# Animals and Burial



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 30, 2010)

Hello all,

While deciding to stay home from school today (not feeling well today) I began looking up dog breeds to distract myself. I really love dogs and want to get one when I'm financially stable enough to afford to take care of one. But, while investigating possibilities of my future pet, I wondered about the proper thing to do when pets die. The bible doesn't seem to say much about how we treat animals other than knowing that we have dominion over them, and that we are to be good stewards of them as part of creation. But, I wonder whether pets are a distinguishable class of animal different from wild animals in the way we should treat them. More directly, my question is, is it wrong to bury our pets? I know I cried when my hamster died, and I put him in a little box and buried him (yeah I'm sentimental). Maybe this is not true for all, but why do many have such an emotional response to the death of a pet animal but not to wild animals we may see dead on a highway? Is it a sinful response to mourn over the loss of a pet? Is it idolatry to bury one's pet? Are there biblical reasons why we shouldn't bury our pets? I just have a hard time thinking of throwing a pet in a trash bag and putting him in the dumpster, or having animal services do it for you. 

Thanks in advance for responses.

Sincerely,


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 30, 2010)

Well, there is a difference in being sentimental and burying a dead animal. In my ranching days we would often bury the bull found dead, or the cat that went the way of all cats. It was simply a matter of keeping the flies and stink down.

From a practical standpoint, I'd think that paying for someone to remove the pet may be a good idea if you don't have a place to bury it, or if the laws of your jurisdiction prohibit it. Our city actually recommends the garbage bag approach, which surprised me.

But, I can certainly understand someone not wanting to toss a beloved pet into the trash. 

The promise of resurrection explicitly applies to people. Whether the new creation has old pets in it is something not fruitful to discuss because God does not address it in his Word. What he does address is, as you say, good stewardship and maintaining decent order.

We know that loving a pet is not prohibited. The parable of Nathan given to David about the man with the dear lamb seems to point to that. So if you bury your pet simply to keep decent order in your yard, maybe as a reminder of the loved pet, and also a reminder of the way of all flesh, without attributing anything more than that to it, it seems a matter of personal preference.

Edited to add: I forgot to say, don't put a cross on the grave. That's an example of some bad theology.


----------



## Galatians220 (Mar 30, 2010)

George MacDonald (1824-1905) was the adopted mentor of C. S. Lewis. MacDonald loved animals and, while today I see that he was not solid doctrinally, his fantasy novels are still great reads. In the non-fictional "The Hope of the Gospel," MacDonald wrote a loving and tender chapter on our love for our pets and God's provision of it. The book helped me a lot when my first pet died, although now, I know it was pretty much hogwash (or more appropriately in my case, cat spittle). Anyway, here's a link to his quotations on animals and quotes of others: Quotations Archive of Famous and not so Famous People.

BTW, Nikki, your new avatar is _extremely_ cute!

Margaret


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 30, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Well, there is a difference in being sentimental and burying a dead animal. In my ranching days we would often bury the bull found dead, or the cat that went the way of all cats. It was simply a matter of keeping the flies and stink down.
> 
> From a practical standpoint, I'd think that paying for someone to remove the pet may be a good idea if you don't have a place to bury it, or if the laws of your jurisdiction prohibit it. Our city actually recommends the garbage bag approach, which surprised me.
> 
> ...



Thanks Victor, you have explained it very well. I would also think putting a cross on it would be going over the top as well. I too have wondered though about God's plan for animals in terms of the new creation, resurrection, etc. But you're right, any answer in that regard would be based on speculation. But I wonder when the psalmists say "let everything that has breath praise the Lord" does this extend to all of a creation? Not just human beings? I suppose it would just be that all of creation declare God's glory as Paul expounds upon in Romans 1. But that is another topic all together.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------




Galatians220 said:


> George MacDonald (1824-1905) was the adopted mentor of C. S. Lewis. MacDonald loved animals and, while today I see that he was not solid doctrinally, his fantasy novels are still great reads. In the non-fictional "The Hope of the Gospel," MacDonald wrote a loving and tender chapter on our love for our pets and God's provision of it. The book helped me a lot when my first pet died, although now, I know it was pretty much hogwash (or more appropriately in my case, cat spittle). Anyway, here's a link to his quotations on animals and quotes of others: Quotations Archive of Famous and not so Famous People.
> 
> BTW, Nikki, your new avatar is _extremely_ cute!
> 
> Margaret


 
Aww, thank you Margaret. Ya know I was just thinking, in light of children, some of their very first encounters with death is through the loss of a pet. I suppose this presents an excellent sort of "hand-on/real life" opportunity to explain the gospel to them in light of the situation.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 30, 2010)

It's been mentioned, but here's the text of Nathan's parable, perhaps relevant to your question about different classes of animals:



> 2 Samuel 12
> 
> 1And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jake (Mar 30, 2010)

"All this is sheer speculation, but I would like to think that we will see our beloved pets again someday as they participate in the benefits of the redemption that Christ has achieved for the human race."

