does owning a pet seem sinful?

[Aquitaine]

Different species and different genders respond in different ways and with different magnitudes, but a common aspect among most pets is that they're animals that live in an environment where one of the strongest urges that all creatures have (sex, reproduction) is either forever denied to them or cut out of them.

I gotta admit, when you think about it - that's pretty sad. Imagine if humans were born into that kind of existence. :cover:

 

[Quagmire]

In the wild, most canines never get to have sex either, only the alpha pair do.

 

[Penumbra]

In the wild, most canines never get to have sex either, only the alpha pair do.

I'm not sure if that's really the case. Not sure how reliable this wiki article is (Alpha (ethology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is but it lists references.

Outdated belief told that wolves would show deference to some alpha pair in their pack by allowing them to be the first to eat and, usually, the only pair to reproduce. After this belief wolves would use eye contact as an indicator of dominance or submission, but in order to establish a dominant position they would often also show physical superiority through playing or fighting. Modern knowledge of wolves dismisses the idea of absolute alphas in a pack, favoring instead the concept of breeder wolves as the centers of life in a pack, in the sense that the pack leaders are simply the common parents to most of the other pack members. As such, the status of alpha as a privileged individual or pair is nonexistent in natural wolf packs.[6] Larger or less-nuclear packs may operate differently and possess more complex and flexible social structures.[7] In the case of other wild canids, the alpha male may not have exclusive access to the alpha female;[8] moreover, other pack members may guard the maternity den used by the alpha female; such is the case with the African wild dog, Lycaon pictus.[9]

^ In the past, the prevailing view on wolf packs was that they consisted of individuals vying with each other for dominance, with dominant wolves being referred to as the "alpha" male and female, and the subordinates as "beta" and "omega" wolves. This terminology was first used in 1947 by Rudolf Schenkel of the University of Basel, who based his findings on researching the behavior of captive wolves. This view on wolf pack dynamics was later popularized by L. David Mech in his 1970 book The Wolf. He formally disavowed this terminology in 1999, explaining that it was heavily based on the behavior of captive packs consisting of unrelated individuals, an error reflecting the once prevailing view that wild pack formation occurred in winter among independent wolves. Later research on wild wolves revealed that the pack is usually a family consisting of a breeding pair and its offspring of the previous 1–3 years.[82]

I guess I'd have to check more sources, but by the sound of it, it's a pretty flexible system and the alpha couple is basically just the couple that produced the rest of the pack- doesn't mean those younger individuals won't mate with other wolves eventually as they age.

Species differ greatly, and it is true that in some species, the alpha male gets to mate and many other males do not, although who gets to be the alpha does cycle from time to time so a few individuals do get the chance. Often in species, the females as a whole do get to consistently mate (because one alpha male can impregnate a practically unlimited number of females, but the reverse isn't true), and alpha-couples (meaning where beta females are also excluded from mating in favor of the alpha female) don't seem to be as common of an occurrence in nature than just alpha males, because it usually wouldn't be optimal for reproduction to exclude fertile females except probably when there is high scarcity of food.

I saw a documentary on a very long-term study on baboons, and the researcher found that the beta males had very high levels of the chemical associated with stress in their blood compared to alphas, and they showed visible signs of stress. The stress chemicals do cause physical health issues over time. The dominant quarter of males get all of the females, but it can rotate over time because many of those excluded males are young males that will continue to grow in size and dominance. But basically in their system, lives of beta males are lame with bullying and no dates.

Other baboon packs are more open, where everyone gets more mating opportunities. So even within a species, it can differ.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not sure if that's really the case. Not sure how reliable this wiki article is (Alpha (ethology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is but it lists references.

I guess I'd have to check more sources, but by the sound of it, it's a pretty flexible system and the alpha couple is basically just the couple that produced the rest of the pack- doesn't mean those younger individuals won't mate with other wolves eventually as they age.

Species differ greatly, and it is true that in some species, the alpha male gets to mate and many other males do not, although who gets to be the alpha does cycle from time to time so a few individuals do get the chance. Often in species, the females as a whole do get to consistently mate (because one alpha male can impregnate a practically unlimited number of females, but the reverse isn't true), and alpha-couples (meaning where beta females are also excluded from mating in favor of the alpha female) don't seem to be as common of an occurrence in nature than just alpha males, because it usually wouldn't be optimal for reproduction to exclude fertile females except probably when there is high scarcity of food.

