A theological question Catholics cannot answer?

[jcrichton]

However, it is an error to equate animal suffering to human

That’s precisely what is being argued–further even, that it is proof that God does not exist because He is allowing the suffering of sentient beings.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[abucs]

I am a strong defender of the church and also a strong critic where need be.

Having said that I think you raise a very fair question.

The only thing I would say is that Earth is not Heaven. It is not the preferred creation of God.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

So nobody is actually denying that animals truly suffer? Using that to disprove God’s existence is stupid though.

 

[jcrichton]

Different people have different views–I’ve gathered from the posts hat most think that animals do not suffer pain the same way as humans do.

I do not have to go farther then the nature channels/networks… unless they are purposely muting the sound, even when animals are giving birth or being eaten alive there’s no sound coming from them belying the agony of the extreme pain which they are suffering.

Does this happens because their minds are wired differently or because their composition is differently? Do animals have such a high threshold as to not experience pain the way we do or is their nervous system lacking the number of connectors that the human has which would allow for such high threshold?

Here’s the actual meat of the OP’s interest:

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?

Can you explain how a supposedly concern for the welfare of animals not lead to a challenge of God’s existence when worded as above?

There are but two choices:
a) God does not exist
or
b) God is not a benevolent God as it has been claimed.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Can you explain how a supposedly concern for the welfare of animals not lead to a challenge of God’s existence when worded as above?

There are but two choices:
a) God does not exist
or
b) God is not a benevolent God as it has been claimed.

Maran atha!

Angel

You then have to discuss what being “benevolent” is: it is to will the good of something. But what is the good of something? It is that thing’s existence. If that is so, then to will the good of something, that is, to be benevolent, is to will the perfection of that thing’s existence, and the perfection of that thing’s existence is to fulfill the reason of that thing’s existence. Now all things in the universe were made for man’s benefit, therefore to be benevolent to some thing other than man is to make it serve man, and is therefore not necessarily to avoid that thing’s suffering, especially if that thing’s suffering is for the benefit of man.

So yeah, that line of reasoning is stupidly absurd, sorry.

 

[jcrichton]

You then have to discuss what being “benevolent” is then: it is to will the good of something. But what is the good of something?

I fully follow what you say; the problem lies in the way that God is anthropomorphized–some feign searching for truth as they project human justice, mercy, love, feeling… onto God; they define what would be the composition of God (Love, Mercy, Benevolence) from human perspective… even and in spite of our own shortcomings and wanton disregard form all virtue. In this people’s mind, they have proven God does not exist because God does not live up to their expectation of divinity.

Sadly, Believers are in such state of confusion that they latch on to whatever visits them in the guise of wisdom or justice/mercy or love.

They fall prey to the argument and end up believing, as the OP poster, that they have “cornered” God (or at least His Followers).

So I give chase in hopes that we can shed light on the real argument behind the curtains!

I must confess that animals have taught me great many things–loyalty, as one of them. So I hold them high esteem.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

But again, that’s stupid. The thread is literally “A theological question Catholics cannot answer?” We have to use Catholic theology, not whatever anyone thinks the Catholic Church teaches without confirming or whatever they cherry pick from Catholic teachings.

Anyways let’s see what the others have to say.

 

[jcrichton]

A theological question Catholics cannot answer?”

But it is not.

A theological question ponders God as He has Revealed Himself not what we want to make of Him.

Consider some of the religious/non-religious beliefs out there.

There’s everything from et to the ultra supernatural… most always holding man accountable for nothing and reaper of all benefits (I tag that as the ‘feel-good’ theology). Most of these beliefs hold similar tenets (man as the it/god) and Christianity as suspect (a Loving God cannot “xyz” and must “zyx”).

This question is basically my invitation to play a game of whatever with the caveat that if you are the better person/player you must lose the game. Why bother with the exercise: if we engage, you’ve already lost; if we do not engage because you do not want to lose to a scrub like me, you’ve forfeited the game, so I have already won.

Good hunting!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AlNg]

But we don’t define God

If you don’t have a definition of the word, then you don’t know what you are talking about. And everyone can have her own idea of what the word means. For example, some might say God is an old man with a gray beard in heaven, something like their grandfather. And they will point to various paintings depicting such. Americans think He is on their side, but Russians will say that God is on the side of Russia. At least that is what their national songs indicate.

