A theological question Catholics cannot answer?

[ProdglArchitect]

You’ll have to cite a couple of examples, because I am unaware of any.

The ability of those animals to survive without pain is a direct response to the environment in which they live, as well as their particular evolutionary tract. If other animals existed in similar situations, where there are few things external to themselves that they need to be concerned with, then yeah, they could theoretically also exist without the need for pain receptors.

However, most animals do not live in environments mostly devoid of external stimuli. Most animals are probably also a lot more complex than the ones to which you are referring. With complexity comes a greater need for awareness of how all of the parts are functioning. This, in turn, requires the development of a more complex nervous system, which then results in pain. The less complex the nervous system, the less likely pain is, but the more complex the life form, the more complex the nervous system needs to be.

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s see: eat grass, fruit, herbs, grain…!

Yep, it says nothing!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Warped justice as depicted in so many movies and shows (I can inflict pain but none is allowed to inflict it upon me) is glorious.

You inflict pain on Creation and you demand that Creation remain a humble servant; yeah, that’s justice!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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’.

You are asking that a mouse figure out why it is impossible for it to visit other planets; of course you do not expect an answer from it–you simply want to lord the information over it.

If any man knew the answers to the mysteries of the cosmos he (or she if it were a member of the female of the species) would no doubt reason that he was a god.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

The Fall: man and all of Creation is caught up in death.

Before the Fall: eat, fruit, vegetables, grain, grass…

You want a response that agrees with you; well, not going to find it–if you are honest with yourself, you know that all you are doing if seeking an excuse for whatever gripe is going on in your life.

You refuse to accept pain as part of life.

You use the “lower” animals’ pain (“unnecessary”) to go around this issue; it’s like those folks who fault God for the poor innocent people that died in the Old Testament Narrative ("if God is love, merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful…); you are caught in the dilemma that too many put themselves in: ‘if God is good only “good” things must come to us (throw in plants and animals to seal the deal).’ Yet, you choose to ignore that God’s Way is not ours. You reject God’s Authority over Creation. You refuse to accept your responsibility for your own behavior. You deny the Fall as your inheritance.

…someone once said, ‘it’s good to be the king.’ What many overlook is that it actually means ‘I love it when I can exploit everything without having to answer to anyone/anything.’

You also refuse to accept that the King of kings gave His Life so that you may Live–but He was very clear about what is going on: “My Peace I Give you, but not the peace of the world…” (paraphrased)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I do not anthropormize

You do.

You want to pretend that the poor animals “suffering” your “unnecessary” pain are the cause of your disquietness. So you transfer human emotions to their existence in order to formulate the “unnecessary pain” postulation.

Fido/puss will answer to any label given it without a second thought, once it realizes that that is the label with which humans identify it with; it does not care if it is called it or he or she–all of that is human projection (anthropomorphizing). An animal does not think: ‘woe is me for this unnecessary pain!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

spilled in the name of Buddha”. Note the ‘in the name of’.

So if the US government starts killing its citizens all that it has to do to avoid the responsibility of its murderous genocide is to claim that it is doing it for Christ?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[clayto1]

So if the US government starts killing its citizens all that it has to do to avoid the responsibility of its murderous genocide is to claim that it is doing it for Christ?

This is another of your incomprehensible statements ------- the answer is obviously NO but I cannot fathom what you are saying

 

[clayto1]

My comment is based on a recent documentary. It is not an area I have much knowledge so l (when my hospital operation is over) I will do a bit of research and if I amfactually wrong, apologise).The documentary showed what remarkable things limpets do while not having a brain or nervous system to register pain.

 

[clayto1]

“poor animals suffering”, — is dismissive and seemingly callus . “So you transfer” another personal remark when you know little or nothing about me .

“Fidod / puss” — dismissive again. You appear to imagine or telepathically know that I have a lot of pets (cats) who I do not understand. The last I had a pet animal was indeed a cat but it was in 1970.

 

[Gorgias]

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”.

Why is that a poor answer? Because you don’t like it?

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.

I’ll keep you in my prayers!

 

[clayto1]

You want a response that agrees with you; well, not going to find it–if you are honest with yourself, you know that all you are doing if seeking an excuse for whatever gripe is going on in your life.

“You” (meaning me) then a tirade of “you, you, you, you,” (meaning me)-------- You, meaning you, do not seem to be aware of how offensive your insistence on personalised remarks about someone you can have almost no knowledge of. I know little about you apart from the fact that you tend to make incomprehensible statements and personalised attacks regarding someone else’s behaviour, motivations, and beliefs . This is not a good way to conduct a forum discussion or find the truth of what someone is trying to explain, so after these current comments I am no intending to respond to again.

