Animal suffering and God's nature

[Koldo]

As part of natural life processes. Critters aren't designed to live forever. Humans endure pain as part of natural aging processes as do animals.

If we didn't raise animals for eating or breed them for domestication - they'd still eat each other. It's a natural balance. I don't think that's cruel and unusual, whether you believe in God or not.

The problem is that this is all contingent, which means it just happens to be the case natural life is like this. It doesn't have to, necessarily, be like this. Therefore, there has to be justification for this to be the case if you believe an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Penumbra;2946793]There is no blame in nonexistence.

Ok, then why this thread?

It's an argument to point out the concept that a claim (personal benevolent deities), and an observation (animal suffering), don't mix very well.

Depends of our understanding of the personal deities.

If some of that is dropped, like either the whole existence of deities, or simply the personal or benevolent aspect of any deities, then the discrepancy disappears.

But animal suffering still remains, that is the point of this conversation.

Or if an effective argument is put forth that somehow maintains both the claim and the observation.

God does not interfere in its own Law, the Laws of nature.

By a negligible amount, and maybe not at all.

Then what is the point of concern for animal suffering.

Same as human suffering. A biological creature naturally develops with an aversion to harm, but sometimes gets harmed anyway.

Well, its called survival, in ones survival the suffering of others is not essential. We are all biological creatures, our survival is inbuilt to our system, even if our survival requires the extinction of another.

Cutting of flesh, breaking of bones, predators and prey, disruptions of the environment that cause fire or starvation or suffocation, tar pits, disease, parasites, etc.

Are these applicable to the entire animal kingdom at all times.

And what the causes for these painful experiences?

No need to add the word "fault" in. Why be so critical towards nature? That just adds an element of human emotion.

Suffering is an element of Human emotion, to assign it to animals are violation of the rights of animals.

Then its no ones fault that animals suffer. Its part of natural survival. Then why does God hate animals?

Fault implies intent. Without intent, there is not fault. It just is.

Then there is no suffering of animals, its just is.

God does not interfere in natures Laws.

It's not "only" survival. There's survival, and there's failure to survive. Both exist.

In nature everything wants to survive, Failure to survive is not suffering, its just failure to survive.

Doesn't fit the facts.

Complex life has existed for hundreds of millions of years on Earth. Human life has existed for hundreds of thousands. That's an order of magnitude of roughly 1/1000th of the time. The largest known mass extinction events occurred before humans existed.

Well, that is our assumption. We were not there to witness any suffering, then why assume the suffering of the extinct.

And for as long as we have exited, we have inferred that animals suffer.

Natural extinctions are only the process of natural events, we have no control over them. And we cant call it suffering, because it will blame nature, which we have no right to do.

Do you?

No, that is why I am arguing against God Hating animals, and stating that whatever suffering the animal world endures is natural survival.

Rather, I view this as a failure to grasp the other view. A theist's inability to view from a standpoint that doesn't include theism. It's an argument to point out discrepancies between an observation (animal suffering) and a claim (benevolent deities), casting doubt on the validity of the claim (benevolent deities). Assuming the other party believes that the claim (benevolent deities) is true, misses the point of the argument.

The concept of a benevolent deities differs from theist to theist, but to non-theist i am noticing just one mindset that of a man sitting in heaven pointing fingers, causing pain.

-It has nothing to do with blaming any gods, if no gods exist, or no personal gods exist. If there are no supernatural entities that exist, there are none to blame. Without intent, there does not exist fault.

The OP is a question on Gods nature, that a how can a Loving God cause suffering, the OP answers its own question, im just trying to expand on these.

-For the purpose of understanding the position, put aside the concept of blame. There is no blame in such a position. It's an argument that an observation and a claim don't fit together very well.

Well without knowing the facts of the observation, and the concept of the claim, why come to a position of the negative of the claim.

There's a purpose for hammers but it doesn't mean the hammers can't be often used incorrectly and for something totally unfitting their purpose.

What we do with hammers is our choice, not the choice of the hammer.
Pain has a purpose (as you said), how we take that pain it is our choice, we can suffer from it, or shun it in the name of survival.

As for animal pain, it could be the same concept. And i think it is from the Hindu POV.

An animal's pain has a purpose- it helps it survive. But once the prey is caught by the predator and begins being killed, the pain doesn't help any more, yet is still felt. Nature has no reason to foresee this and avoid it.

Then what does this have to do with the nature of a Loving God, when nature controls the animal world?

Because nature doesn't optimize itself for comfort.

But for some reason we can change our environment for our comfort, even if it means the discomfort of other creatures.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Koldo;2947062]A loving God would not only 'not cause pain' but it would also prevent pain as well.

