According to Catholic theologians, did God create create female animals from their male counterparts, as he created Eve from the rib of Adam (Gn. 2:22 )? Or did He create the first male/female pair of each animal species* simultaneously? *"according to their kinds" (Gn. 1:21-25 )

I'm struggling with this question for a while: It seems like dogs do know what dogs are. Is it possible for a dog to only recognize individuals and not grasp the universal concept of dog? I thought this ability to recognize universals was the ability that God gave to Adam (to name things) and thus that separated him from the animals. How did the Christian scholastic theologians (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) separate the animal and spiritual capacities of human beings?

Trinitarians believe that God exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is also a belief amongst Trinitarians that Jesus is both the *Son of God* and *God*, that he existed before his birth by Mary as "the Word". ***Trinitarians and many other Christian denominations believe that Jesus was a key figure in the creation of all that exists.*** According to Colossians 1:16: > For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. See also Romans 11:36: > For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen. My questions: ***Do we have any scripture or other earlier sources explaining the particular or exact role of each member of the Trinity in creation***? What would have been the exact role of God ("the Father"); of Jesus (the Son/Word); and of the Holy Spirit in the creation of Adam or the creation of an animal such as a cow?

The Bible teaches that God created everything and when He beheld what he had created, ***it was good.*** Since the animals were created before us, and God beheld them and saw that every animal was ***good.*** I understand good in this context meant that every animal was good and they lived together in harmony, where the lion would pass close by the impala and would not attack. Is it safe to conclude that the original sin committed by Adam and Eve caused wild animals to be evil inherently and hence wild? This is because everything God created was good. *Genesis 1:31* >God saw everything he had made: it was supremely good

According to theistic evolutionist Christians, did God allow their destruction because these creatures had done something to warrant it? This is because God is all knowing and knew from the moment that comet began moving that it was headed for earth and could have done something to stop it from causing this destruction but let it happen, and the most plausible reason for God allowing this is if those creatures had sinned and hence guilty. The hermeneutic reference that shows God had foreknowledge about that comet is this verse. *1 John 3:20* >For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled [Christianity's Biggest Problem](https://youtu.be/5KDnnp0sDkI) , in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering: - An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs. - An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire. - Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics. - Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general. Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?

A renowned Christian who believes in evolution is [Francis Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) : > Collins also has written books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. After leaving the directorship of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and **advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the idea that the Creator brought about his plan through the processes of evolution**. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In fact, Francis Collins is a well-known advocate of the concept of [Theistic Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) : > Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that > "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and > characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists > describe it, but under the direction of God". He lists six general > premises on which different versions of theistic evolution typically > rest. They include: > > 1. The prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago; > 2. The fine-tuned universe; > 3. Evolution and natural selection; > 4. No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way; > 5. Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and > 6. Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God > among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to > our spiritual nature. However, evolution via natural selection is a process that is inherently plagued with suffering. This suffering emerges from the relentless competition for resources, mates, and survival in an environment where only the fittest prevail. Organisms endure hardships such as hunger, disease, predation, natural disasters, mass extinctions, and territorial disputes as they strive to pass on their genes to the next generation. While natural selection drives adaptation and diversity, it does so through a mechanism that often entails pain and struggle. The evolutionary arms race perpetuates a cycle of suffering as organisms continually evolve to outcompete one another, leading to ever more sophisticated strategies for survival, but also escalating levels of conflict and suffering. I find it quite challenging to harmonize the picture of evolution with what the Bible reveals about God's ideal and desire for animals: Romans 8:19-22 ESV > 19 **For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God**. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, **in hope** 21 **that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God**. 22 **For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now**. Revelation 21:1-4 ESV > Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 **He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away**.” Isaiah 11:6-9 ESV > 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, > and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; > and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; > their young shall lie down together; > and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, > and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 **They shall not hurt or destroy** > **in all my holy mountain;** > **for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord** > **as the waters cover the sea.** Isaiah 65:25 ESV > **The wolf and the lamb shall graze together**; **the lion shall eat straw like the ox**, **and dust shall be the serpent's food.** **They shall not hurt or destroy** **in all my holy mountain**,” says the Lord. How can the tremendous amount of suffering inherent in evolution be reconciled with the concept of a loving God from a Christian evolutionary standpoint? --- *Note*: I came up with this question while reflecting on recent discussions on the problem of evil: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100110/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100129/61679

