Pets are false gods (page 4)

yourmomma

Jehovah is the most insecure God of them all. lol

diana netherton

Is that from a real WT publication???? It seems made up it's so ridiculous!

Vidiot

Rattigan350 - "Pets are false gods..."

Cats, maybe. In Egypt. Like, 4,000 years ago.

Glander - "They are thinning out those in the org with any little bit of brain matter remaining, it causes problems."

On purpose, I'm sure.

Vidiot

rebel 8 - "Reasons why cats aren't for true Christians"

Funny! Isn't there one like that somewhere about dogs being inappropriate for Christians, too?

return of parakeet - "Looks like a scene taken from the movie Independence Day."

Naw, the ID4 cast was much better looking.

Maybe from some cheezy 70s disaster flick, though.

The great Creator could have synchronized our life spans in a better manner. Seven years to one year. It hurts. This is the silliest WT I've ever read. Now, Fido, is the enemy. What about Rex, Rin-tin-tin, and Lassie? Benji, Wishbone -- all tools of Satan.

Bangalore

*** g76 1/22 pp. 18-20 Enjoy Animals—in Their Place! ***

Reasonableness Needed

Even persons who enjoy animals very much usually realize that reasonableness is needed in connection with them. If you have a pet, or may get one, you should not overlook some important factors relative to enjoying animals, particularly pets.

Cost certainly is one factor. Simply stated, a pet costs money. Of course, so does attending a soccer match, going to a theater or pursuing a hobby such as oil painting. A reasonable view, then, is to weigh the enjoyment obtained in the light of its cost. Time magazine said:

“Americans spend $2.5 billion a year on commercially prepared pet food alone to feed their pets—more than six times as much as they spend on baby food, and more than enough to nourish the one-third of the world’s population that goes hungry. . . . For each dollar spent on pet food, Americans lavish at least as much for pet products and services.”

Many persons obtaining a pet do not anticipate a large expense. But costs have a way of mounting. Perhaps special food seems advisable. The pet gets ill and requires treatment. Licenses, cages, leashes and so on may be needed.

When her husband died, Mrs. E. bought a Sealyham terrier. She grew very fond of it. At the end of a year, however, she calculated how much her pet cost. She had gradually come to feed it special meat and snacks—$547.50 in one year. Shots and medicines—$50; grooming and accessories (sprays, collars, toys and so forth)—$291; kennel care when she traveled—$126. After giving this example, a book about pets concluded:

“When Mrs. E. found that she had spent, in one year, [$1,014.50] on her dog, a sum equivalent to the annual income of a migrant worker in California, she decided there was something basically wrong about treating animals, however much one loved them, better than people.”

That was her conclusion. Someone else might conclude that for him the benefits of having a pet warrants the cost. In any event, a person ought to weigh the expense and use reasonableness in deciding what is best for him. Priorities differ, as do circumstances. One African said:

“In the general economic climate of undeveloped Africa it is very difficult for people to understand how the higher paid members of the community can spend as much, if not more, money on feeding dogs and cats and horses than the average person spends feeding his whole family.”

Thus, in many parts of Africa, dogs are left to scavenge for their food. So, even many dogs that are owned to protect the home are “so painfully thin that you can count their ribs.”

Perhaps you feel that you would not want your pet to be in that condition. Then are you prepared to bear the cost of keeping it fed and healthy? More and more persons who have pets find that they are not able to care for them properly. So humane societies are receiving for destruction many emaciated pets. Other people throw animals into the streets or abandon them in a field, even though they may not be able to survive there. That surely is no way to “enjoy” an animal.

A person having a reasonable outlook on enjoying animals also recognizes potential hazards, just as you give thought to any hazards that might be part of a sport or other recreation you are considering. Certainly being bitten is one possible danger with a pet. The Toronto Star said: “Dr. Bruce Feldman [a specialist in pets] points out that in the U.S. about one person in 170 is bitten by dogs annually, ‘and at least as many bites are unreported.’ Applying these figures to Canada, it is possible that as many as 100,000 Canadians suffered animal bites” in 1974.

But it is not just dogs that present this danger. Dr. Harvey Rhein, a former president of a veterinary association, said:

“As far as I’m concerned, no wild animal makes an acceptable pet. Monkeys are too close to man; they can both pick up and spread human diseases. I’m also opposed to raccoons, skunks and squirrels. Despite claims of some people, who’ve domesticated these animals, that they make lovable pets, there remains a question of rabies being a latent virus. All these animals are biters; they can do so—fiercely.”

