A theological question Catholics cannot answer?

[jcrichton]

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.

So you are now determining what it means to be sentient. Do plants not develop relationships with their environment both making eco systems for other plants and animals and both using these to further their own genetic imprint? Do they not provide for their body guards (certain species) do they not create venom for protection and do they not migrate through carriers? There is a conscious effort to remain a living-species is there not?

Hence, making singular assertions about pain and consciousness (sentience) does that not contradict your argument?

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.

My point exactly!

There’s not a “single rule applies.”

The cause effect of the Fall brings us to all sorts of variations… why do trees have such long lifespan? Why are certain animals able to repair themselves (earthworms and starfish clear examples)? Why are the eco system so well balanced (Like cars, some microbes use oil as fuel. Such microorganisms are a big reason why BP’s 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was not far worse–https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-microbes-helped-clean-bp-s-oil-spill/) that only extreme abuses can derail/raze the natural set up?

So why do some animals do not display the same reaction to pain, oppression, and imminent death?

Have you consider the dogs and cats (as well as other animals) who are prompted by their keepers to do things that are unnatural as saying “I love you” or “I want my mommy?”

Have you considered how man has allowed these “pets” to control their lives?

have you not noticed how man has turn from nature (nurturing human children) to claiming animals as his offspring?

It is more complex than: ‘if God exists, then a Benevolent God would not allow pain (or as you’ve worded: “unnecessary pain”).’

Do you not see how you have made yourself the god of this quest?

You determine what is necessary or natural for the planet.

Maran atha!

Angel

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

the only way God can create animals is to make them carnivores

Genesis argues against you:

29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1)

Nature was in harmony before the Fall.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yet, such argument/s contradict what God has Revealed about Himself.

True we do not Know (understand in a divine way) God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, Creation…

Yet, what has been Reveal does demonstrate that God is Omnipotent (All-Powerful) and Omniscient (All-Knowing).

Before Creation God had Saved us in Christ Jesus (paraphrased).

You think you know something? God can give offspring to Abraham from these road-stones (also paraphrased).

God can divide the innermost human composition (matter and spirit) as He Searches man (multiple passages combined in this paraphrased presentation).

God, the Word that Existed from the Beginning, Incarnates in a Virgin to Come to His own and dwell among them–Omnipotence, Omniscience, God’s Salvific Plan (and Creation) meshed up in one swoop.

The problem is that as with very young children some do not understand the makeup of Creation and they want to exert their own reason into God’s Existence and Purpose… so the child turns back, as it is discovered by the parent/s, and cannot fathom how he/she was discovered braking “xyz?” The child cannot understand the mechanism of sound–sound travels!

God Omniscience and Omnipotence, however, is not dependent upon our understanding of the Laws He Brought into Being.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Half a century ago I spent some time as a Buddhist and still honour the Buddha’s teaching “Have compassion for all creatures”.

Yet, buddist have been known to kill Catholics and others for having a different belief… do you see how there’s always an exception when it comes to our understanding/orchestrating things?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps you could explain what you think the relevance of your remark is anyway, do you seriously think anyone who understands Evolution cannot believe that unnecessary pain inflicted on animals is a bad thing?

Can you please list some of the justifiable benefits you think humans receive from inflicting unnecessary pain?

How is an animal preying upon another a source of unnecessary pain?

Yet, even if it is given, why is it that a lion chowing down on its pray the pray struggles and then stops struggling but no sound is heard coming from it as the lion/s continues to chow down while it is still alive?

You are anthropomorphizing; it’s like those insipid human tendencies to call a human child an “it” and asserting that a dog/cat must be addressed as “he” or “she.” Human overzealousness for animals should not trump human beings. Debasing a human child while uplifting an animal to a human level is flawed. You can call fido “dog” or “cat” or “trainwreck” or “old yeller,” it does not matter to it–it will get used to the “call” and respond.

Animals are different than humans.

So we can separate “unnecessary” pain from the argument (or at least define in the correct term) and the answers will come to you.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why? Where Is the justice in that? Why would a benevolent God arrange for that to be the case? Unless He could not find a more benign way to achieve his purpose? In which case how is He omnipotent?

When a person abuses drugs, why is it that all of his/her family suffers?

When the wealthy exploit the planet, why is it that the innocent suffer?

