premise doesn't make sense.

Death is a result of sin.

We don't hate animals because they eat.

Animals just 'act' according to their nature - which is to eat to survive.

 

[Montalban]

I rarely repost in support but this:



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.

The 'problem of evil' has been around for a while

Why are you more concerned with animals though?

Why not argue "A child suffers disease as a result of sin"???

It's the same issue.

Do you think we hate children?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why not say "Creationists hate grass because animals eat grass as a result of human sin"?

Because before the Fall all animals supposedly ate nothing but plants.

We don't hate animals because they eat.

Animals just 'act' according to their nature - which is to eat to survive.

That's not the impression I got from other creationists. In the OP I noted a couple of comments from another thread ("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.
Job 38:41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?
Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
God not only created the lion and the raven, he says he is the one who provides their prey for them.

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.

So when one user noted that God provided food for carnivorous animals, the other replied by saying animals don't act according to God's will.

I should also mention that the title was a deliberate exaggeration.

 

[Montalban]

Well no. Before the Fall all animals supposedly ate nothing but plants.

I'm not aware of that.

That's not the impression I got from other creationists. In the OP I noted a couple of comments from another thread ("Why do we look so much like apes?") :

So it's not about creationists per se?

I should also mention that the title was a deliberate exaggeration.

I got that when you said so in the OP

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Well no. Before the Fall all animals supposedly ate nothing but plants.

I'm not aware of that.

Then you're probably not the kind of creationist I should be debating with.

So it's not about creationists per se?

My criticism was against creationists who argue that there is nothing wrong with people eating animals - but animals eating other animals is the result human sin. Presumably if they genuinely thought animal death was sinful they'd be vegetarians. They might even make their pets vegetarian.

Why not argue "A child suffers disease as a result of sin"???

It's the same issue.

Do you think we hate children?

(I know this was directed at Shernren but I hope you don't mind if I answer it)
Even if we assume disease is a result of the Fall, we try and make diseased children better. If we assume predation is also a result of the Fall, presumably we would try and stop animals eating each other.

 

[Montalban]

Then you're probably not the kind of creationist I should be debating with.

I'm a non-literal literalist.

I believe it happened, without knowing 'how?'

(I know this was directed at Shernren but I hope you don't mind if I answer it)
Even if we assume disease is a result of the Fall, we try and make diseased children better. If we assume predation is also a result of the Fall, presumably we would try and stop animals eating each other.

How would you propose making 'meat-eating' animals better?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

How would you propose making 'meat-eating' animals better?

I don't. Animals were merrily munching on each other long before humans appeared.

 

[jackmt]

Almost immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God killed at least one, and probably two animals as their substitutionary death. He made skins from animals to clothe them. (Gen. 3:21) Does God hate the animals He made because He killed them?

 

[shernren]

How would you propose making 'meat-eating' animals better?

I mean, I'd start with this one:

I hear they listen to reason, and some of them even think they obey God.

In addition, creationists often point to anecdotes of carnivorous animals surviving on vegetarian diets. There is a comprehensive study here from a creationist perspective which tries to make the argument that many groups of animals are in fact largely vegetarian - the author seems to include insectivorous diets but that's a quibble. (See section "A change in diet".) In fact, there is even commercially available vegetarian cat food - see here. The article is a good read because of the unknowing irony in it: on the one hand the author professes to having offered meat to many cats she has personally owned, and on the other hand:

Little Tyke’s aversion to eating meat was reflected in her relationships with other animals housed at the ranch where she lived. She apparently got along well with kittens, chickens, lambs, and fawns. There is even a compelling photograph taken of Little Tyke lying down with one her “friends,” a lamb named Becky. This stirring photo is a vivid portrayal of Isaiah 11:6 (NKJV), “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” Little Tyke is not only a reminder of what the original, perfect, “very good” (Genesis 1:31) creation was like, but also what it will be again someday (Revelation 21:4).​

If Little Tyke's rejecting meat is "very good", what could Georgia Purdom feeding her cats meat be other than very bad?

So which is it? Was creation meant to be vegetarian or not? Should creationists really be outraged that "the perception of animals eating other animals is seen as normal in today’s secular, evolution-influenced society" (here) when it is also a reality in almost every creationist home?

 

[Montalban]

I don't. Animals were merrily munching on each other long before humans appeared.