I saw a documentary on a very long-term study on baboons, and the researcher found that the beta males had very high levels of the chemical associated with stress in their blood compared to alphas, and they showed visible signs of stress. The stress chemicals do cause physical health issues over time. The dominant quarter of males get all of the females, but it can rotate over time because many of those excluded males are young males that will continue to grow in size and dominance. But basically in their system, lives of beta males are lame with bullying and no dates.

Other baboon packs are more open, where everyone gets more mating opportunities. So even within a species, it can differ.

Look: I was raised by a pack of wolves and I never got to . . .

I mean they told me it was because . . .


!$%^!-it! It really was because of my breath.

 

[Koldo]

When I was a little kid, my father bought me a parrot, which I had for most of my life until I found another home for her (went to college, and then lived in an apartment; can't have the parrot there, so she lived with my father for a while). We did everything we could do to make her happy- tons of food, tons of affection, and although she has a cage, the cage is never closed, so she can sleep inside of it where she feels secure and stay on top of it during the day, or occasionally leave the cage entirely. But after several years (you generally can't neuter/spay a bird), she became extremely horny. Every time I pet her, after a few minutes, she would turn around and lean over and open herself up in a receptive posture and start making cooing sounds and being visibly extremely aroused. Every time. I'd be staring at a wide open bird vagina and be like, "uh... could you not?" So that made me feel awkward when simply trying to pet her, and more importantly it made me feel bad because she clearly had a strong instinct to mate, and she never would mate, and was mistaking human affection for some sort of mating attention. So I had to make sure to discourage her when she did that, and eventually to only pet her a little bit on her head to avoid getting her excited. Bird owners sometimes have to do things to discourage mating behaviors or laying eggs, like carefully controlling the environment, avoiding certain types of petting, and so forth. Basically they're animals with fully intact mating urges that will never mate in the decades of their life.

How did you pet her exactly?
Did you pet her like a dog ( all the over body )?

Kind of sad, overall.

Sad is a not a good word.
It is more like: frustating.

Different species and different genders respond in different ways and with different magnitudes, but a common aspect among most pets is that they're animals that live in an environment where one of the strongest urges that all creatures have (sex, reproduction) is either forever denied to them or cut out of them.

Indeed. However, this ( which is a result of the lack of complete freedom ) is counter balanced by what is gained in a household: shelter, food, water and veterinary care ( and in some cases protection from predators ).

An interesting fact though: Neutering a male dog will reduce his sexual drive, but it won't necessarily eliminate it. Let's just say I learned that the odd way when I happened to witness an incest.........

 

[Penumbra]

How did you pet her exactly?
Did you pet her like a dog ( all the over body )?

I pet the bird in various ways. Eventually I had to only stick to the head, beak, and especially her cheeks because she loved it there, but not other parts.

If you pet her on the head, she raises her wings up, because her favorite place of all to be pet is under her wings. But if you do that, she gets horny. Lots of birds like being pet on the belly too, but that makes her horny too. Petting her on the back- also horny. Basically other than small parts on the head, and she gets horny, but when you pet her on the head she would keep indicating all of the other places she wants to be pet. Poor bird. =/

Sad is a not a good word.
It is more like: frustating.

Indeed. However, this ( which is a result of the lack of complete freedom ) is counter balanced by what is gained in a household: shelter, food, water and veterinary care ( and in some cases protection from predators ).

That assumes that if the animal doesn't live in a home, it'll live in the wild. But that's not really how pets work- we keep a large domesticated population of animals that only exist because we bred them. So without the cultural practice of having pets, those breeds of animals and all of those individual animals wouldn't exist. And if a domesticated pet is put into the wild and has a tough time (like lots of cats)- it existed in the first place because of the culture of having pets.

 

[Penumbra]

Look: I was raised by a pack of wolves and I never got to . . .

I mean they told me it was because . . .


!$%^!-it! It really was because of my breath.

Heh.

 

[Koldo]

I pet the bird in various ways. Eventually I had to only stick to the head, beak, and especially her cheeks because she loved it there, but not other parts.

