A theological question Catholics cannot answer?

[jcrichton]

I thought Catholics define God in several descriptive ways, for example, as an all knowing, all merciful, all loving, all good, first cause. And as a Trinity with three divine persons in one God.

We don’t “define” God as in “set His parameters, abilities, and knowledge.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Ever watch any nature channel/network?

Did you ever catch the episode of the young lion whose back was broken and it dragged itself around for days attempting to keep up with the pride?

I’m pretty sure it was in pain and mental anguish… but it took a different trek then most humans do when faced with even the slightest of discomforts–I’ve seen a grown woman cry because she couldn’t get her way on something quite trivial; I’ve had a grown man offer me a gun to take out a rival just because he was upset at the outcome of an encounter, and I’ve heard, on various occasions women swear left and right that they would rather be dead (kill their mates) than to carry a second child to term… we are weak!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

There are plenty of pastoral answers, and I’m not saying they’re wrong, but they’re unsatisfying for many because many people view God as simply a bigger, more powerful human person with all of the human obligations to act and prevent such things they believe we have, and if God doesn’t do that, and if he has those obligations. something doesn’t jive for them.

This is where it actually lies: man wants to tell God how God must be…

It’s the puss in the boots tale (or should I say tail)–‘surely you cannot make yourself into a tiny little creature that I can destroy at whim, I don’t believe you!’

So it boils down to controlling God: ‘if you don’t do as I say, then you are not truly God.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Of course they do. A dog can be frightened of a snake, which is a genuine danger, and it can also be frightened of a wheelbarrow, which is not. Fear is fear in both cases.

I don’t think that many would doubt such reality; however, how it is processed/absorbed is the issue; I’ve watched a small clip of news where a dog/cat would frighten a bear away from the back/front yard of its domicile–the human pet is reacting to an intruder and the bear is reacting to the protective display of the tiny weird creature that stood it’s grounds. Both animals are reacting in a limited emotional capacity to a situation… given the opportunity to reason the bear would most likely use fido and puss as an appetizer before raiding and leveling the kitchen.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That does not mean a lack of subjective awareness on the part of animals means that humans are then free to tear legs off them or set them on fire. There may be other, very strong impediments, standing in the way of doing things like that to animals.

Herein is where the problem lies; what is gained from being cruel to an animal or to anything at all?

The problem is that man has the capacity and propensity to do both (be cruel out of wickedness and stupidity and not be cruel out of adherence to sound judgment [commonsense] and his obligation to God.

Yet, some want to equate killing an animal/plant for food to wanton cruelty.

Maran atha!

Angel
Maran atha!

 

[jcrichton]

That isn’t answered theoretically or metaphysically. And, I would assert, has not been answered by science nor by philosophers of mind.

But it has been answered by nature.

I again turn to the nature channels/networks… a pride of lions (dogs, hyaenas or some other predatory animal) go on the attack they corner a young “xyz” the prey animals attempt a defense, the mother of the animal even commits to what seems suicidal protection tactics… eventually it gives up, the herd moves on… the mom working on instinct knows to boundaries and futility of sticking it out till death… the individual animal must survive, as so must the herd–pain is fleeting, life must go on.

Even in elephants, which display a great capacity for memory and protection, while they may appear to grieve for their dead (visiting elephant grave sites and holding the bones of the dead) they do not display the human emotions (tears and soul-wrenching mourning) that would demonstrate that animals feel pain (emotions, etc.) as humans–science may never be able to create a machine to decipher this… yet, in my estimation, pedestrian observation can do just that.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

All the good stuff you’ve mentioned, I wouldn’t call them obligations but to me if God had no reason for not stopping a person from being sick then that would make God totally different from what God is. Pardon, it would almost make God seem evil (which can’t be the case). If God weren’t exactly how he is then God wouldn’t be God. I didn’t have an obligation to choose any of the choices I chose, but I did and they make me me.

However, if God would stop you every single time you chose to “be you” would you then not fault God for not letting “me be me?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AlNg]

loving, all good, first cause. And as a Trinity with three divine persons in one God.

If you don’t have a definition of God, how do you know what you are talking about? Do you just look at a painting of Michaelangelo?

 

[Ioana]

No I wouldn’t… sorry but that’s not the point I was making. I know “me be me” reads as individualistic but it is just like saying "If I had different genes I probably wouldn’t be ‘me’ " or “if we transplanted Steve’s brain into my body that wouldn’t be me, that would really be Steve”

 

[AlNg]

we are weak!