We as free Atman, have freedom of choice, Ishwar does not interfere in our freedom.
We are free to commit crime, then suffer its consequences.

But from what I understand, the Atman is not the entirety of the living being. Therefore, it is not justified to be caring only about the Atman. Otherwise, if all that matters is the Atman then it would be fine to chop off limbs from people as the Atman does not depend on them to exist.
In essence, this life does matter, and as such the pain felt does as well.

Who says the Atman does not depend on the Body, the hole point of Karma is Atman doing deeds in the Body, The Body is a vessel for the Atman to either suffer or enjoy. Without a body the Atman will not do deeds, and enjoy its fruits.

The point of a painless existence? Isn't this like asking what is the point of a existence with a higher well-being?

If we had no pain we would have no death, to have no death we would not be born, then as i said, what would be the point of existence.

The main point is that a loving God necessarily wants a existence with utmost well-being for all living beings.

Yes, it gives us the freedom to do so, and not interfering in natures way is the best freedom.

 

[Koldo]

We as free Atman, have freedom of choice, Ishwar does not interfere in our freedom.
We are free to commit crime, then suffer its consequences.

If you get hit by a brick while you are walking in the street or bitten by a random snake during your sleep, what crime did you commit? Are you talking about Karma in general? If this is the case, then why don't the Atman live within bodies at a place similar to the paradise in the first place?

Who says the Atman does not depend on the Body, the hole point of Karma is Atman doing deeds in the Body, The Body is a vessel for the Atman to either suffer or enjoy. Without a body the Atman will not do deeds, and enjoy its fruits.

The point was that the Atman's existence does not depend on the existence of a body.

If we had no pain we would have no death, to have no death we would not be born, then as i said, what would be the point of existence.

Wrong. There are already human beings who are completely unable to feel pain. It is a rare condition, but it already exists, and i can assure you they do die. And why do you think life would lose meaning if people were unable to die?

Yes, it gives us the freedom to do so, and not interfering in natures way is the best freedom.

Wrong once again. If we were created in a paradise, quite literally, we could still enjoy this freedom with a much better life, just to cite an example.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Koldo;2950665]If you get hit by a brick while you are walking in the street or bitten by a random snake during your sleep, what crime did you commit? Are you talking about Karma in general? If this is the case, then why don't the Atman live within bodies at a place similar to the paradise in the first place?

I think Karma is designed to answer random events, Karma is not about crime and punishment.

Please visit this site, it will give good indication of karma.

FAQ on Theory of Karma in Hinduism

The point was that the Atman's existence does not depend on the existence of a body.

Yes, but the body is required to do actions, hence is required by the Atman. Our physical body connect us to the Universe.

Wrong. There are already human beings who are completely unable to feel pain. It is a rare condition, but it already exists, and i can assure you they do die. And why do you think life would lose meaning if people were unable to die?

So these people are not suffering, because they don't feel pain?
So these people are in paradise, where there is no physical pain?
Are the people who don't feel pain the happiest in the world because they don't feel pain?

Well i think Life would loose purpose if we would not be able to die, we would get bored of one life, eventually.

Wrong once again. If we were created in a paradise, quite literally, we could still enjoy this freedom with a much better life, just to cite an example.

If we were created in a paradise, then we would not have complete freedom of choice, because we would not have the choice to be bad and evil.

 

[InChrist]

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.

[FONT=&quot]How do you know the mind of God? How do you presume to know He caused the flood “on a whim or merely as an example?” The reality is you don’t …and because you don’t, you cannot rightly judge God’s actions as immoral because He may have had perfectly legitimate reasons.

[/FONT]

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

[/quote]

[FONT=&quot]It is not allowable for humans, because the issue is not the same for God as it is for humans. God as Creator sets the rules. Humans are not in the position of God. God is the giver of life, and thus has the right to take life as well. We are not givers of life so we don't have the right to take life. The fact that only God knows all things and the consequences of every action is sufficient to establish that He is the sole authority in matters of life and death. Yet, His omniscience is not the only attribute that puts Him in the final position of authority. The fact that all physical life originates with God gives Him the prerogative to decide when and how that physical life should be maintained or when that life has accomplished its purpose…this would apply to humans as well as animals.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The scriptures show that God cares about animals and is aware of even the death of a sparrow and bears the grief. God considers death an enemy. It was not a part of His original creation, but was brought into this world by the sin of humanity. God has to see all the horrible consequences which humans have marred His creation with…past, present, and future. Innocents often pay for the sins of others because in this world our lives are inextricably intertwined. What one person does will often in some way impact others, including animals.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When sin entered this world by the action of the first humans it impacted and corrupted all creation. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. Genesis 6:11-12 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Animals are flesh.Maybe it is possible that the curse of sin had even affected the nature of animals in a negative way or that they too were filled with violence and God was choosing to cleanse the animal kingdom as well. After the flood it is shown that God will require an accounting of the animals that shed blood. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Genesis 9:4-5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I don’t know exactly what this means or how it may play into the reasons why many animals were destroyed in the flood, but I realize that God as the giver of life who designed and loves His creation does not do things randomly or for capricious reasons. His actions are based on love and wisdom because He knows the beginning and the end and [/FONT][FONT=&quot] when God exercises judgment, the Bible records angelic observers testifying that His standards are fair.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While I don’t think you or anyone is capable of rightly judging God’s actions without all the information concerning His reasons for taking certain actions, I do think your concern for animals is admirable. Since you have such concern for the lives of animals, am I correct in thinking that you also have as much concern for all the babies which humans destroy in the womb?