If you pet her on the head, she raises her wings up, because her favorite place of all to be pet is under her wings. But if you do that, she gets horny. Lots of birds like being pet on the belly too, but that makes her horny too. Petting her on the back- also horny. Basically other than small parts on the head, and she gets horny, but when you pet her on the head she would keep indicating all of the other places she wants to be pet. Poor bird. =/

I have read about this before.
It is certainly not unheard of. You had to stick to petting the head, and the head only, as far as I remember...
Parrots may interpret other types of petting as "foreplay''...

That assumes that if the animal doesn't live in a home, it'll live in the wild. But that's not really how pets work- we keep a large domesticated population of animals that only exist because we bred them. So without the cultural practice of having pets, those breeds of animals and all of those individual animals wouldn't exist. And if a domesticated pet is put into the wild and has a tough time (like lots of cats)- it existed in the first place because of the culture of having pets.

Not necessarily comparing their lives at home with their lives at the wild, but rather with the lives of animals, in general, in the wild. Although they lose some things compared to animals in the wild, they gain others.

I don't think we can go so far as to say that their lives as pets ( in general ) is so bad that it would be overall better if they weren't even born in the first place.

 

[kloth]

I can't quite get past the idea that anything is sinful let alone owning a fricken dog.

no offense, but that sounds like a simpletons thought, without considering the dogs true feelings. even if they are a dumb dog who doesn't know better at what kind of better life they could of had.

kloth....... hello again.

You need to decide what you think about your thread, whether owning a pet is sinful or not, and then we can move forward ........ with how to move forward.

Obviously if owning a pet is sinful.... not covered in the bible like you have pointed out, we need to decide how to end pet ownership.

But more than that, we need to decide whether keeping working pets is sinful. I mean, keeping a pet like our little miniature dachshund, Smew, who doesn't 'do' mornings, wolfs her grub up, swims in the sea and refuses to come out when we call her, etc is quite a different life to that of her ancestors who were sent underground to chase badgers to the surface for extermination...... they worked or died. Sometimes they died as they worked.... badgers are tough. How do you feel about dogs kept to work..... slavery and an early death when they were too old to carry on? Sinful?

How about animals kept for their meat? any ideas on that?

I'm here, waiting to read your words and philosophy about not only pets-at-home, but working animals, food-provision animals...... the lot. I need to read your wisdom. Can't wait.

i believe i made it clear on what i have decided on owning pets.

keeping animals for meat is something i don't agree on either. humans don't need meat to survive, it's common knowledge that people can live without meat and dairy as what is called a vegetarian. their other body parts are not needed for clothing, etc. either.
animals for work is like slavery to me. slaves were forced to work for free to save cost, all they did is give slaves the bare basics to survive, then claim the slaves are happy and prefer this life, some slaves even convinced themself that it's true to make themself feel better about being trapped or the poor fools just didn't know better about a better life. low self esteem will do that, as i am sure pets can relate.

I never mentioned anything about serving.

i also never said you mentioned anything about serving, i'm the one who brought it up to prove a point.

Your response screams Ad hominem so loud I don't really know what to say. Science isn't done to please someone. It's done to find out the truth about something. The documentary is based on peer reviewed studies. You do know how peer review works, right? It means that before the studies have became accepted they have been tested. This isn't some kind of process where you can just claim whatever you like -- unlike certain other forums.

Your reference to elephants and big cats have absolutely nothing to do with the situation most dogs live in. There's plenty of mistreatment out there, sure, but these are a result of not tending to the animal's natural needs. A big cat naturally lives in a habitat as large as tens of miles. A dog on the other is genetically entirely different. The first wolves very likely chose to live in a symbiosis with us humans because to a difference from the wild, they get regular food, safety and shelter. This is something entirely different from keeping an elephant in a cage for the rest of it's life. Do you at least understand the nuances we're talking about here?

science isn't done to please someone, they just do it for fun or to serve their god? science is all about making human life better.
i also said it was a more extreme example of dogs and big cats, making it clear that it's not the same circumstance, but related.
just because wolves need more freedom that dogs, doesn't mean that gives the dog less rights to freedom by humans choice.
would you want to be kept as a pet and directed on how to live by force? because if you'll notice many prisoners are caged up like animals and they don't like it, despite whether you say they deserve it or not. but then how does a dog deserve to have it's freedom taken away or restricted?