What is the Christian perspective on animal sentience and their capacity for conscious experience of pain and suffering? Do Christians affirm the consciousness of animals and their ability to suffer? What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on this matter? I'm especially interested in exploring the rationale, evidence, biblical foundations, and arguments put forth to support each viewpoint. *Context*: this inquiry holds significance in the context of grappling with the problem of natural evil, animal suffering, and theistic evolution. It is asked as a follow-up to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100208/61679 --- **Appendix** Evidence that the topic is relevant (and possibly controversial) among Christians: > Recently, some theists have attempted to deal with that part of the problem of evil generated by horrendous animal suffering found in nature - including hundreds of millions of years of animal suffering before we humans even showed up - by saying that animals aren't aware that they are in pain. They maintain this is what "science" has shown. That helps bring the problem of suffering down to size! > > **Indeed, that animals aren't aware that they are in pain is a remarkable "recent scientific discovery", said Christian apologist William Lane Craig in [his debate with me](https://youtu.be/w7FhphWDokA)** , for example. **Craig claimed that all animals other than higher primates lack a pre-frontal cortex, and thus are unaware that they are in pain** (see Craig speaking in the video below from about 2 mins 30 secs - P.S. he says e.g. cats have a level of pain awareness, but he maintains science has shown that cats are unaware that they are in pain, which, he says, will be a great comfort to animal lovers like himself). > > (source: [William Lane Craig: "Animals aren't aware that they're in pain"](https://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/william-lane-craig-animals-arent-aware.html)) > **A second (though unpopular) response to this problem is to deny that animal pain and suffering is real or morally relevant**. Most will react to this response with incredulity: “Isn’t it just obvious that some animals experience pain and suffering?” The answer to that question is yes and no. **We do think it an item of common sense that animals experience pain and suffering. But the scientific evidence for this is not as strong as you might think**. Of course, scientists all acknowledge that many animals display behaviors that make it look like they are in pain. But that is not good enough. To see why, consider the phenomenon of “blindsight.” Patients with blindsight claim to be blind, and yet are at the same time able to point to objects and, in some cases, catch balls--something they could only do if they could in fact see. So are they blind or not? Well, it depends on what you mean by “sight.” They can see in the sense that they can use visual information to regulate their behavior. But they are not consciously aware of the fact that they can do this. > > (source: [#113 Animal Suffering | Reasonable Faith](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/animal-suffering))

The Catholic Church has never condemned this traditional event in Spain and the Catholic Encyclopedia (which received Nihil obstat from the Church, that is, apparently the Catholic Encyclopedia is free from doctrinal errors) accepts that the Spanish bullfight is not immoral . It seems to me that the purpose of the Spanish bullfight is just to have fun with the suffering/death imposed on the animal. How exactly is this cruelty/sadism in keeping with Catholic ethics?

According to Christians who accept a literal global flood, how could animals accustomed to thriving in extreme temperatures be found in a common place for preservation aboard the ark?

St. Thomas Aquinas said: "Union of male and female is said to be of natural law, because nature has taught this to animals: yet she has taught this union to various animals in various ways according to their various conditions. But carnal copulation with parents is derogatory to the reverence due to them. For just as nature has instilled into parents solicitude in providing for their offspring, so has it instilled into the offspring reverence towards their parents: yet to no kind of animal save man has she instilled a lasting solicitude for his children or reverence for parents; but to other animals more or less, according as the offspring is more or less necessary to its parents, or the parents to their offspring. Hence as the Philosopher attests (De Animal. ix, 47) concerning the camel and the horse, among certain animals the son abhors copulation with its mother as long as he retains knowledge of her and a certain reverence for her. And since all honest customs of animals are united together in man naturally, and more perfectly than in other animals, it follows that man naturally abhors carnal knowledge not only of his mother, but also of his daughter, which is, however, less against nature, as stated above." So what in the relationship between an animal and the natural law makes it natural for an animal to practice homosexuality?

#### Short version If humans remain conscious after death, do animals also remain conscious after death? #### Longer version I'm trying to figure out if there is any fundamental difference between the spirit of a human being (the "breath of life" that makes humans alive) and the spirit of a disembodied (evil/unclean) spirit. The logic is that, if these two types of spirits are not fundamentally different, then it follows that if evil spirits are conscious, then the disembodied spirit of a human (when the spirit departs from the body upon death) also remains conscious. In fact, this insight inspired me to ask the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81229/50422 However, the implications become interesting when we consider the fact that **animals also have a "breath of life"**. In response to my related question [Did Jesus believe in ghosts / disembodied spirits?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/56441/38524) , user Dottard made a very good point in his [answer](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/73598/38524) : > **2. Human beings and animals appear to be a body plus the breath of life** > > > Gen 2:7 - Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and > > breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a > > living being [literally, "soul"] > > Animals have exactly the same constitution, see Gen 1:30, 6:17, 7:15, > 22, Job 12:10, etc. For example, Eccl 3:19 - > > > For the fates of both men and beasts are the same: As one dies, so > > dies the other—they **all have the same breath** . Man has no > > advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. If humans and animals are essentially made of the same basic components (body + breath of life), then it would stand to reason that, if humans remain conscious after death, then animals also remain conscious after death. Do believers in post-mortal consciousness agree with this conclusion? Do animals also remain conscious after death? _____ Related question: [Is there any fundamental difference between the "spirit" of a human being ("breath of life") and the "spirit" of a disembodied (evil) spirit?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73563/38524)

According to Young Earth Creationism, were all animals vegetarian/vegan before the fall? If so, how did carnivores come into existence? Did carnivores evolve from vegetarian ancestors? Were carnivores created by God after the fall? Were carnivores the result of genetic manipulation performed by fallen angels after the fall?