Aside from bites, some doctors warn about pet-borne diseases. A newspaper article entitled “New Pet-Induced Ills Challenging Doctors” listed diseases contracted from turtles, hamsters, cats and dogs. A number of these diseases, which range in potential seriousness from flulike symptoms to fatal infections, are spread in the urine and feces of the animals. Time magazine commented:

“Each day across the nation, dogs deposit an estimated 4 million tons of feces and 42 million quarts of urine on city streets and parks. . . . More than 100 human infections, from diphtheria to tuberculosis, can be picked up by animals and passed on to their owners. Dog defecation is also rich in toxocara (roundworm), which can cause blindness in children.”

Is this to say that you should fear to be around all animals? No, just as the danger of attack from some human or contracting a disease from such a source does not lead us to shrink from all human association. But these factors about pets ought to be considered by a person in determining in what ways and to what degree he or she will enjoy animals.

Reasonable in Affection

As we have discussed, animals can be valuable in many ways. And there is abundant proof that a pet can be a pleasant, entertaining and devoted companion. Understandably, humans might respond with affection, wanting to be kind and to care for a pet.

Still, the fact that some imperfect humans go to extremes with regard to various pleasures and interests should alert us to the danger of “going overboard” concerning animals.

Did you know that persons have provided their pets with things such as gold bracelets, black lace panties, evening gowns and birthday parties? They have obtained clip-on diapers for their parrakeets, false eyelashes for their poodles and sunglasses for vacationing pets. One New York woman has her two dogs picked up each day in a chauffeured limousine; they are slowly driven around a park “so they may have some fresh air and see some green.”

Individuals become so emotionally wrapped up with pets that the animals govern human lives. One couple was going to emigrate to Australia. They already had shipped their furniture. But when their Alsatian dog failed a medical exam and was refused entry, they canceled their passage and paid £500 for their furniture to be sent back. They said: “A new life would have been meaningless if we had sacrificed our dog for it. She is part of our marriage.”

As with the man and his boa constrictor, for some persons a pet becomes even more important than marital attachments. One woman kept six Siamese cats, though her husband was allergic to cats and had nearly choked to death a number of times. Even though pregnant with her first child, she was willing to have a divorce rather than live without her cats. It is reported that she “only hoped her child would not inherit the father’s allergy.”

When affection for animals is not controlled by reasonableness, pets can seem even more important than human life. Hysterical pet owners gathered outside during a fire in one animal hospital. The report is that “women screamed, tore their hair, several fainted, and two tried to break through the cordon, crying that they wanted to die with their darlings.”

Yes, reasonableness is needed. Otherwise a person might gradually allow animals to occupy an increasingly important place in his life and affections. As we have seen, this can and does happen. Whereas at first a person might think that it would be pleasant to have a pet around the home, without reasonableness being manifested he could get to the point of spending inordinate amounts of money, time and attention on the pet. Or, even though he is a clean person, he might come to permit himself to be “kissed” by a pet that had recently been licking its sexual and anal areas or eating something unsanitary. Surely extremes need to be guarded against.

Also, a person ought to evaluate his intention in regard to a pet. Is it a matter of settling on the affection or companionship of an animal as a substitute for obtaining such from humans? In his book Tiere Sind Ganz Anders (Animals Are Quite Different), Hans Bauer observed: “It is altogether unreasonable to ‘fly to the animal world’ because one is ‘disappointed’ by men.” He went on to mention how sad it is for someone to ‘bestow his affections on a dog or a cat in the hope of discovering in an animal what he has failed to find among his own species’ when an animal’s “whole nature prevents it from ever giving” this to him.

Enjoying Animals in Their Place

Actually, the Bible shows that the exact opposite should be the case. After the Creator made all the forms of animal life, he concluded that what he had made was “very good.” (Gen. 1:20-31) Undoubtedly, the first man Adam wholeheartedly agreed with that conclusion. But what place did animals hold in Adam’s life?

Since we today can find such pleasure in watching and being near animals, just imagine Adam’s joy in the animals and especially at the time when God brought them all to him for naming. (Gen. 2:19, 20) Job later said that animals, besides bringing enjoyment, can be a means of much instruction about the Creator. (Job 12:7-9) Adam must have realized that too. Still, the Bible record says that, having surveyed and enjoyed all the animals, Adam found no full companion or complement among them. Adam was an intelligent human made in God’s image, and a similarly endowed creature is what he needed as a complement. As enjoyable, devoted, instructive, amusing or interesting as animals might be, God never purposed that they be a substitute for humans. Do we appreciate this? If so, it will enhance our enjoyment of animals, for we will see them in the proper light and hold them in the place that God purposed for them.

Questions remain, though, about the life and death of animals, such as whether men have the right to kill animals, how we should view the death of an animal, killing such for food, and so forth. We will leave these questions for consideration in a later issue.

Bangalore

Pets are false gods

yourmomma

diana netherton

Vidiot

Vidiot

Band on the Run

Bangalore

blondie

Badfish

mP

blondie

Share this