Here's my response, but it late so I can't read your reply (if you post one) until another day.
[/FONT]

 

[Heathen Hammer]

[FONT=&quot]How do you know the mind of God? How do you presume to know He caused the flood “on a whim or merely as an example?” The reality is you don’t …and because you don’t, you cannot rightly judge God’s actions as immoral because He may have had perfectly legitimate reasons.

First, we have the statements of the story itself which are claimed to be divine revelation; thus, they are considered to be direct from God's mouth, so you cannot deny what the story says. Secondly, I do not need to know the mind of God other than as it is revealed. I do not need omniscience to form conclusions from information given, and it's a bit tiring to hear this fallacy brought forth.
The reality is I DO in this case, and as a man, I can rightly judge God, because God performs specific actions and gives specific statements about them. And as a man I have a moral code, which according to you, came to me from God himself; or do you believe man's morals are subjective? And if I use that given moral code, and find the action is immoral, well, it's immoral.

Examine what God says he caused the Flood for and it is obvious, that we have information with which to judge the action. We do not need omniscience; essentially this is just a poor excuse. With your logic we could not even judge murderers on our own because we cannot know every single thought or reason for their actions; yet we do judge others for a whole host of things on a moment by moment basis.

If there were further reasons or circumstances then God should have said something. He chose not to, or he did not have anything further. And since there are instances where he does explain, it's logical to assume his lack of explanation here means one of the two things. If one is to be a moral model - and if one is instilling morals we all know it is paramount to be an embodiment of said morals - then one must be seen to live by those morals. And if those morals are called into question then one offers an explanation freely because a moral person should have nothing to hide.

Even by the slightest of Man's moral code, the slaughter of the animals was not moral. It is perhaps interesting that among the religions, those surrounding the God of Abraham are very concrete and absolute when it comes to what is Right and Wrong. Polytheists and others have different takes; but that presents the problem. If the morals are black and white, and absolute, how can God break them? Did they not come from him? In the case of slaughtering in the Flood, where is the Golden Rule? Where is the reciprocity? It is an ethical dilemma.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is not allowable for humans, because the issue is not the same for God as it is for humans. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
And that's a problem. If God's moral code is 'do as I say and not as I do', his moral credibility is essentially gone.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God as Creator sets the rules. Humans are not in the position of God. God is the giver of life, and thus has the right to take life as well. We are not givers of life so we don't have the right to take life. The fact that only God knows all things and the consequences of every action is sufficient to establish that He is the sole authority in matters of life and death. Yet, His omniscience is not the only attribute that puts Him in the final position of authority. The fact that all physical life originates with God gives Him the prerogative to decide when and how that physical life should be maintained or when that life has accomplished its purpose…this would apply to humans as well as animals.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
All right, well, basically you've confirmed what I said then: God can kill anyone at any time for any or no reason. Our lives and hopes and needs and desires are irrelevant, according to you. In essence he slaughtered the animals because they don't mean anything to him. And we don't, either.
I went looking for something to post as an example, how one would discuss the issue of animal cruelty with a child. And as I went looking, essentially I discovered that this 'I own them so I can do anything I want with them' attitude, which you claim God has towards both all animals and all people, is the basic indicator of a sociopath. It is absolutely devoid of humanity, empathy, compassion, and love of any sort.

Food for thought.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The scriptures show that God cares about animals and is aware of even the death of a sparrow and bears the grief. God considers death an enemy. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Yet he makes not a single mention of the massive grief he could have felt for the extinction event of the Flood.