-R.C. Sproul, p 291 Now That's a Good Question


----------



## jrdnoland (Mar 30, 2010)

We recently had to put our oldest dog out of her misery (the one on the far right in my advatar). She developed liver cancer and went downhill fast. We kept her as comfortable as we could and finally had to have the vet euthanize her. I struggled with this also, It's wrong to euthanize a person but it's OK for an animal.

Anyways, we decided to have her cremated and didn't choose to keep the ashes, we had them make a paw print of her and we'll put it on our wall along with her pictures to keep her memory alive.

I believe pets are a gift from God, they love unconditionally and obey with pleasure if you train and treat them well.


----------



## MarieP (Mar 30, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Well, there is a difference in being sentimental and burying a dead animal. In my ranching days we would often bury the bull found dead, or the cat that went the way of all cats. It was simply a matter of keeping the flies and stink down.
> 
> From a practical standpoint, I'd think that paying for someone to remove the pet may be a good idea if you don't have a place to bury it, or if the laws of your jurisdiction prohibit it. Our city actually recommends the garbage bag approach, which surprised me.
> 
> ...


 
Except if it was a Presbyterian's pet. The cross would be a sign of the owner's redemption, not necessarily the animal's ;-)


----------



## Andres (Mar 31, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with loving our pets, although I would caution our priorities in that love. For example, I once heard of a professor who would poll his students every year with an ethical question. He once asked them if a building were on fire and they could only save one, would they choose to save their own pet or a complete human stranger? The professor was shocked to find that a majority of the class selected they would save their pet rather than the human life. This is sinful thinking because it values animal life over human life. Humanity bears God's image and animals do not.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 31, 2010)

Andres said:


> There is nothing wrong with loving our pets, although I would caution our priorities in that love. For example, I once heard of a professor who would poll his students every year with an ethical question. He once asked them if a building were on fire and they could only save one, would they choose to save their own pet or a complete human stranger? The professor was shocked to find that a majority of the class selected they would save their pet rather than the human life. This is sinful thinking because it values animal life over human life. Humanity bears God's image and animals do not.



That's an excellent point and a good, insightful question for him to ask.


----------



## JennyG (Mar 31, 2010)

The brute Creation does seem to have been put in the world mainly for our benefit (as well as for the Lord himself to delight in, as at the end of Job) . I think the wild creatures have a function of shedding light on aspects of God's nature, by their beauty or majesty, or failing beauty, then just their general amazingness. The Lion of the tribe of Judah is a title of Christ I always found thrilling, but which would be impossible without real lions. 
Domesticated animals like sheep and goats have symbolic functions too, and I've sometimes wondered whether God didn't create those creatures mainly for a means of teaching his people about blood sacrifice for sin, to typify Christ's greater sacrifice (since the world was created originally good, I may be getting out of my theological depth there)
But pet animals have to be one of the most loving gifts of God to Mankind. We _must_ be meant to love them and care for them.
I will admit our garden has quite a cemetery of teeny graves, even down to a cherished goldfish - though no crosses, or even headstones.
C S Lewis once wrote that the dog (for eg) is only truly itself, all that it's capable of at its best, in relation to Man. He said wild dogs were just another wild animal, but a pet dog developed qualities of loyalty and personality that only living closely with people can bring out, but which he thought were perhaps part of the very essence of its "very good" created nature.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 31, 2010)

There are some practical reasons to bury a pet -- not wanting something dead around for one, and not wanting to attract nuisances for another. Just leaving it with the vet just seems so, I don't know, cold or something. If you have no space of your own, likely a friend would understand and give you room, as has been the case for me a few times.

The tougher question for me, now, is the ethics surrounding pet care while they are still alive. You could be offered MRIs, transplants, chemotherapy -- just about the same level of care as you would expect for a human. And this is very expensive. So as a pet owner, you face the question of whether or not it is a proper use of money to pay thousands for vet care, or on the other hand, gee, don't I love this critter enough to give it the best? 

I was blessed to be spared this while my two elderly cats faced their end. But if another critter, likely a dog, is in my future, I have no idea how to answer this question.


----------