One of the most popular and strongest arguments for veganism is what I would call the 'animal cruelty' argument, namely, that non-vegan diets--including vegetarian ones that tolerate dairy and egg consumption--promote a food industry that inflicts tremendous suffering on animals such as chickens, cows and pigs, which are perpetually raised and killed by the millions in factory farms, in order to meet the demands of an insatiable non-vegan population. For example, [this site](https://www.animalaid.org.uk/veganism/why-veganism/going-vegan-animals/) summarizes the argument as follows: > Going vegan is one of the best things you can do to help stop animal cruelty. By refusing to pay for animal products, you reduce the demand for them, which ensures fewer animals are bred to suffer and die on farms and in slaughterhouses. Alex O'Connor, popularly known for his YouTube Channel [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ) , published a video clip of an interview titled ["I Like How it Sounds to Kill Dogs" | Veganism Explained](https://youtu.be/0A8WoXkfen0) that makes a great use of the rhetorical device of analogy to get the point across in a different way. Below the transcript: > The person who is paying for animal products is implicitly accepting the ideology that is morally permissible to kill an animal because of the way it tastes. Not everybody does, but the vast, VAST majority of people who do that are doing it for taste pleasure. If you are doing that, then what you are doing is you are paying for an animal to be tortured for the appeasement of your sense pleasure. Just to make this easier to understand how it feels like to be told that I shouldn't be telling people not to do that, just swap out the variables, take a different sense pleasure. I'll take a different non-human animal. Let's say somebody was killing dogs or paying for someone to torture dogs and put them into a gas chamber because they really like the way that it sounded when the dog squealed. Like I'm gonna pay you to put a dog into a gas chamber because I just love the way that it sounds. You don't understand it. It sounds so amazing to me when they squeal for their life and desperately try to escape, right? You would think that I am the most disgusting human being you'd ever come across. But that is exactly what we are doing when we justify the torture of a pig because of the appeasement of our taste pleasure. But because it's become so normalized, we don't even see it as a choice. We don't even see it as us making a decision or making an action, because it's just buying a burger, right? It's not buying a burger. It's demanding with your money, economically speaking, for an animal to be forced into a gas chamber to have its throat cut, to have its child separated from its mother, right? And so people call me extreme for wanting this to end? If you want extremity, look no further than what we're doing to animals. Intuitively, I think the argument seems to make sense: if there are alternative meal plans that are equally or more healthy than a normal meat-based diet that also avoid causing unnecessary suffering to animals, and given that Christianity's most exalted virtue is love (for God and others), then I see no obvious reason for a Christian not to go vegan out of love for animals. What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the 'animal cruelty' argument for veganism? Is this a compelling or at least reasonable argument for most Christians? To what extent do born-again Christians have ethical responsibilities toward animals, and if they have any, do these ethical responsibilities have any bearing on the way Christians are to eat?

AFAIK, most Christians would agree that animals don't have souls in the sense that people (humans) do. Many would say further animals don't have free will. Thus, AFAIK, most Christians would say that animals don't "go" to heaven. There are also strong implications that there will be animals *in* heaven (various verses about heaven mentioning them¹, heaven being a restoration of the original Creation which had animals). Presumably, these animals will, like people, be immortal. **I am not asking about any of the above points.** Are there any (non-LDS¹) Christian groups that believe that *specific, individual* animals will "go" to heaven? In other words, are there any Christian groups (not just individuals) that believe in the possibility of a human in heaven being "reunited" with e.g. a beloved pet, or that believe in any form of resurrection for animals? (An acceptable "no" answer should cite sources from most major denominations.) ---- (¹ See [Isaiah 11:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011%3A6&version=ESV) , [Isaiah 65:25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065%3A25&version=ESV) and [Hosea 2:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+2%3A18&version=ESV).) (² An LDS perspective can be found [here](/questions/62291). However, LDS have notions about heaven that are wildly different from all other groups calling themselves "Christian". Accordingly, I am not interested in LDS perspectives.)