 

[AlNg]

But he had no problem exploiting his own people

Did the American president FDR exploit his own American people who were of Japanese descent by rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps?

 

[jcrichton]

And everyone can have her own idea of what the word means

Exactly the point!

Only God can Define God!

So it is not about man’s desire to know or identify God; it is about God Revealing Himself to man.

What you’ve described is what is found in Scriptures; the ancient man… but this is not God’s Defined. It is a Revelation that God has made to allow our finite mind to assimilate some of His Essence:

11 And he said to him: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord: and behold the Lord passeth, and a great and strong wind before the Lord over throwing the mountains, and breaking the rocks in pieces: the Lord is not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake: the Lord is not in the earthquake. 12 And after the earthquake a fire: the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire a whistling of a gentle air. 13 And when Elias heard it, he covered his face with his mantle, and coming forth stood in the entering in of the cave, and behold a voice unto him, saying: What dost thou here, Elias? (1 King 19)

This passage illuminates the Omnipotence and Omniscience of God; He chooses to Reveal Himself in the most gentle of ways… no huge earth-shattering grandioseness–God Defines Himself as He wants.

For you or I to want to pin Him down to our own understanding is an exercise in futility.

…as for being in anyone’s side:

34 And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. 35 But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him. 36 God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all.) (Acts 10)

So while all of humanity may claim Him; only those whom He claims are His:

2 And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God. (Apocalypse [Revelation] 21)

This, of course, is contingent upon God’s Salvific Plan:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting. 16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. 18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. (St. John 3)

God Defines Himself and us!

Maran atha!

Angel

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AnnaTheCat]

Without giving you a specific example I am sure there are a potentially infinite number of theological questions Catholics can not answer. Total comprehension of the Divine Logos and His plan for salvation is beyond the power of any human or all humans combined.

 

[jcrichton]

Wow, you are quite an overachiever, aren’t you?

So you equate Saddam’s actions against his own people during peace (no active warring against the nation taking place) to an American President who, ignorantly or overzealously, corralled what could be seen as a potential enemy support in the midst of the state while an active war was taking place.

You’re like the animal lovers who want to stand the world on its head to assist all animals while cheering for the right to kill human beings in their mothers’ wombs.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Total comprehension of the Divine Logos and His plan for salvation is beyond the power of any human or all humans combined.

Exactly!

It’s like defining predatory animals from the general understanding pet owners have about domesticated cats… sure puss hangs around the person/s that feeds it, but a little meowing and purring and brushing up against things and legs does not fully define it:

The society studied records from 964 cats in about 600 households over a five-month period - during which the pets killed more than 14,000 animals. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19353/Cats-kill-275-million-animals-year.html)
The answer? About a third of the pet cats killed time by killing wildlife.
That may not surprise cat owners who regularly find tiny corpses on their doorsteps, but the study suggests house cats kill even more prolifically than many people realize. The researchers found the cats that killed did so about 2.1 times every week they spent outside, but brought home fewer than 25 percent of their kills. That could mean U.S. cats kill more than the previous estimate of 1 billion native birds and other animals every year — possibly as many as 4 billion. (https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/outdoor-cats-are-prolific-killers-study-finds)

So yes, while the pet industry continue to sell pet owners on the need for keeping puss happy by buying special meals, puss’ reality is different–no wander it wants to be let out when it wants to be let out (back to the kill zone)!

So if we have so little understanding about something that’s happening right under our nose, how can we have the gall to believe that we can define God through our finite means and understanding?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

So nobody is actually denying that animals truly suffer?

It depends on what you mean by ‘suffer’, doesn’t it?

 

[clayto1]

An extract from a review of “The Problem Of Pain” by C S Lewis:

The existence of suffering in a world created by a good and almighty God — “the problem of pain” — is a fundamental theological dilemma and perhaps the most serious objection to the Christian religion. The issue is serious enough already in Theism. Christianity aggravates the problem by insisting on Love as the essence of God; then, unexpectedly, it makes a half turn and points to the Mystery of suffering — to Jesus, "the tears of God."3 Lewis does not propose to penetrate the mystery. He is content enough with approaching pain as mere problem that demands a solution; he formulates it and goes about solving it. "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.“4 With a characteristic conciseness and clarity Lewis sets the stage for the entire book in the first paragraph of Chapter 2. “The possibility of solving [the problem] depends on showing that the terms ‘good’ and ‘almighty’, and perhaps also the term ‘happy’, are equivocal: for it must be admitted from the outset that if the popular meanings attached to these words are the best, or the only possible, meaning, then the argument is unanswerable”. In the remaining nine chapters, Lewis will develop this basic statement through an in-depth reflection on divine omnipotence, divine goodness, human condition, human and animal pain, and last, but not least, hell and heaven.”

