Was Jesus kind to animals?

[marco]

We are told by Christ to be kind to others, but Jesus never mentions cruelty to animals. In Egypt today or in Middle East countries donkeys suffer and it can be supposed they always have done. The ever contentious Matthew says: "Do not give what is holy to dogs." That dismissive comment suggests Jesus had little time for quadrupeds.

Why did Jesus not spare a thought for animals?

Societies today that cater for abused animals do not derive their mission from Jesus. Why?

[Tcg]

Jesus may have not taught kindness to animals, but his predecessor Solomon seems to have done so.

The OP asks, "Was Jesus kind to animals?." The teachings of Solomon are totally irrelevant.


Tcg

[marco]

Were the Romans barbarians too?

Yet they too brought us law, culture and wisdom.

Why favor one set of Primitives over another?

This illustrates that there are those who think (Seneca was appalled at the casual destruction of life in the arena, as was Lucretius ) and what Horace called the "vulgar mob (odi profanum vulgus et arceo - I hate the foul mob and shun them). Religion seems to generate the best and the worst in mankind. Burning people alive, done by Church fathers many centuries after Rome's secular power vanished, shows what religious fervour can do. But the Romans were not writing bibles; they were building an empire.


And if we imagine we inhabit a world free of roaring lions and burning flesh, pay a visit to Pakistan's justice system in recent days for another triumph of religion over reason:

"A university lecturer has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan.
Junaid Hafeez, 33, has spent years in solitary confinement after being arrested in the Punjab city of Multan in 2013 and accused of posting blasphemous Facebook comments about Islams prophet Mohammed. Insulting the prophet carries a mandatory death penalty in Pakistan." The man is gifted, as opposed to his oppressors, with high intelligence and won a scholarship to study in America.

Mao said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun; for Rome it came from her legions. There's nothing to admire in violence of any kind.... and in the OP I am looking at the question of humans and animals (sometimes indistinguishable.)

The reason I ask about Christ's concern for animals is not to make him into a David Attenborough but to question why human attention should not be extended towards acts of cruelty to other life forms. Why would it be wrong to beat a horse to death, for amusement, like the scene in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment? Why did Christ not turn his concerns, for a few minutes, to other forms of life, some of them far nobler than the worst of men?

[marco]

Proverbs 12.10

The righteous know the needs or their animals...

Jesus may have not taught kindness to animals, but his predecessor Solomon seems to have done so. And under inspiration from the "Old Testament God", who desires "mercy and not sacrifice".

Jesus quoted that verse from Hosea. So it seems that Jesus was compassionate to animals after all.

I think the case against Christ has been won if the sum total of his concern for animals is the verse: " For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

If this were indeed the divine desire one wonders why the ram was provided for Abraham.

[Mithrae]

Not only is there no record of him being kind to animals or praising scientists, I'll bet he didn't even recycle either!

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Anyone, real/fake/deity/normal person/whomever, that mistreats any animal is not worth the oxygen is uses/makes.
There is absolutely no good reason for anything to abuse/mistreat any animal period.
That said, I would suspect and deity that is said to love its creation would treat its creation well.

[marco]

Not only is there no record of him being kind to animals or praising scientists, I'll bet he didn't even recycle either!

Many a true word is spoken in jest. Were Jesus a mere Aristotle we would not expect him to have any insight into the concerns of a future world. If he's an emissary from the creator of turtles and Tasmanian devils then perhaps a little footnote about animals might have been interesting. Granted, talk about sinners takes a lot of evangelical space.

As for praising scientists one would certainly have thought that he might have mentioned those who labour without the benefit of foresight and cure the blind without spitting on them. His preoccupation with Scripture and little else suggests he was nothing more than one crying in the wilderness: "The end if nigh!"

And as for recycling, I'm sure his cross was used again and again. So there is much more in what you say than you probably intended.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Anyone, real/fake/deity/normal person/whomever, that mistreats any animal is not worth the oxygen is uses/makes.
There is absolutely no good reason for anything to abuse/mistreat any animal period.
That said, I would suspect and deity that is said to love its creation would treat its creation well.

I imagine the horrendous treatment of animals in Middle Eastern countries is not a modern phenomenon and would have been seen by the itinerant preacher, Jesus. I would have expected him to comment, but perhaps this is asking the man to be ahead of his time. Perhaps there were too many people possessed of evil spirits for him to spare a thought for abused donkeys.

[Athetotheist]

But nowhere is there a faithful dog. Perhaps these verses were omitted from Matthew's fabrications.

"Be ye also as faithful as dogs that, forgotten or abused by their master, yet love him. Whatever storms assail ye, whatever tragedies engulf ye, whatever hurts are thrown upon ye, be like dogs and crouch at the feet of thy master. For thy master can do whatsoever he wills and ye have no say. "

In those times and places, dogs weren't kept or thought of as pets. They were essentially left to be wild scavengers and regarded as a threat to humans.

[Athetotheist]

We are told by Christ to be kind to others, but Jesus never mentions cruelty to animals. In Egypt today or in Middle East countries donkeys suffer and it can be supposed they always have done. The ever contentious Matthew says: "Do not give what is holy to dogs." That dismissive comment suggests Jesus had little time for quadrupeds.

Why did Jesus not spare a thought for animals?

Societies today that cater for abused animals do not derive their mission from Jesus. Why?

It may have been late in coming, but the Catholic Church did declare St. Francis of Assisi the patron saint of animals.

[marco]

But nowhere is there a faithful dog. Perhaps these verses were omitted from Matthew's fabrications.

In those times and places, dogs weren't kept or thought of as pets. They were essentially left to be wild scavengers and regarded as a threat to humans.

Imagine that. In 79AD there was an eruption of Vesuvius. Today we have the remains of dogs kept as pets in Pompeii. The dog was favoured for its loyalty: canis fidelis. So too in the Greek world, for the faithful dog is mentioned in Homer. In Egypt cats were domesticated long before Jesus came. It may be that Jesus regarded dogs as worthless brutes.