When did animals begin to die? Did animals begin slowly dying at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve or had it happened earlier at the fall of Satan, which may be what Romans 8:20 is hinting at? > For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by > reason of him who hath subjected it (Rom 8:20) Were animals already dying when God gave humans to have dominion over them in Gen. 1:28?: > And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and > multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion > over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every > living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:28, KJV) Or were animals originally created by God as already dying? What do the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the main-stream Protestants -- that is, those Protestants who pray to Jesus Christ in their prayers -- officially teach regarding this matter? EDIT 4: Following one remark in comments (stating that senescence by definition is not only the process of aging, but also the process of maturing that precedes the process of aging) decided to switch to "dying" again; EDIT 3: Following a suggestion in the comments, rephrased the question as "When did senescence enter the animal kingdom?" EDIT 2: Originally I used the term "mortal" in my question, but since the word "mortal" may mean only "being able to be killed" (see sequoia trees example in the EDIT 1 or Adam before his fall), I decided to switch to "dying". EDIT 1: By "dying" or "already dying" I mean the very state, in which all animals are now: each species is born, lives a certain number of years, gets old and then dies. This is different from being able to be killed, yet not having the process of dying taking place within (consider sequoia trees - some of them don't die by themselves, but can be killed by, say, fire or being cut)

Genesis tells us that Adam, Eve and all animals had originally plant-based diets, as God provided them with every plant and tree for food: > 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you **every plant** yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and **every tree** with seed in its fruit. **You shall have them for food**. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given **every green plant for food**.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Genesis 1:29-31, ESV] However, later passages of the Bible reveal that, after the fall, God approved of animal-based diets: > And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon **every beast** of the earth and upon **every bird** of the heavens, upon **everything that creeps on the ground** and **all the fish of the sea**. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 **Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you**. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [Genesis 9:1-3, ESV] > 9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 **And he became hungry and wanted something to eat**, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 **In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air**. 13 And there came a voice to him: **“Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”** 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, **“What God has made clean, do not call common.”** 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. [Acts 10:9-16, ESV] > 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 **Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate**. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. [Luke 15:22-24, ESV] **Question**: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall if originally the norm across the board was veganism? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else? I don't know if there is a unique answer to this question, so I'm posing it as a request for an **overview of Christian viewpoints**. Obviously, my intention is not to overwhelm you with a question that is impractically broad, so it would be just fine for me if an answer is posted simply enumerating some of the most compelling views according to e.g. a reputable Christian authority on the matter, etc. _____________________________ Update based on the comments: Answers can include viewpoints that reject the premise (that veganism was the norm right after Creation and before the Fall), I have no issues with that, as long as quotes or summaries of the argumentations given to reject the premise are included. _______________ Update 2: To those who reject the premise: you guys have inspired to ask a related question on Hermeneutics.SE: [Does Genesis 1:29-31 leave any room for the existence of animal-based diets in the period between the Creation and the Fall?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/58510/does-genesis-129-31-leave-any-room-for-the-existence-of-animal-based-diets-in-t) . Feel free to explain your reasons on that question.

Humans are made in the image of God, but what about the animals? What are the animals in the image of? Is there any Roman Catholic doctrine on such a question?

The Catholic Church teaches that out of earthly beings, only humans, and not animals, are persons and therefore many rights, like the absolute right to live, are enjoyed only by humans. [As the CCC says](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8B.HTM) , > 2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created > in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food > and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and > leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a > morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits > and contributes to caring for or saving human lives. > > 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die > needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should > as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; > one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. And notably, the above canons are placed in a chapter whose title is: > **II. Respect for Persons and Their Goods** If I’m not mistaken, this position stems from the definition of “person” proposed by Boethius, which is most commonly accepted among theologians: > A person is an individual substance with a rational nature. The problem is that some modern scientists claim that according to the new research we must consider some animals, in particular the great apes, as self-aware and intelligent, and therefore persons. They assert that these animals are also capable of self-control, planning, abstract thinking, mental time travel, comprehending past, present and future, empathy, establishing relationships, etc. They assert these animals are sentient. Therefore these scientists claim these animals should be granted the right of bodily liberty, bodily integrity, and must not be considered properties of other people. For sources, please see e.g. the following Wikipedia articles: [Great ape personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood) , [Nonhuman Rights Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhuman_Rights_Project) and [Personhood § Non-human animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Non-human_animals) . By such mentality denying animals human rights is an example of an unmadated supremacism, chauvinism and discrimination, similar in nature to the historical discrimination of people born as slaves and later of people of other races. Yet under the Church’s teaching it would seem impossible to classify these animals as persons. Given these scientific claims, seemingly fulfilling Boethius’ definition of a person, how does the Catholic Church defend its teaching with regard to animals not being persons?

Were animals back then dangerous to each others, such as predators stalking and killing their prey? And were they dangerous to people like they so often are today?