Animal suffering and God's nature

[InChrist]

Therefore, there are 3 reasons that make all animals his:

1) He says so.
2) He created all life.
3) All life continues to exist because he sustains it.

Regarding (1), would you accept a claim from me where i told you that anything in particular, ( almost ) regardless of what it is, is mine? Would you consider me as its proper owner? If not, why not?

No, because you are a finite being and have only so much creative ability or right to claim things as your own. If you claimed you own a car you bought or a house you build I would consider you the owner. But if you claim to own the Golden Gate Bridge, Mt Everest, or a rainbow I would not accept your claim as valid.

Regarding (2), do you consider God to be involved in the process of birth? If yes, in which manner?

God is indirectly involved in the birth process in that He created humans, male and female, giving them the ability to procreate.

Regarding (3), in which manner does he sustain it? Do you consider your ( hypothetical ) child your property?

[/quote]

The scriptures state it is through Jesus, the Son, that the universe is sustained.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and In Him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


What Holds The Universe Together?

by Lambert Dolphin
What Holds The Universe Together?



I believe children and all life belongs to God, but He has given parents guardianship,

 

[dawny0826]

As we all know, suffering is a large argument against God's existence. All together it is the problem of evil. Many solve this by pointing out original sin and free will, we bring the evil upon us. Well, what about animals? They are programmed and conditioned so do not freely choose anything the way we do. It seems likely they cannot even truly understand their own suffering. So where is God's love for these animals? Sure, pawn it off on humans for harming the enviornment, but it doesn't solve everything. Honestly it seems more malevolent to let an animal suffer than a human from God's percieved perspective.

Thoughts?

God's love is shown to animals through human motivation and action.

 

[Koldo]

No, because you are a finite being and have only so much creative ability or right to claim things as your own. If you claimed you own a car you bought or a house you build I would consider you the owner. But if you claim to own the Golden Gate Bridge, Mt Everest, or a rainbow I would not accept your claim as valid.

Why is being infinite/finite relevant to claiming that anything is mine?

God is indirectly involved in the birth process in that He created humans, male and female, giving them the ability to procreate.

Therefore, if God is indirectly involved in the birth process, it means animals are the ones being directly involved on it.
Therefore, if animals are the ones being directly involved it, then animals are the direct creators of their offsprings.
Therefore, if animals are the direct creators of their offsprings, then animals also own their offsprings.

The scriptures state it is through Jesus, the Son, that the universe is sustained.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and In Him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

What Holds The Universe Together?

by Lambert Dolphin
What Holds The Universe Together?

It is clear that your answer does not follow from your quote unless you add a spin to what 'sustain' means. Therefore, what do you mean by 'sustain'?

I believe children and all life belongs to God, but He has given parents guardianship,

But you sustain it. If you sustain it, isn't it your property?

 

[Koldo]

God's love is shown to animals through human motivation and action.

How utterly convenient, isn't it?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

The Doors of Perception;2935705]As we all know, suffering is a large argument against God's existence. All together it is the problem of evil. Many solve this by pointing out original sin and free will, we bring the evil upon us.

Yes, true. There is no Evil, people just do bad things, which many call evil.

Well, what about animals? They are programmed and conditioned so do not freely choose anything the way we do. It seems likely they cannot even truly understand their own suffering. So where is God's love for these animals? Sure, pawn it off on humans for harming the enviornment, but it doesn't solve everything. Honestly it seems more malevolent to let an animal suffer than a human from God's percieved perspective.

Animals are bound by instinct, then there is no suffering of animals, unless we as humans are directly or even indirectly involved.
What we see as suffering of animals is just our perception of suffering that we imposed on animals.

No animal in nature suffers without due cause. Instincts guide them to survive, to procreate. Animals don't suffer in nature, they survive.

Ishwar's Love is extended to all, but it also has Laws, which have to be followed and cant be broken, I think spiritually all Atman of animal/human are progressing to higher states of consciousness. Hinduism answers this by saying, Ishwar's Love includes mercy and justice and the theory of Karma and re-incarnation, all working together for the betterment of the individual Atman.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, true. There is no Evil, people just do bad things, which many call evil.

Animals are bound by instinct, then there is no suffering of animals, unless we as humans are directly or even indirectly involved.
What we see as suffering of animals is just our perception of suffering that we imposed on animals.

Do you consider unwanted pain as not being suffering?

 

[Penumbra]

I guess when I saw my dog die when I was a kid, due to a ruptured kidney, its violent thrashing and screeching were not real suffering, just fake suffering. Despite physiological similarities between humans and dogs, it was all my interpretation of events. Animals magically don't suffer as long as humans don't intervene, so I'm glad for that convenient theory.