Then your previous statement makes no sense

 

[Gozreht]

Creationists say that animals eating other animals is the result of human sin - and then they say there's nothing wrong with humans eating meat. It doesn't make sense...I'm not sure what you mean - how is it a by-product rather than a result?...Shernren made a good point about this: we argue that animal death is bad - the result of human sin - yet we're quite happy to eat meat. Presumably if we really thought animal death was the result of human sin we'd all be vegetarians.

There is nothing wrong because God has now allowed it. But it is misconception that "creationists" think animals eating animals is a result from sin. I would say it more after the time of Noah and the WORLD WIDE flood.

Genesis 1:29-30 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.”

It does not mention animals. They were to be fruitful and multiply like us.

Genesis 9:2-4 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

I would say now animals became predators. And man became omnivores. Mostly again, out of necessity since no plants would be left to eat for a long time after the flood.

That goes back to my original criticism: if Adam brought physical death into the world, presumably he would have died as soon as he took a bite from that apple. Besides, if nothing ever died eventually we'd be horribly overcrowded.

I have already addressed this. It does not say they would physically die right then and there. Now they would/could die. If man didn't eat of the fruit and didn't die, we could opnly assume it would become over populated. Maybe (speculation only keep in mind) that gestation periods would be longer, maybe there would be a limit to how many offspring would be had. Maybe montly cycles would be only yearly. We just don't know. Plus if man didn't sin Jesus would not have to come here. Heaven may have ascended on us sooner. Again, wee just don't. We can't assume anything based on what we know today. We are sinful. Our thoughts aren't pure enought to handle some of these things.

 

[Gozreht]

That's not the impression I got from other creationists. In the OP I noted a couple of comments from another thread ("Why do we look so much like apes?")

That's one of the reasons why I don't post there anymore.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

But it is misconception that "creationists" think animals eating animals is a result from sin. I would say it more after the time of Noah and the WORLD WIDE flood.

Genesis 1:29-30 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.”

It does not mention animals. They were to be fruitful and multiply like us.

Predation was never mention directly in the creation story - and there's certainly no mention of it being sinful. Other passages say God willingly provides food for carnivores.

The real problem comes from interpreting Genesis all too literally. If we assume there was literally no death, that means animals did not eat each other, which in turn means they were all herbivores. Predation was the result of human sin. The Bible says no such thing - it's just a way some Creationists (like the people from AnswersInGenesis) choose to interpret it. Unfortunately they choose to pass off this strange interpretation as fact and it makes us look ridiculous.

Genesis 9:2-4 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

I would say now animals became predators. And man became omnivores. Mostly again, out of necessity since no plants would be left to eat for a long time after the flood.

This just raises even more questions - predation supposedly came after the Fall. But here you say it came after the flood.

Which is it? If eating meat came after the Fall, what did wolves and lions on Noah's ark have to eat? If eating meat came after the flood (because there were no plants), what did creatures like rabbits and deer eat?

It does not say they would physically die right then and there. Now they would/could die.

Keep in mind that the story of the Fall was only directed at people - which is why it seems so strange that animals should be affected by human sin. What about all the creatures which went extinct before humans appeared? Or were humans the only creatures in Eden which could have lived forever?

If Little Tyke's rejecting meat is "very good", what could Georgia Purdom feeding her cats meat be other than very bad?

So which is it? Was creation meant to be vegetarian or not? Should creationists really be outraged that "the perception of animals eating other animals is seen as normal in today’s secular, evolution-influenced society" (here) when it is also a reality in almost every creationist home?

Another one on my increasingly-long list of pet peeves. I hate it when people try and feed their carnivorous pets a vegetarian diet. Do they really think they're doing God or nature a favour?

I'll bet animal rights fanatics didn't realise hardcore creationists were their allies.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is not intended as a provocation to anyone, it's a legitimate question that I think is worthy of at least contemplation (myself included).

Is plant death real death?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[shernren]

According to AiG plants are not classified as nephesh so no. Insects are a bit of a gray area maybe?

 

[jpcedotal]

This is not intended as a provocation to anyone, it's a legitimate question that I think is worthy of at least contemplation (myself included).

Is plant death real death?

-CryptoLutheran

I'll bite.

Life as defined by the Bible does not include plant "life". Life doesn't come about until animals on the 5th day.