Americans are weak, but not all nationalities. For example, when they were going to hang Saddam Hussein, an American in charge asked him if he wanted a drug which would help to prevent him from feeling too much pain. Mr. Saddam Hussein said no, he would take his punishment full strength without any drug.

 

[clayto1]

Thank you all for the many responses, I appreciate the way my question has been taken seriously. There is much I do not agree with or have strong doubts about. When considering other peoples’ beliefs I think of them in three catagories (1) those things I accept / agree with / believe — though this is always open to change (2 ) things I may not believe but are worth considering / worth discussing and possibly learning from (3) things which I not only do not believe but which (for me) are unbelievable, so way out, perhaps uninformed and wrong headed that they are so far from my experiences and world view they are to me absurd.
I will start with a case of (3), the unbelievable. I am astonished with claims that non-human animals do not experience fear and pain. This is a long outdated belief mainly originating with middle Eastern Abrahamic religions which have little care for none human animals, even using them in sacrifice rituals. What god wants the slaughter and bleeding to death of animals? Still today there is a mountain in South America the summit of which each year runs in blood from thousands of slaughtered goats, in the name of the Christian God; there is a town in Spain (or Portugal) with an annual ritual of throwng a live donky off a building to please god. And there are many other examples hanging over from an ignorant past, including ritual slaughter for meat.
Without getting involved in the somewhat abstruse (‘angels on a pin’ language of philosophy and theology) I use this simple guide: ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in fear and pain, it is a duck — in fear and pain.’ Think of a human on an operating table when the anaesthetic system fails ---- the theatre staff know what his screams and panicked struggles mean without having to consult the electronic readouts. Now think of a dog being operated on by a vet when the anaesthetic fails. The vet and his staff know what its scream of agony and fear mean. If a vet announced he was going to cut costs by no longer using anaesthetics he would lose his clients, his professional registration and his business. He could even find himself in prison.

 

[clayto1]

Animals in the home, farm and wilderness often live lives of pain and fear, to an enormous degree. Many caring humans devote much time and effort, in some cases the whole of their lives, to the relief of animal pain. Concluding that animals do not experience pain is to me ‘beyond belief’, and in many situations it is prompted by the selfish desire of people to benefit by making money, or haviing enjoyable meals, or fashionable clothes, or worst of all the sadistic enjoyment derived from inflicting pain itself (as with organised dog fights and cock fights, bear baiting, bull fights, hare coursing and so on which now are all illegal in my country, after centuries of failure by churches to stop it). Is this not like the belief that negros could be enslaved and abused for the benefit of slave owners and the consumers of sugar, cotton, tobacco ? Slaves were often considered as less than human. Even if they were, and animals are less than human, how does that provide any moral basis for inflicting unnecessary suffering on them? It is to the honour of some Christians and others who struggled to end the legal slave trade of negros, and in the UK a Christian was instrumental in founding the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals.
As for other emotions and intellectual qualities I am surprised no one has mentioned the recent growth in understanding of animal lives and behaviour, achieved with extensively filmed observation and scientific reasearh. (The Living Planet, The Blue Planet, Koko the ape( whose sad death was announced while I was typing this), the remembered friendships between humans and animals, animals risking themselves to protect young children or their ‘masters’; successful experiments showing animals demonstrating cognative and problem-solving ability, dolphins with their attraction to humans, having complex language and individual names, even joining in combined hunting with fishermen; brain scans of apes showing them lightening up in ways and areas similar to our brains from similar stimuli, elephants who mourn the death of relatives and friends, birds who mate for life and mourn unconsoled for their departed partner, monkeys who care not only for orphans but for orphans of other species ---- and so very much more. In the light of this reality we know human and none-human animals are much closer than than some people will admit and are worthy of our compassion and respect ('closer does not mean ‘same’).
It is estimated that some great apps have cognative ability comparabe to a 5 year old child. Many children with Downs Syndrome and other mental disability, have ability much less than this. Are there any grounds whatever for treating such children in the calous way animals are treated? I am cautious about labelling things as ‘self-evident’, but the answer seems clear to me.