I wonder if god determined whether the dog was, in fact, a whiner or not. Hopefully that got sorted out.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Do you consider unwanted pain as not being suffering?

No, its just unwanted pain.

every pain is unwanted, i have a sore throat from the cold, but im not suffering.

Pain come and goes, suffering last for a vary long time, but it still goes.

if one species of animal is suffering, and another is thriving, do we then say that GOD is partial?

We are imposing our understanding of suffering onto the Animal kingdom, which is denial of the rights for animals in a way.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I guess when I saw my dog die when I was a kid, due to a ruptured kidney, its violent thrashing and screeching were not real suffering, just fake suffering. Despite physiological similarities between humans and dogs, it was all my interpretation of events. Animals magically don't suffer as long as humans don't intervene, so I'm glad for that convenient theory.

I wonder if god determined whether the dog was, in fact, a whiner or not. Hopefully that got sorted out.

Hmm, sorry to hear that your Pet Dog died of a ruptured kidney.

Maybe God caused the kidney to rupture, since it hates animals so much?

Every living thing feels pain, it a part of being alive.

I don't keep pets, don't like having animals caged, bound or treated like toys. I don't have a right to dominate or own any animal.

As i say, every time there is a suffering animal, there is always a human nearby, who most likely is the cause of that suffering.

In nature animals don't suffer, they survive.

 

[Koldo]

No, its just unwanted pain.

every pain is unwanted, i have a sore throat from the cold, but im not suffering.

Pain come and goes, suffering last for a vary long time, but it still goes.

if one species of animal is suffering, and another is thriving, do we then say that GOD is partial?

We are imposing our understanding of suffering onto the Animal kingdom, which is denial of the rights for animals in a way.

How do you reconcile the pain that animals go through with a loving (omnipotent) God?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

How do you reconcile the pain that animals go through with a loving (omnipotent) God?

Easy, just by asking questions such as....

Do all animals suffer in nature?

How are they suffering?

Why are they suffering?

What is the cause of their suffering?

Are we helping by destroying their environment, taking them out of their natural habitat, caging them, owning them?

If pain causes suffering, then what causes pain, and what causes the cause of the pain?

None of these questions when looked at closely and honestly, have a answer that says "GOD did it".

A Loving God would love all, regardless of being animals or Human, but that does not mean it intervenes in the Laws of nature and the Universe, it does not break its Laws.
We suffer from pain, its the Law of our Nature.

Are animals that are not in pain suffering as well?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

More than simply because He says so, but because He created all life to begin with and all life continues to exist because He sustains it.

I am still awaiting the explanation as to how it can be moral in any way, to slaughter them en masse at whim merely as an example, simply because 'they are his'. I don't really care where it says they are.

Again, is this allowable for a human with his pet or own offspring? If not, why is it moral for God?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

For precisely that reason; "Atheists believe that this is it, there ain't no more". While an atheist is free to live their relatively short life hedonistically, after they die, what does it matter? They're just worm food and nobody gives a damn, right? Sure, in the short term, everyone can have fun, but in the long term, what does it matter?

That is what DoP was talking about when he said "waste of time". If I'm wrong, then he can explain what he meant.

While I am in no way an atheist -got more Gods than you do - I would point out that history actually shows that monotheists hold to scripture which blatantly says this world is worthless material. It also generally condemns human nature; and, as I have been railing against across several threads, it's your God who destroys all life on Earth save a boatload of favorites. Are there any atheist stories or efforts to do anything on a similar scale?

 

[Koldo]

A Loving God would love all, regardless of being animals or Human, but that does not mean it intervenes in the Laws of nature and the Universe, it does not break its Laws.
We suffer from pain, its the Law of our Nature.

Are animals that are not in pain suffering as well?

Why doesn't he intervene in the laws of nature and the universe?

And why do you think that doing so is required to make animals not feel pain anymore?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

None of these questions when looked at closely and honestly, have a answer that says "GOD did it".

- except a world wide Flood

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Koldo;2945900]Why doesn't he intervene in the laws of nature and the universe?

Why would he need to?

Why fix something that is not broken, the assumption is that if Ishwar knowledge is perfect, then all Laws are just doing what they are meant to.

And why do you think that doing so is required to make animals not feel pain anymore?

Sorry , I don't understand what you mean.

But if you mean that Gods have to intervene to stop suffering of animals, then the question would be why cause suffering in the first place.

But as i said, im coming from a Hindu POV, where Karma and re- incarnations have been blamed (sort of) for these so called suffering.