Why would it be sinful to own a pet? Its circumstantial...Maybe a non-domesticated animal...yes. or if you treated an animal with neglect...yes. but 'own' in itself is the wrong word IMO...we dont 'own' them. We simply provide food, shelter, and company. If the animal seems to enjoy this, and comes and goes on free will. (For ex. I let my cat outside, aswell as inside...he always come inside willing, and vise-versa) then i dont see the problem. If anything...a good deed. Especially if you took in the animal from an otherwise harmful and unhealthy situation. (Like the pound)

people who own tigers in their house make the same defense as you. and just because you are not abusing the animal, doesn't give you right to force the pet to live with you. it is owning, you can call it something else to white wash it, but people who have pets are called pet owners.
you say the word 'seems', which tells me you are not certian, yet you act confident in your belief with owning pets it seems like to me.
like i had mentioned earlier, owning indoor/outdoor cats doesn't seem so bad to me. i suppose some people could have a system where the pets freedom isn't taken away. but in my op i mainly focus on dog living in the city, especially those who live in apartment high rises.

Have you ever kept a dog? Have you ever studied 'Dog'?

OK.... I read your OP. Now....... it seems that you have decided that dogs (in the cities) have a rubbish life, don't get out enough, have to defecate in front of people (humiliated?), have to eat processed food and can't kill for themselves, their existence as pets is not endorsed by the bible, and they are generally unhappy (?) etc etc.....

Now..... I got all that................. so.......... what do you want to do?
Please...... just tell the dog-owning city dwellers of the world what you want them to do..... Today. Now. Not next year or next decade. What to do, now...?

like i had mentioned before, people who live in the city should not get a pet to begin with, if they have one now then keep it until the owner or pet dies. force breeding needs to stop, i don't care if it's a "dog ranch" some new born puppies are killed when born because they are not as cute and get too old, just like dogs used for racing and animals used for other sports. owning pets in the city like this should be weeded out, but half the apartment population has dogs living in small apartments and restricted to freedom, these people act like these dogs, cats, fish, birds, snakes, etc. are life support for them.
want companionship? make a friends with humans.

That's exactly known as: ignoring biology.
Just because it looks like a dog it doesn't mean it is a dog.
If you were not ignoring biology, you would take into consideration other factors before saying it is a dog.

i think you are actually ignoring reality, and using the overly common biologly aspect as easy excuse because it's so commonly done in debates.
i don't think it's a matter of you not seeing my points, but it's that you don't want to.
i already know most (if not all) pet owners will never admit what they are doing is wrong to any degree, not with people these days.

 

[kloth]

Some instances, for example keeping birds in cages and goldfish in tiny bowls, are indefensible. And there are some other moral issues already touched upon.
But overall I am in favour of companion animals

Certainly on the spiritual level it has great potential benefits for both sides.

As Anatole France famously said "Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened."
(And I could spin that around and say that 'Until one has been loved by an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened.')

That close friendship and companionship with one of another species gives you a different understanding and perspective on life, and the world around us, and those other ensouled beings we share this beautiful planet with.

Being exposed to love and positive association with humans helps the animal immeasurably too. For they too experience, learn and grow - the very purpose of incarnation.
And vitally they attain individualisation, which they retain after 'death'.

Animals have souls as we do, and are on their own evolutionary path. With love 'you' can lift their soul to the heavens...

All of which reminds me of my favourite excerpt from a NDE...
'Horses and dogs were playing together and when they stopped they seemed to stare a hole right through me and then went back to playing.
I was told they were checking to see if I was the person they were waiting for that had loved them while on earth.'

everything you mentioned is a theory to suit humans wants for a pet. i notice many people keep saying how good it is for humans and speaking for pets needs and wants, but not mentioning how the pet might really feel.
i don't know if animals have souls, but if they did then i would think they would have the same thought process and inteligence as humans, to give a fair fight in saving their soul in case they are trained to be a bad dog, etc.

And God seems to have done so unto us?.....let's shift perspective....

The Old Book claims God made Man a little less than the angels.(written)
and then to the angels He said....
Man is less than you so seek after him a make certain he would not dash his toe or his head.(not written)

One third of the angelic said ..'nay..
Man is less than we are and therefore should be made to serve us.'