When a nation/s abuse the planet why do all of the other nations suffer?

Creation: one entity.

Man: one steward.

Man fails: Creation suffers.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Did I say anywhere that the ‘creation of carnivores’ is ‘evil’?

You seem to be implying that their creation is a bad thing. If that’s not your intent I apologize.

not so clear why we have got it. Can it be that God could not find a way to achieve His purpose without so much suffering, given that the suffering is experienced by animals who could not have been guilty of Original Sin or responsible for the Fall?

It may very well be possible that existence in a state of change requires such things, we can’t really know. It might not be that God couldn’t find a way, but rather that such a thing is genuinely impossible in the type of world God desired for us. I believe that in the new creation, the perfected world after the fall, there will be no suffering of this nature; but then that existence will not be changeable in the way this current existence is.

I have encountered Christians claiming that Adam’s Sin brought suffering to all other innocent creatures, that animals share God’s curse (their word not mine). Why? Where Is the justice in that? Why would a benevolent God arrange for that to be the case? Unless He could not find a more benign way to achieve his purpose? In which case how is He omnipotent?

I do not ascribe to this viewpoint, so I cannot answer to the rational behind it.

As I have said, I am not trying to prove anything, I am just asking questions. But I am wondering about the way some people insist I am trying to prove something. I have friends who would conclude it is because deep down they are afraid there is no proof of what they believe. It is not my position, as one who does not believe proof is possible anyway!

I’d say the reason people keep trying to prove stuff to you is that you keep asking questions. Questions demand answers. You have asked us questions, so we are trying to provide answers within the framework of our understanding.

In the end, we won’t know this side of eternity. We can speculate. We can determine that such things are necessary within our current existence. We can even go so far as to offer possible reasons God chose to create the universe as He did. In the end though, this is all speculation. Hopefully one day we’ll make it to Heaven and get to find out the answer.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Genesis argues against you:

29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1)

That passage in Genesis says nothing about the state of nature prior to the fall, only that nature exists to serve us.

 

[clayto1]

So I ask again, where is the justice in that?

Or is justice not an issue for you?

Clayto1

Mail](https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986) for Windows 10

 

[Dlee]

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?

How do we know they were created this way in the beginning? I tend to think that they, too, suffer the effects of sin and the fall. All creation suffers because of sin.

 

[clayto1]

That seems at least a modest and honest answer, presumably having given some thought to my question. It has taken me a lot of effort to get an “I do not know” answer. As long as it is not dismissive It is so much better than answers along the lines of “animals do not feel pain or if they do it does not matter”. Please do not take this as patronising, after all “I do not know” either, even after getting answers from many denominations for my ongoing ‘research’.

I have corresponded with a world renowned theologian who is a major figure in the Christian animal welfare movement, who has tried to be helpful, but instead of giving me an answer referred me to his (many) theological books on animals, starting with “Animals On The Agenda.” I did not find an answer there, though I learned a lot more about theology.

I may not respond for a while, I am going into hospital for a major operation in a couple of days and do not know when I will be back.

 

[clayto1]

How is an animal preying upon another a source of unnecessary pain?

Well it plainly causes pain, as to ‘unnecessary’ that is a key element of the question, was it necessary for God to create suffering and pain inflicting animals? If so why? The suffering of humans can be put down to Original Sin, but animals? I have not found meaningful answers yet.

 

[clayto1]

I do not anthropormize, I base most of what I say on the findings of recent scientific research (though I am not an animal scientist). A current very relevant case is studies into whether fish and crustaceans experience pain. I can provide details, which are illuminating. I live in a major fishing town which makes the question of particular significance.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I believe I provided an adequate answer for this. Pain is necessary because the nerve impulses which cause pain are also necessary for the normal functioning of the animal. Recognition of negative nerve impulses (pain) is also absolutely necessary for a creature to survive.

What don’t you like about this answer?

 

[clayto1]

"for having a different belief’ Are you sure that is the reason? it might be so as Buddhists are are far from perfect in implementing Buddha’s teachings… But there are reasons for doubt. As far as I know It has not been given as the reason for the shocking, sickening and shameful behaviour in Myanmar where national, cultural economic and cultural factors plainly at work.