But again, I personally don't see any animals suffering in Nature, pain and suffering are quite different, depends on context. Pain is a fact of Physical life, suffering is just a effect of some pain.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

- except a world wide Flood

climate change

 

[Penumbra]

Hmm, sorry to hear that your Pet Dog died of a ruptured kidney.

Maybe God caused the kidney to rupture, since it hates animals so much?

Or just doesn't exist or have any concern over an individual dog?

Every living thing feels pain, it a part of being alive.

I don't keep pets, don't like having animals caged, bound or treated like toys. I don't have a right to dominate or own any animal.

I have a no pets policy now. Other people can do what they want, but I will not be owning animals in cages with their reproductive organs removed. But I had pets when I was little, and cared for them.

As i say, every time there is a suffering animal, there is always a human nearby, who most likely is the cause of that suffering.

In nature animals don't suffer, they survive.

It seems to me that some of the position in this thread are odd.

Humans can be a source for suffering of animals, but certainly aren't the only source.

-The idea that, magically, when nature kills animals, they somehow don't suffer, seems to be pure wishful thinking to me.

-The idea that humans are meant to be god's stewards or protectors of animals doesn't fit either, considering that a) as a whole, animals got along just fine without humans, and we haven't added anything for them and b) other animals were existent long, long before humans. We have only been around a fraction of the time that complex life has been around. And they've gone through cycles of birth, death, predator/prey, and mass extinction.

It seems to me that adding moral judgments to the universe, like calling it benevolent or malevolent or god or good or evil aren't particularly well-defensible positions.

Suffering happens. Pain serves a purpose in nature, but in some instances leads to needless suffering. Adding a benevolent deity to the mix doesn't really add much to this scenario and opens up all sorts of questions.

 

[Koldo]

Why would he need to?

Why fix something that is not broken, the assumption is that if Ishwar knowledge is perfect, then all Laws are just doing what they are meant to.

Because a loving God wants the well-being of all the living beings. And therefore, considering that unwanted pain stands in opposition to well-being, then a loving God must necessarily prevent it, unless there is a justification for not doing so.

Sorry , I don't understand what you mean.

But if you mean that Gods have to intervene to stop suffering of animals, then the question would be why cause suffering in the first place.

But as i said, im coming from a Hindu POV, where Karma and re- incarnations have been blamed (sort of) for these so called suffering.

But again, I personally don't see any animals suffering in Nature, pain and suffering are quite different, depends on context. Pain is a fact of Physical life, suffering is just a effect of some pain.

This problem may arise as we have different religious backgrounds, because, in my background, the word 'pain' means 'physical suffering'. However, let us not debate over definitions as this isn't not only unneeded as it is also irrelevant.

The main contention is that (unwanted) 'pain' is an unpleasant feeling. And that it doesn't have to be a fact for physical lives. It is completely possible, given one has enough power to do so, to change ( or create since the start ) our environment and our bodies to a state where 'pain' is unrequired for survival.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Penumbra;2946559]Or just doesn't exist or have any concern over an individual dog?

Well if God dose not exist, why blame it for suffering?

I have a no pets policy now. Other people can do what they want, but I will not be owning animals in cages with their reproductive organs removed. But I had pets when I was little, and cared for them.

I never have pets, but if someone is concerned about the suffering of animals, then protesting against the ownership of animals will help lesson the suffering.

It seems to me that some of the position in this thread are odd.

Humans can be a source for suffering of animals, but certainly aren't the only source.

Well, suffering in what way?

I mean is how is the natural world suffering?

And what is its cause?

-The idea that, magically, when nature kills animals, they somehow don't suffer, seems to be pure wishful thinking to me.

Ahh, so its natures fault now, as many would say.

Nature does not magically kill animals, there is a Law, as i said earlier. Law of survival, and as i said earlier, in nature its only survival not suffering.

-The idea that humans are meant to be god's stewards or protectors of animals doesn't fit either, considering that a) as a whole, animals got along just fine without humans, and we haven't added anything for them and b) other animals were existent long, long before humans. We have only been around a fraction of the time that complex life has been around. And they've gone through cycles of birth, death, predator/prey, and mass extinction.

I quite agree to this, this is more the reason for me to infer that suffering of animals are caused directly or indirectly by human intervention.

It seems to me that adding moral judgments to the universe, like calling it benevolent or malevolent or god or good or evil aren't particularly well-defensible positions.

I agree, instead of correcting our wrongs committed against the natural world, we blame God or some supernatural entity.

Suffering happens. Pain serves a purpose in nature, but in some instances leads to needless suffering. Adding a benevolent deity to the mix doesn't really add much to this scenario and opens up all sorts of questions.

I agree, but if there is a purpose for pain, then there is no needless suffering.

If we keep the deity out, then why are animals suffering?