There's nothing wrong with that logic.
We humans do so unto everything less than we are.
We saddle horses and break their spirit.
We force the animal to take us wherever we care to go.

It is the nature of the dog to roam in packs and hunt at will.
We humans chain the animal, and forbid that it might bite the hand that feeds it.
We then expect it affection and loyalty.

We cage little birds for their love songs.
But the creature will never fins the mate he sings for.
No nest, no offspring and he will die in solitude.

We kill insects on sight.

We do unto lesser life as we see fit.
Even unto each other.

To whom do we bear resemblance?

The story I got.....a fight broke out.
Brother angel against brother angel.
One third of heaven fell.
They lost their position over an argument about something that looks like us.
They want us dead.
Two thirds of heaven lost their brothers over an argument...about us.
They might not care.

To whom do we bear resemblance?

btw....we have a dog...and enough ground to chase Frisbee.
Never have seen a happier puppy.

well in a time when so many don't know if there is a god or not, i don't think it's fair to say 'but god does it'. animals are not setting out to hold humans captive is what i see, and the only thing i see repressing humans in any way are fellow humans who also repress themselves.
i find it kind of funny when owners say the pet is happy, horse owners have told me this about riding horses, that they like to be rode. easy for a horse owner/rider to say.

I loved having pet animals when I was little, but I can't justify it anymore. I can't buy a bred animal, have its reproductive system surgically neutered, and then spend resources keeping it fed and content in an artificial environment. So, I probably won't have any more pets.

If a farmer keeps a dog for practical purposes, or a family takes in a pet from a shelter, that seems all positive. Buying a bred little toy dog and cutting his testicles off, or keeping a cat and cutting her ovaries out, seems pretty wrong in most cases.

farmers don't need dogs, some do it because it's cheaper, that's how slavery worked. why pay humans or invest in the machine if you can force an animal? if people would leave animals alone and not breed them in the city or towns then there would be no need for shelters to begin with.

The synergistic relationship between dogs and humans has been going on for so long now (some experts say more than 30,000 years, which would be something like at least 2000 canine generations), and considering how far removed modern canines are instinctively from their pre-pet ancestors, you could almost call it natural.

Also, when you consider that the whole synergistic partnership thing was the canines' idea in the first place (the dogs' wild ancestors started following our ancestors in order to scavenge their left-overs), I'd say no, it isn't unethical.

It's completely wrong to keep some species as pets though.

we really don't know what was going on 30,000 years ago, but you can believe what others tell you if you want.
you know the people that own certain species that you say is wrong to own, will defend it until their last breath that it's good for them and their species they own.

 

[Koldo]

i think you are actually ignoring reality, and using the overly common biologly aspect as easy excuse because it's so commonly done in debates.

You are saying that a dhole is a dog, and I am the one not in touch with reality?

i don't think it's a matter of you not seeing my points, but it's that you don't want to.
i already know most (if not all) pet owners will never admit what they are doing is wrong to any degree, not with people these days.

I understand your points, but I don't agree with your conclusion.

 

[Thief]

well in a time when so many don't know if there is a god or not, i don't think it's fair to say 'but god does it'. animals are not setting out to hold humans captive is what i see, and the only thing i see repressing humans in any way are fellow humans who also repress themselves.
i find it kind of funny when owners say the pet is happy, horse owners have told me this about riding horses, that they like to be rode. easy for a horse owner/rider to say.


farmers don't need dogs, some do it because it's cheaper, that's how slavery worked. why pay humans or invest in the machine if you can force an animal? if people would leave animals alone and not breed them in the city or towns then there would be no need for shelters to begin with.

we really don't know what was going on 30,000 years ago, but you can believe what others tell you if you want.
you know the people that own certain species that you say is wrong to own, will defend it until their last breath that it's good for them and their species they own.

So keeping to the notion of sin.....?
Would it have been sinful for the Fallen to have kept us humans as pets.

If we end up with them.....won't it be so?