Christians have slaughtered on mass 'in the name of Christ". In Buddhism there is a saying “No drop of blood has been spilled in the name of Buddha”. Note the ‘in the name of’. Even if it is not exactly true historically (perhaps it is) there are reasons for the claim, whereas the same claim for Christianity could only result in astonished laughter!

 

[clayto1]

Do you not see how you have made yourself the god of this quest?

No and No to the next sentence

 

[Ignatius64869]

I promised myself I would not respond to CAF anymore because I am finding it addictive (evidenced by my being here at all right now), but since this response is not argumentative and will permit me to leave after this comment, I will respond.

My response is very much “I don’t know, but God presumably does, and since God presumably could know of a good greater than or proportionate to the suffering endured by animals, it is possible that God exists.” Then, since I believe in faith that God exists, the reason for animal suffering is that there is a greater good that outweighs animal suffering. We, as limited creatures, do not know what that is yet. However, it does not follow that the greater good does not exist just because we do not have the capacity to know the greater good and God has not revealed it to us. That summary is inadequate, so please try to refer to the actual source material I’ve included below.

For a way more thorough explanation, please read “Rowes Argument from Particular Horrors” by Daniel Howard-Snyder. You can find it here: Home

It does not address animal suffering directly, and if I remember correctly, it still asserts that God likely does not exist. Instead it addresses the problem of evil and a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God. It does, however, address a particular scenario of a fawn burning to death presumably without any greater good in a forest fire.

I also have really enjoyed Richard W. Miller’s book Suffering and the Christian Life, but that book deals with human suffering. It does not speak of animal suffering.

Here is a brief preview of his work: “If the only adequate answer to human suffering is God in the beatific vision, yet God remains incomprehensible and thus mystery in the vision of God, then human suffering is not a problem to be solved. Rather, it is an aspect of the enduring mystery in which ‘we live and move and have our being’ (Acts, 17:28). Thus, an essential part of the theological task in responding to the apparent contradiction between human suffering and the goodness of God is not to try to solve the unsolvable, but to preserve the proper sense of the mystery of God and thus by extension the mystery of our existential situation.”

The more we love, the more we will know. The question from a Christian perspective then is this: can I forgive God for allowing such immense suffering and for not at least allowing me to know the greater good for which we and all creatures suffer?

 

[clayto1]

Do you apply your notion of God knowing a greater good, to natural disasters, to wars, to disease, epidemics and so on? Some people do. It could be said it is such notions that are incomprehensible, leading to claims like “then human suffering is not a problem to be solved.”
Love for all its importance is not much of an instrument for knowing ---- that calls for open minded study and unfettered thought. It may be or it may not be true that ‘God and his ways’ are an unsolvable mystery, or it may be a challenge to our minds to continue seeking after truth.

 

[clayto1]

There are animals which so far as we know now do not suffer pain. In their case it is not necessary for survival, which begs the question ‘could all animals have been created without pain receptors?’

 

[Ignatius64869]

My notion of God is that God is incomprehensible and that suffering is a mystery in the same sense that God is a mystery. It is incomprehensible, but it includes natural disasters, wars, diseases, epidemics, and so on. Those caused by human sin are still permitted by God, which (maintaining the Christian “omnis” of God) demands that those forms of immense suffering be proportionate to or less than some greater good for which they must be permitted.

“then human suffering is not a problem to be solved.”

Suffering is incomprehensible. It ought to be noted, however, that the author does not mean that humans should not try to solve issues that cause suffering. He means that since suffering is incomprehensible, one cannot “solve” (understand) the problem of suffering. The more one tries, the more incomprehensible it will become.

Love for all its importance is not much of an instrument for knowing

I disagree. Love is perhaps the only instrument for knowing God, for we know more about God by sharing more intimately in God’s being, which is eternal love. The more we love, the more we will know God because God is love. Our thoughts and intellectual pursuits, while fruitful and worthwhile, generally just get in the way of our knowing an incomprehensible God.

We say God is Father, but God is not Father in any way we can conceive of Father. God is creator, but God is not creator in any manner familiar to us as humans. Every affirmation of God must be countered by a negation, for if we can define God, then God is limited. Words cannot capture the reality of God. Since God is not limited, we cannot really know God through the limited tools of language and culture. They certainly help describe, communicate, and illuminate, but since they are limited, they always fall short. We can, however, know God by participating in God’s being, which God has revealed to us as unconditional and self-sacrificial love.