One would think, if he were actually grief-stricken, he'd have mentioned it.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was not a part of His original creation, but was brought into this world by the sin of humanity. God has to see all the horrible consequences which humans have marred His creation with…past, present, and future. Innocents often pay for the sins of others because in this world our lives are inextricably intertwined. What one person does will often in some way impact others, including animals. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
There was no such intertwining in this instance except that everyone was going to die. And, honestly, that's not a good reasoning at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When sin entered this world by the action of the first humans it impacted and corrupted all creation. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. Genesis 6:11-12 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Animals are flesh.Maybe it is possible that the curse of sin had even affected the nature of animals in a negative way or that they too were filled with violence and God was choosing to cleanse the animal kingdom as well. After the flood it is shown that God will require an accounting of the animals that shed blood. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Genesis 9:4-5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t know exactly what this means or how it may play into the reasons why many animals were destroyed in the flood, but I realize that God as the giver of life who designed and loves His creation does not do things randomly or for capricious reasons. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I understand why that is your hope, but we must still examine the evidence, and its possible this is not the case at all.
You cannot exclude a conclusion simply because it makes you uncomfortable.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]His actions are based on love and wisdom because He knows the beginning and the end and [/FONT][FONT=&quot] when God exercises judgment, the Bible records angelic observers testifying that His standards are fair.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
This action was neither loving, fair, nor, in my estimation, wise. Essentially it was totally excessive. As with the Egyptians, he simply could have sent his breath or an angle and dropped every sinful being dead where they stood. There are a thousand more sensible actions. As an aside, the idea of 'angelic' attestations that it's fair, is a nonsensical corroboration for a number of reasons.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While I don’t think you or anyone is capable of rightly judging God’s actions without all the information concerning His reasons for taking certain actions, I do think your concern for animals is admirable. Since you have such concern for the lives of animals, am I correct in thinking that you also have as much concern for all the babies which humans destroy in the womb?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Only after they possess brains.
What about all the babies God kills in the womb?
[/FONT]

 

[Koldo]

I think Karma is designed to answer random events, Karma is not about crime and punishment.

Please visit this site, it will give good indication of karma.

FAQ on Theory of Karma in Hinduism

Then why doesn't God prevent pain that is not caused by crimes?

Yes, but the body is required to do actions, hence is required by the Atman. Our physical body connect us to the Universe.

Which is why i said '' Therefore, it is not justified to be caring only about the Atman'' and ''In essence, this life does matter, and as such the pain felt does as well.''. What i am saying is that one can not ignore the issue about pain just because the Atman doesn't feel pain.

So these people are not suffering, because they don't feel pain?
So these people are in paradise, where there is no physical pain?
Are the people who don't feel pain the happiest in the world because they don't feel pain?

They are not suffering physically. But certainly aren't in paradise just because of this. After all, if you are unable to feel pain in this world, it is easier to die. Not only this, happiness does not depend solely on not being able to feel pain. The point is that their happiness is never decreased by pain, as they are unable to feel pain.

There is one case that comes to my mind of a young man who was unable to feel pain. He found it funny to jump from trees, as he wouldn't feel pain. His happiness by doing so was never decreased by pain and therefore he could do it constantly, however, the problem is that in this world not feeling pain does not entail not getting injured, which means his body was badly damaged by him jumping from trees, and he just didn't knew it.

Well i think Life would loose purpose if we would not be able to die, we would get bored of one life, eventually.

If you have ever heard of atheists talking about purpose of life, you would know that it is a common saying that life has ( currently ) whatever purpose we want it to have. Therefore, this saying could still be used if we couldn't die. We would create our own purpose.

If we were created in a paradise, then we would not have complete freedom of choice, because we would not have the choice to be bad and evil.

And why is freedom of choice particularly important?
Anyway, it is worth note that it is logically possible to create a world where one can perform only a single kind of evil act. For example, a world where we are immortals and it is only possible to steal, but not to murder, nor to rape, nor anything else that is evil. So why not be born in this sort of world since the start?

 

[Penumbra]

Ok, then why this thread?

Not my thread. I'm a responder.

Depends of our understanding of the personal deities.

But animal suffering still remains, that is the point of this conversation.

God does not interfere in its own Law, the Laws of nature.

Then what is the point of concern for animal suffering.

Well, its called survival, in ones survival the suffering of others is not essential. We are all biological creatures, our survival is inbuilt to our system, even if our survival requires the extinction of another.

Are these applicable to the entire animal kingdom at all times.

And what the causes for these painful experiences?

Suffering is an element of Human emotion, to assign it to animals are violation of the rights of animals.

Then its no ones fault that animals suffer. Its part of natural survival. Then why does God hate animals?

Then there is no suffering of animals, its just is.

God does not interfere in natures Laws.

In nature everything wants to survive, Failure to survive is not suffering, its just failure to survive.

Well, that is our assumption. We were not there to witness any suffering, then why assume the suffering of the extinct.

And for as long as we have exited, we have inferred that animals suffer.

