I think probably not. The intention of the second "of" is not very clear to me. Also "creations" seems a doubtful choice of word. What does it include?

GPYI think probably not. The intention of the second "of" is not very clear to me. Also "creations" seems a doubtful choice of word. What does it include?

Both animals (the natural world) and humans.

In my mind, animals (the natural world) suffer the pain (pangs) which is caused by humans's sins (greed, arrogance, etc) in the form of acts of animal cr

avid learnerNot all creations are capable of sinning; however, all suffer the pangs of it.

It makes sense to me; however, being more pedestrian, I would probably have written "suffer the consequences of it".

avid learnerIn my mind, animals (the natural world) suffer the pain (pangs) which is caused by humans's sins (greed, arrogance, etc) in the form of acts of animal cruelty and poaching.

For me, a "pang" is too complicated a feeling or emotion for animals to suffer. Only humans can feel "pangs".

GPYFor me, a "pang" is too complicated a feeling or emotion for animals to suffer. Only humans can feel "pangs"

How about the word anguish? "Not all creations are capable of sinning; however, all suffer the anguish of it."

avid learnerHow about the word anguish?

No, not in my view. Animals cannot suffer "anguish". They can of course suffer pain though.

GPYNo, not in my view. Animals cannot suffer "anguish". They can of course suffer pain though.

So basically using words such as pangs and anguish for animal is not grammatically wrong; it's just a literary anthropomorphism.