 

[clayto1]

Although it is prudent to be alert to the mistake of anthropomorphism, that should not be used as a cover for cruelty.
So far I have not found an acceptable answer to my original question here. Some people skirt around it or reject the very basis of it, by just claiming animals do not suffer. Is it not inhuman for humans to insist on this fallacy? I suspect I do know one or two contributers who may have a relevant answer, and I plan to explain why their answers are unbelievable (to me) in another post.

 

[Gorgias]

I am astonished with claims that non-human animals do not experience fear and pain.

I think the question hinges on what you mean by “the human experience of pain” and “the animal experience of pain”. If you describe it purely in terms of a physical stimulus that causes a response (of any sort), then it’s clear that animals experience ‘pain.’ At its heart, that’s a simple matter of recognizing that animals respond to external stimuli. That’s a morally neutral definition, wouldn’t you say? In fact, it’s a good thing: it allows an animal to recognize a situation that isn’t normal, and allows for corrective action. However, is pain itself ‘evil’, per se? Again, I would have to say “no – it’s morally neutral.”

Does that mean, though, that the experience is one that we desire? Well… now we’ve moved into the realm of humans and rational thought, haven’t we? And once we’ve done that, then the debate changes. Pain is still a perception of a stimulus, but now that we’re in the realm of rationality, we can talk about a range of issues that transcend the mere notion of “physical stimulus and perception thereof.” Once we’re in that discussion, we can enter into the discussion of the morality of inflicting pain on a rational individual.

However, if we conclude that it’s immoral to inflict pain on a rational animal, does that then mean that the conclusion applies to animals that do not possess rationality? Without a discussion that provides a reason for such an extrapolation, it’s difficult to assert that it is true. We might make an appeal to emotion, based on anthropomorphism, but if the hinge-point of the discussion is rationality, it makes it difficult to make the claim.

I think the argument vis-a-vis fear works similarly. We have to define what ‘fear’ means, and intuitively, it seems to me, that this definition likewise hinges on rationality. We might want to talk about reactions to perceived immanent pain, but would we call that ‘fear’ in the same way humans experience it?

They’re good questions that you’re raising. I think, though, that they’re philosophical in nature rather than theological.

 

[jcrichton]

But we don’t define God.

Let’s take your example: paintings… there are people lusting after “xyz” paintings; paying millions of dollars for them… then we have the abstracts… as pedestrian as I am a painting depicting a whole bunch of obsessions (fat, gigantuous, morbid, fantastical, squiggly line/dot…) do not compel me to think, ‘what a wonderful master piece!’

It is subjective. The ultra wealthy have billions to burn in such antics (while ignoring the plight of the needy, sick and dying) and the elitists can spend eons of adulating hours (on both the artists and the “work of art”) but it comes down to their own personal opinions (and of course money, politics, and manipulation); God’s definition is not subjective; I cannot speak for God (Who, What, When, How…); the best I can do is accept what God Reveals of Himself.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Mr. Saddam Hussein said no, he would take his punishment full strength without any drug.

But he had no problem exploiting his own people–even murdering those who, in his mind, were in his way.

He may have displayed an stoic stance when facing the gallows but he ran and hid from that impending punishment as long as he could, didn’t he?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…and don’t forget the millions that are murdered in the sacrosanct place called a woman’s womb. Thankfully both the meat eaters and the veggies make sure that the woman is anesthetized so that only the non-human animal that resides in her gets to suffer–wait, it is not even an animal since vets have not gathered with all those animals lovers to ease them out of existence… my bad, go ahead with your rant!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

If they are inventing or concocting their own reality, there is no conversation which will satisfy - other than to agree with them. They appear to be selfishly setting and controlling the dialog.

Life is too short, since the entire subject is academic.

 

[jcrichton]

I concur.

But even in such environment we are Commanded to give answer to the Reason (Jesus) of our Hope–less the ill-informed receive an education that is claimed to be sound and liberating… and finding no opposition guise itself in a cloak of feigned “truth” and “justice.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Can you explain how a supposedly all powerful and benevolent God could have created a world in which a great many animals, who experience pain and fear, have to tear each other to pieces to be eaten, in order to survive?

Simple: because it is for the benefit of man. All in this universe was made to benefit man, so why not animals and whatever happens to them, too?

Now I do not subscribe to the claim that animals do not experience fear and pain, because that is plainly absurd (besides I have not read the whole thread and checked whether there really are people who deny that, that claim is actually pretty unbelievable for me). However, it is an error to equate animal suffering with human suffering.