Natural extinctions are only the process of natural events, we have no control over them. And we cant call it suffering, because it will blame nature, which we have no right to do.

No, that is why I am arguing against God Hating animals, and stating that whatever suffering the animal world endures is natural survival.

The concept of a benevolent deities differs from theist to theist, but to non-theist i am noticing just one mindset that of a man sitting in heaven pointing fingers, causing pain.

The OP is a question on Gods nature, that a how can a Loving God cause suffering, the OP answers its own question, im just trying to expand on these.

Well without knowing the facts of the observation, and the concept of the claim, why come to a position of the negative of the claim.

What we do with hammers is our choice, not the choice of the hammer.
Pain has a purpose (as you said), how we take that pain it is our choice, we can suffer from it, or shun it in the name of survival.

As for animal pain, it could be the same concept. And i think it is from the Hindu POV.

Then what does this have to do with the nature of a Loving God, when nature controls the animal world?

But for some reason we can change our environment for our comfort, even if it means the discomfort of other creatures.

Pretty much all of this is based on:

-The claim that animals don't suffer. To me that is a dodge of the argument rather than addressing it.

-The argument that if it can't be controlled, it doesn't cause suffering. That's a category error.

-That it's "natural law". That's a dodge as well. If theists argue that gods have no control over nature, then they're not really gods, right?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Koldo;2951212]Then why doesn't God prevent pain that is not caused by crimes?

Karma, re-birth and natural Laws.

Which is why i said '' Therefore, it is not justified to be caring only about the Atman'' and ''In essence, this life does matter, and as such the pain felt does as well.''. What i am saying is that one can not ignore the issue about pain just because the Atman doesn't feel pain.

No one is ignoring pain, pain is part of our life. Pain is not the only factor for suffering. Pain and life do matter, but questioning Gods Love and attributing it to not stopping pain is not how the karma and re-birth thing works, it takes the blame away from God and puts it on the actions of the Atman.

They are not suffering physically. But certainly aren't in paradise just because of this. After all, if you are unable to feel pain in this world, it is easier to die. Not only this, happiness does not depend solely on not being able to feel pain. The point is that their happiness is never decreased by pain, as they are unable to feel pain.

So a Universe without pain is not actually paradise either.

That answers your question of why God did not create a painless Universe.

Because (As per my Hindu POV), God is a manager not a dictator.

There is one case that comes to my mind of a young man who was unable to feel pain. He found it funny to jump from trees, as he wouldn't feel pain. His happiness by doing so was never decreased by pain and therefore he could do it constantly, however, the problem is that in this world not feeling pain does not entail not getting injured, which means his body was badly damaged by him jumping from trees, and he just didn't knew it.

And you still ask why God did not stop pain.

If you have ever heard of atheists talking about purpose of life, you would know that it is a common saying that life has ( currently ) whatever purpose we want it to have. Therefore, this saying could still be used if we couldn't die. We would create our own purpose.

Yes because Atheist don't believe in Karam, rebirth and so on..

Not dying is fantasy, while karma is real.

If we speak of reality it is impossible for something not to decay and die, the Universe (in Hinduism) is a cycle of birth and death, Karma and freedom of choice is the theory to answer the plurality of life.

And why is freedom of choice particularly important?
Anyway, it is worth note that it is logically possible to create a world where one can perform only a single kind of evil act. For example, a world where we are immortals and it is only possible to steal, but not to murder, nor to rape, nor anything else that is evil. So why not be born in this sort of world since the start?

freedom of choice is not just important its a reality right now.
As per my POV, we as Atman have freedom of choice for all our actions, to give us a environment to action our freedom the universe has been designed in this way, We can blame God all we like, but God does not interfere in our freedom.

 

[InChrist]

First, we have the statements of the story itself which are claimed to be divine revelation; thus, they are considered to be direct from God's mouth, so you cannot deny what the story says. Secondly, I do not need to know the mind of God other than as it is revealed. I do not need omniscience to form conclusions from information given, and it's a bit tiring to hear this fallacy brought forth.[/size]
The reality is I DO in this case, and as a man, I can rightly judge God, because God performs specific actions and gives specific statements about them. And as a man I have a moral code, which according to you, came to me from God himself; or do you believe man's morals are subjective? And if I use that given moral code, and find the action is immoral, well, it's immoral.

Examine what God says he caused the Flood for and it is obvious, that we have information with which to judge the action. We do not need omniscience; essentially this is just a poor excuse. With your logic we could not even judge murderers on our own because we cannot know every single thought or reason for their actions; yet we do judge others for a whole host of things on a moment by moment basis.