Lewis wrote in a way that is meaningful for me, whether or not I end up believing what he says. He was a significant factor in my conversion to Catholicism fifty years ago, in contrast to lengthy extracts from ancient scripture which have absolutely the reverse effect. I can be attracted to debate what he has to offer while being repelled by what has the character of chanting obscure magical verses. We are all different. Lewis’ wide readership confirms I am not alone in this.

 

[clayto1]

OP 's comments on some errors and false assumptions by posters, and claims to know what they cannot know in the absence of telepathic powers
Some posters claim that the OP is trying to prove that God does not exist (because of conflict between claims about God and what we observe with animals.) I can assure you that this is categorically not so, not least because the OP considers it is not possible to prove God does not exist. It is true that the question is related to a Greek philosopher’s series of questions about God’s existence. The OP is not an Atheist and would not bother with this forum if he was, he has no interest here in anti-religious attacks or tricks, but is a sceptical seeker after greater understanding
The Op does not equate killing an animal (or their suffering) with humans, he does believe they are closer than many people realise, and that closeness is a factor in believing inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals is wrong, BUT anyway, note that the question is not about human treatment of animals (as some posters seem to think) it is about God creating animals to harm and kill each other, of necessity (‘dog eat dog’, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’).

continued

 

[clayto1]

If God exists in something akin to what is generally claimed, It seems highly unlikely humans could have a full understanding of God’s nature and purpose BUT should this fact be used to avoid trying our best (if we are so inclined), or used as a way of ‘avoiding the question’ or simply admitting ’ maybe we cannot know’
“Simple: because it (animal suffering) 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?” The OP knows this is Biblical but even if accepted at face value it does not mean man’s ‘benefit’ has to be by inflicting unnecessary suffering, man is free to choose to treat animals with respect and care (as many do). Which choice would God approve? One contributer writes"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."
The universe may and most likely does have numerous inhabited planets, many with animals and, many with human or none-human intelligence and technology mor advanced than ours. Will the universe ‘have been made for them too’? Implications?
Plants (on this planet) do not suffer pain or emotions because they do not have consciousness, a brain, a nervous system and above all pain receptors! It is a very silly and unbelievable proposition to suggest they do.
Many animals do display great distress and sorrow at the loss of companions, hence the tale of the dog who kept guard over his master’s grave until death “Grayfriers Bobby”, and the OP’s true tale of a a goose who cried so piteously for months the farmer was reluctantly driven to put him down (many birds especially, mate for life). Many animals do respond with much noise and struggle when facing the prospect of harm and death. Anyone who thinks they dont has never visited a slaughter house or seen and heard how pigs put up a fight. I do not know why some animals seem to quietly accept what is happening.
Consideration of abortion is surely better elsewhere but I am sure any number of Catholics and anti-abortionists are vegetarians and vegans and people who care for animals! Why not?
St Francis?
Why is it “moral’ for animals to eat animals, but it is not for mankind”? Who said it was? Certainly not the OP who does not believe animals have a developed sense of morality, if any —although there is now some evidence from experiments that some animals have a sense of things being unfair (as do very young children, 4 to 5 years)

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Again, unless you can refute that the animals were made for man’s benefit then the OP’s (your) question has been answered.

 

[clayto1]

I cannot see anything remotely valid in your claim. To be true it would mean (a) the only way God can create animals is to make them carnivores — plainly not so (b) the only ways in which animals can be of benefit to humankind must involve their suffering, pain and death.

This is one of the most outrageous claims I have encountered! For something more uplifting here is a part of a Catholic blessing of animals:

“The animals of God’s creation inhabit the skies, the earth, and the sea. They share in the ways of human beings. They have a part in our lives. Francis of Assisi recognized this when he called the animals, wild and tame, his brothers and sisters. Remembering Francis’ love for these brothers and sisters of ours, we invoke God’s blessing on these animals, and we thank God for letting us share the earth with all the creatures.”

Perhaps you should give more thought to this?