I hope the others who are more able to conduct less personalised conversations will continue as there are still issues I would like to clarify, and a few new points to raise.

 

[clayto1]

correction and emphasis -------"not intending to respond to you again!

 

[clayto1]

You want to pretend that the poor animals “suffering” your “unnecessary” pain are the cause of your disquietness. So you transfer human emotions to their existence in order to formulate the “unnecessary pain” postulation.

More objectional personal remarks

 

[clayto1]

You use the “lower” animals’ pain (“unnecessary”) to go around this issue; it’s like those folks who fault God for the poor innocent people that died in the Old Testament Narrative ("if God is love, merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful…); you are caught in the dilemma that too many put themselves in: ‘if God is good only “good” things must come to us (throw in plants and animals to seal the deal).’ Yet, you choose to ignore that God’s Way is not ours. You reject God’s Authority over Creation. You refuse to accept your responsibility for your own behavior. You deny the Fall as your inheritance.

More personalised offensiveness about someone you know virtually nothing. You! really should try to give up pointing in an accusatory way and shouting “you!” It is not at all good for your case.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That’s cool, I’ve never really looked into limpets.

My comments still stand though, their lifestyle hasn’t required them to experience things like pain, and they reproduce in such numbers that it hasn’t been a detriment to their species.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to live without a nervous system (and therefore pain), just that most species require external stimulation to avoid danger.

 

[clayto1]

Your comments seem reasonable and more than likely correct. It is something I need to research. My only point is that even if only one (unlikely) or a few (more likely) animals do live without pain it does suggest that pain free animals can evolve / be created.

A new point, somewhat related, is that it is looking increasingly likely that we will discover other distant inhabited planets in time (I am a bit sad that I will not be alive then, as it is something I have looked forward to most of my life). It is not very likely that their inhabitants will be the same or even similar to any of our species, so I wonder about the prospects for some of them being pain free, and the implications ---- pure speculation of course but with the rate exoplanets are being discovered, and the increasing ability to detect what they are like, we may have a fundamentally altered picture of our place in the universe in a few decades.

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

 

[Chris4]

A new point, somewhat related, is that it is looking increasingly likely that we will discover other distant inhabited planets in time (I am a bit sad that I will not be alive then, as it is something I have looked forward to most of my life)

There is also a new point which is either related or otherwise…if the planets are inhabited, by creatures almost having the same nature or different . Could be … what is the likely estimates of all those inhabited planets…? thousands, millions…? Might they also have gone through fallen natures as we have? needing redemption too? Would they need the same length of time for preparation, ( We’d to take some four thousand years, including some 33 years of Christ’s earthly life) so that Satan might not have necessarily targeted earth alone and could have spirited himself to other planets to do evil to necessarily require redeeming? Those are absolutely stupid questions but then I have just voiced them!

 

[Mintaka]

God did not create a world of fear and pain for animals.

It was Adam who was commissioned to be the head of all living things (as symbolized by his giving names to all the animals), and Eve who was commissioned to be the mother of all the living. Both were commissioned to go forth and multiply, and to fill the earth and tame it (thus making the whole world a garden for God’s Heavenly Temple and His holy mountain, as Eden was).

So it was Eve and Adam’s fall that created a world of fear and pain. They did not just create havoc for themselves and their descendants, but for the earth and all its creatures too.

It is Jesus, the New Adam (and his mom, the New Eve, helped) who set Himself to redeem Creation through His incarnation, life, death, and Resurrection. This process will be completed with the creation of a new heavens and a new earth, in which “the lion will lay down with the lamb” and no creature will be afraid.

As Christians, we participate in this process of redemption and justification. That is why one of the Gospel versions of the Great Commission explains that we are to proclaim the Gospel to “all creatures” (or “all Creation” - translations differ), and not just to humans. (And that’s what St. Francis and St. Anthony of Padua were doing as a sign, when they preached to birds, fish, and other creatures.)

 

[Gorgias]

It was Adam who was commissioned to be the head of all living things (as symbolized by his giving names to all the animals), and Eve who was commissioned to be the mother of all the living.

Erm… a bit of “apples and oranges” there, eh?

God ‘commissioned’ Adam to care for the garden and to have dominion over all animals. But, it was Adam who named Eve (or ‘Zoe’, in the Septuagint) “mother of all the living.”

Adam’s ‘commissioning’ only took place in Genesis 3 – following the Fall of Man. If animals were already created at that time, how could Eve be their mother? No… I think it’s much more reasonable to conclude that Adam asserted that Eve was the mother of all living humans.