If there were further reasons or circumstances then God should have said something. He chose not to, or he did not have anything further. And since there are instances where he does explain, it's logical to assume his lack of explanation here means one of the two things. If one is to be a moral model - and if one is instilling morals we all know it is paramount to be an embodiment of said morals - then one must be seen to live by those morals. And if those morals are called into question then one offers an explanation freely because a moral person should have nothing to hide.

Even by the slightest of Man's moral code, the slaughter of the animals was not moral. It is perhaps interesting that among the religions, those surrounding the God of Abraham are very concrete and absolute when it comes to what is Right and Wrong. Polytheists and others have different takes; but that presents the problem. If the morals are black and white, and absolute, how can God break them? Did they not come from him? In the case of slaughtering in the Flood, where is the Golden Rule? Where is the reciprocity? It is an ethical dilemma.

[/font] [FONT=&quot]
And that's a problem. If God's moral code is 'do as I say and not as I do', his moral credibility is essentially gone.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
All right, well, basically you've confirmed what I said then: God can kill anyone at any time for any or no reason. Our lives and hopes and needs and desires are irrelevant, according to you. In essence he slaughtered the animals because they don't mean anything to him. And we don't, either.
I went looking for something to post as an example, how one would discuss the issue of animal cruelty with a child. And as I went looking, essentially I discovered that this 'I own them so I can do anything I want with them' attitude, which you claim God has towards both all animals and all people, is the basic indicator of a sociopath. It is absolutely devoid of humanity, empathy, compassion, and love of any sort.

Food for thought.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Yet he makes not a single mention of the massive grief he could have felt for the extinction event of the Flood.

One would think, if he were actually grief-stricken, he'd have mentioned it.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
There was no such intertwining in this instance except that everyone was going to die. And, honestly, that's not a good reasoning at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I understand why that is your hope, but we must still examine the evidence, and its possible this is not the case at all.
You cannot exclude a conclusion simply because it makes you uncomfortable.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
This action was neither loving, fair, nor, in my estimation, wise. Essentially it was totally excessive. As with the Egyptians, he simply could have sent his breath or an angle and dropped every sinful being dead where they stood. There are a thousand more sensible actions. As an aside, the idea of 'angelic' attestations that it's fair, is a nonsensical corroboration for a number of reasons.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Only after they possess brains.
What about all the babies God kills in the womb?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I do believe that the moral standard which God placed in the human conscious is objective rather than subjective. The problem is, according to the scriptures, human nature is damaged by sin so human moral judgments are tweaked. As long as you are not reconciled to God and think you are morally superior to God, then besides having a lack of information, you are also morally unable to properly evaluate or second-guess His morality.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When one reads the scriptures as a whole the attributes of God are made perfectly clear. These include holiness, righteousness, love, purity, wisdom, truth, and justice, among others and that everything He does is done in accordance with and not contrary to these attributes, including allowing or bringing death. As the sovereign authority of the universe He is not required to reveal why He takes every action He does to us who are under His authority and the scriptures do not reveal all the reasons. Yet, I believe at some point everything will be revealed. In the meantime, we are called to trust Him and realize that He is a Creator/ God who does all things with eternal love and goodness as His goal for His creation whether we can or can’t comprehend this eternal perspective, which we can’t. In contrast, human killing or other immoral behaviors are often done for solely selfish reasons.
[/FONT]

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Penumbra;2952014]Not my thread. I'm a responder.

Same here, what i mean is if people dont believe in God, then why even think it can cause problems.

Pretty much all of this is based on:

-The claim that animals don't suffer. To me that is a dodge of the argument rather than addressing it.

Maybe i wasn't clear enough, Animals don't suffer in Nature they survive. They only Suffer if we interfere.

-The argument that if it can't be controlled, it doesn't cause suffering. That's a category error.

Dont like to control animals and their lives, but thats just me.

-That it's "natural law". That's a dodge as well. If theists argue that gods have no control over nature, then they're not really gods, right?

No,
Its just not a dictator type God as i said earlier.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I do believe that the moral standard which God placed in the human conscious is objective rather than subjective. The problem is, according to the scriptures, human nature is damaged by sin so human moral judgments are tweaked. As long as you are not reconciled to God and think you are morally superior to God, then besides having a lack of information, you are also morally unable to properly evaluate or second-guess His morality.

Well, I am afraid this is a conundrum; if what you premise is true then it's pointless for God to try and give or demonstrate morals to us. But basically you have a fallacious line of reasoning. Also you are beginning to invest a kind of assertion wherein no nonbeliever can make a valid observation about God or his morals.

All of this is unfortunately false. I have given several reasons why, previously.

Essentially you have asserted that God can create any number of living independent moral agents and then treat them as objects to be disposed of when it's convenient. It essentially makes God's own morality capricious and bendable/breakable at will; and as I have said its established that no moralizer possesses the proper moral road if he does not follow what he himself preaches. Morality is self-reflexive, or it is false.