 

[Jon9]

I think for me pet ownership feels selfish, it's mostly a symbol of some kind. Those who use them that way I don't think focus on people much differently. Those that love their pet's, for the being they are, as co-participants in life are doing a great thing for animals that might not otherwise survive. Personally, I got a lot out of having a cat that I rescued, literally out of a wall, and was so sad when he died, I'm not sure collectively we are doing the right thing. Just trying to keep an eye on the big picture,the world and it's inhabitants.

 

[kloth]

You are saying that a dhole is a dog, and I am the one not in touch with reality?

I understand your points, but I don't agree with your conclusion.

i am saying a dog is a dog. :grill:

So keeping to the notion of sin.....?
Would it have been sinful for the Fallen to have kept us humans as pets.

If we end up with them.....won't it be so?

making humans pets is not cool either, in my opinion. :camp:

I think for me pet ownership feels selfish, it's mostly a symbol of some kind. Those who use them that way I don't think focus on people much differently. Those that love their pet's, for the being they are, as co-participants in life are doing a great thing for animals that might not otherwise survive. Personally, I got a lot out of having a cat that I rescued, literally out of a wall, and was so sad when he died, I'm not sure collectively we are doing the right thing. Just trying to keep an eye on the big picture,the world and it's inhabitants.

if humans would have not put your cat (or it's relatives) in the city or town it was at, it would have not have been trapped in a wall to begin with.
just like animals in a shelter, they wouldn't be there if humans didn't create a system that leads them there.
what is love in many cases? something that is easy to say? how often to people feel selfish love? when they are done loving you, then you are tossed out like a bag of trash which has been done to many people often, we see it. it's really a question of honor.
humans do great things for animals that are self proclaimed, until we can hear animals talk and once they are educated with the reality of things around them then we don't know how great it is.
how many times has someone tried doing something for you that you did not want and insisted they don't do it, but they insisted it's for your own good and that you will like it, and maybe you went along and realized they were dead wrong.
humans have a bad habit of thinking they know whats best for everyone and everything else because it works for them, and it's what they want for you.
owning a pet i think has to do with a power trip to some degree as well. :sw:

 

[Koldo]

i am saying a dog is a dog. :grill:

No, you are not.

 

[Koldo]

if humans would have not put your cat (or it's relatives) in the city or town it was at, it would have not have been trapped in a wall to begin with.
just like animals in a shelter, they wouldn't be there if humans didn't create a system that leads them there.
what is love in many cases? something that is easy to say? how often to people feel selfish love? when they are done loving you, then you are tossed out like a bag of trash which has been done to many people often, we see it. it's really a question of honor.
humans do great things for animals that are self proclaimed, until we can hear animals talk and once they are educated with the reality of things around them then we don't know how great it is.
how many times has someone tried doing something for you that you did not want and insisted they don't do it, but they insisted it's for your own good and that you will like it, and maybe you went along and realized they were dead wrong.
humans have a bad habit of thinking they know whats best for everyone and everything else because it works for them, and it's what they want for you.
owning a pet i think has to do with a power trip to some degree as well. :sw:

How many pets have you had so far?

 

[Thief]

making humans pets is not cool either, in my opinion.


what is love in many cases? something that is easy to say? how often to people feel selfish love?
it's really a question of honor.
humans have a bad habit of thinking they know whats best for everyone and everything else
owning a pet i think has to do with a power trip to some degree as well.

And perhaps this is where the notion of 'sin' steps in?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

i see people who live in the heart of the city. where the dog lives in a small apartment with their master, and the only time the dog gets outside is to use the restroom for when the master wants to take them for a walk.
where they have to take a dump or urinate in front of everyone, other animals. eat dog food made by humans. forced to do tricks, where dog clothing. etc.
does this seem self serving for the masters needs? is there any mention of this sort of thing in the bible? even if the dog (or whatever animal it is) is still loyal, does it seem kind of sinful to do this because humans tend to be obsessed with animals. dogs especially i notice.

It's okay, all pets seem to have Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[kloth]

No, you are not.

Ja, i am. :snoopy:

How many pets have you had so far?

enough to know better, and enough to care.:bunny::bkcat::goldfish:: hamster :

And perhaps this is where the notion of 'sin' steps in?

to some degree.

It's okay, all pets seem to have Stockholm Syndrome.

not all. some runaway or attack.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let me tell you about my Tom Cat. He just showed up at my house as a Kitten. I did not pick him to be my cat, he picked me.