As an aside I've always found it rather a bit... repulsive, that people seem ok with God dumping any and all responsibility he placed upon himself by creating intelligent humans in the first place. If you go forward creating something alive which can feel and experience you have inextricably placed yourself into the position to protect that life, even at the cost of yourself and your own plans. Human parents do this all the time; it seems God fails miserably at this very basic parental responsibility. The needs and wants of the loved one are always placed above your own, if you are doing it right. And yes, it is very inconvenient; but 'you asked for it', as it were.

When one reads the scriptures as a whole the attributes of God are made perfectly clear. These include holiness, righteousness, love, purity, wisdom, truth, and justice, among others and that everything He does is done in accordance with and not contrary to these attributes, including allowing or bringing death.

They are certainly self-described as 'being perfectly clear' [because we both know th bible would never editorialize negatively about God, since it's his own spin-book] but if demonstrated actions do not match the grandiose words then you have a problem. Because DEEDS are what is the meat of one's words. God's actions do not match his words.

As the sovereign authority of the universe He is not required to reveal why He takes every action He does to us who are under His authority and the scriptures do not reveal all the reasons. Yet, I believe at some point everything will be revealed. In the meantime, we are called to trust Him and realize that He is a Creator/ God who does all things with eternal love and goodness as His goal for His creation whether we can or can’t comprehend this eternal perspective, which we can’t. In contrast, human killing or other immoral behaviors are often done for solely selfish reasons.

Since God does only as he wishes, you cannot divide our actions being selfish, from his actions being selfish, as if there is some kind of value difference..

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I don't 'simply trust him'. If his actions make his words into lies then that person, being, whatever, is not to be trusted.

I am afraid that though you wish to see it as a pristine moral system, it is quite the reverse.

BTW, I answered your aside-question about babies. Please answer mine.

 

[InChrist]

Well, I am afraid this is a conundrum; if what you premise is true then it's pointless for God to try and give or demonstrate morals to us. But basically you have a fallacious line of reasoning. Also you are beginning to invest a kind of assertion wherein no nonbeliever can make a valid observation about God or his morals.

[FONT=&quot]I am saying that no human (believer or non-believer) can fully understand or make a valid judgment on God’s morality because we don’t know everything, we only see the things that take place in this temporal, physical realm from our limited finite perspective.

[/FONT]

All of this is unfortunately false. I have given several reasons why, previously.

Essentially you have asserted that God can create any number of living independent moral agents and then treat them as objects to be disposed of when it's convenient. It essentially makes God's own morality capricious and bendable/breakable at will; and as I have said its established that no moralizer possesses the proper moral road if he does not follow what he himself preaches. Morality is self-reflexive, or it is false.

As an aside I've always found it rather a bit... repulsive, that people seem ok with God dumping any and all responsibility he placed upon himself by creating intelligent humans in the first place. If you go forward creating something alive which can feel and experience you have inextricably placed yourself into the position to protect that life, even at the cost of yourself and your own plans. Human parents do this all the time; it seems God fails miserably at this very basic parental responsibility. The needs and wants of the loved one are always placed above your own, if you are doing it right. And yes, it is very inconvenient; but 'you asked for it', as it were.

[FONT=&quot]You are interpreting the situation as if God creates living beings with the attitude that they are objects to be disposed of when convenient, but that is not the picture the scriptures present. God is portrayed as a loving Creator toward all His creation with a Father’s heart who desires all humanity to turn from wickedness and be reconciled with Him. Everything He does and allows is for this purpose and the ultimate eternal good of His creation, in particular humans. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sometimes a wise and loving parent who knows the bigger picture of a situation may have to say no to a child’s wants or disciple a child. This is love. God deals with temporal life on this earth with eternity in mind. You are making judgments based only on short-term events and situations without knowing the long-term eternal impact, which only God can know.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

They are certainly self-described as 'being perfectly clear' [because we both know th bible would never editorialize negatively about God, since it's his own spin-book] but if demonstrated actions do not match the grandiose words then you have a problem. Because DEEDS are what is the meat of one's words. God's actions do not match his words.

[FONT=&quot]At least from your limited finite perspective they don’t match, but again you don’t see or know the eternal purpose or reason for God’s deeds.[/FONT]

Since God does only as he wishes, you cannot divide our actions being selfish, from his actions being selfish, as if there is some kind of value difference..

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I don't 'simply trust him'. If his actions make his words into lies then that person, being, whatever, is not to be trusted.

I am afraid that though you wish to see it as a pristine moral system, it is quite the reverse.

Again, if God is the supreme authority and Creator of all life He does have the right and the wisdom to do as He chooses and according to the scriptures His actions are done with love, compassion, and justice. He does nothing for selfish reasons, nor is He capable of evil, as are humans. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 1 John 1: 5

[FONT=&quot]I realize you don’t trust God and I think that is your misfortune. I’m sure can’t convince you otherwise as it is really something between you and God.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

BTW, I answered your aside-question about babies. Please answer mine.

[/quote]

I did… “These include holiness, righteousness, love, purity, wisdom, truth, and justice, among others and that everything He does is done in accordance with and not contrary to these attributes, including allowing or bringing death.”

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I am saying that no human (believer or non-believer) can fully understand or make a valid judgment on God’s morality because we don’t know everything, we only see the things that take place in this temporal, physical realm from our limited finite perspective.

Yes, I know that's what you said, and I told you that is hogwash. We are perfectly capable of making those judgments, and God must follow his own moral code if he's to act as a moral authority..

You are interpreting the situation as if God creates living beings with the attitude that they are objects to be disposed of when convenient, but that is not the picture the scriptures present.

It's irrelevant what scripture wishes to present; no scripture is going to make an editorial comment on God in anything but a positive light. You see, the real way to see if someone is lying is to see what they say, and if what they say matches what they do. Exactly like you do with anyone else you know. God's actions show it's not
love.
In what way was slaughtering millions of animals 'love'? That is the subject at hand, really. Please explain it to us.

God is portrayed as a loving Creator toward all His creation with a Father’s heart who desires all humanity to turn from wickedness and be reconciled with Him. Everything He does and allows is for this purpose and the ultimate eternal good of His creation, in particular humans.

Except for the wholesale slaughter part. It does not matter one whit if some later generation benefits, to those who are being killed. If your home was about to be inundated by an act God specifically caused which he knew would destroy your home and drown your entire family, including any children I guarantee you wouldn't give a damn if it was 'for the best for some future generation'.

Sometimes a wise and loving parent who knows the bigger picture of a situation may have to say no to a child’s wants or disciple a child. This is love.

It's a bad kind of love. I am not a child, I know what is going on. 'I know what's best for you' is always wrong. 'Love' is actually getting me what I want, even if it's bad for me; I can learn from my own mistakes.

God deals with temporal life on this earth with eternity in mind. You are making judgments based only on short-term events and situations without knowing the long-term eternal impact, which only God can know.

My short term life is all that matters to ->me<-; it is God's responsibility that what I care about matters, if he actually loves me.
You see, especially since God's disposition towards me is his own secret and cannot be known by me, even this supposed promise you hint at here that I'll somehow benefit in the afterlife, if Im happy to suffer now without explanation, is at best, a 50/50% risk. So, even this reason is unacceptable. What if God's idea of a better eternal plan is for me to suffer in Hell for all eternity, hm? Your reasoning here is not compelling in any way, nor is it rational.

At least from your limited finite perspective they don&#8217;t match, but again you don&#8217;t see or know the eternal purpose or reason for God&#8217;s deeds.

And God does not see the temporary but exceedingly important purpose or reason I have. He does not respect them at all.

Again, if God is the supreme authority and Creator of all life He does have the right and the wisdom to do as He chooses

So, while you squirm away from my assessments they are in fact, completely correct.

and according to the scriptures His actions are done with love, compassion, and justice. He does nothing for selfish reasons, nor is He capable of evil, as are humans. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 1 John 1: 5

Actions speak louder than words.

I realize you don&#8217;t trust God and I think that is your misfortune. I&#8217;m sure can&#8217;t convince you otherwise as it is really something between you and God.

And I realize you trust him far too much, and that is certainly your misfortune. You basically are the underling of a tyrant, and are afraid to question him, prefer5ring to accept his written propaganda that he knows what is best for you; and that your own personal needs are irrelevant to his plans. His plans will always come first. It does not matter what your dreams are, who depends on you, what you aspire to, how good of a person you'd been previously, how your family will weep and scream and become destitute because you are gone. You will be wiped away without a second thought.

I did&#8230;

That wasn't an answer; it was a long quote of scripture which does not tell your personal opinion. What about all the fetii God kills in the womb? Answer in your own words only.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Also please avoid changing fonts if you can. It messes up smooth responding.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Essentially, if you cannot come up with reasoning for God's actions, which, if also applied to identical actions for a human, stand up to our basic moral code, then you have failed to introduce a rational excuse for the action we are discussing. If God has some hidden reason or agenda, then it must still be morally acceptable, if god is to be moral by human standards. If he cannot meet these simple criteria, then you must be forced to face the fact that you serve an immoral God.

I eagerly await your efforts.