Animal Suffering

[Pieman333272]

Earlier on I made a thread about why God allows human suffering on earth, and both others and myself worked through the issue. Now I am asking, why does God allow animals to suffer so? They are even more innocent than humans, but have a more difficult and painful life too, and of course they are God’s creations and he would, I imagine, love them. I have two questions:

1. Why will God allow animals which are hurt to keep suffering?
2. Why would God make it so animals have to harm and eat other ones to survive? I mean, isn’t it a little cruel, especially when they mutilate each other too?

I won’t accept:

1. Good afterlife (mortal souls on animals)
2. Result of the fall, I believe in death before the fall.

I know this may be easy to work through, but I’d like some (name removed by moderator)ut on this. Thanks!

 

[tonyrey]

1. How can animals exist in a physical world without pain, i.e. a defence mechanism?
2. Can you provide a blueprint of a world without any suffering?
3. What would animals live on if they didn’t depend on other forms of life? Minerals?

If predators didn’t exist their prey would have to endure a lingering, painful death from disease or injury…

 

[GEddie]

why does God allow animals to suffer so? They are even more innocent than humans, but have a more difficult and painful life too, and of course they are God’s creations and he would, I imagine, love them. I have two questions:

1. Why will God allow animals which are hurt to keep suffering?

God has designed the animal body to maintain life at all costs, even when that involves “suffering.” Pain and physical distress serve to direct the “mind” (to the extent that it is present) to tend to the body’s needs.

When there is not sufficient energy left to maintain life, death occurs. But life is too sacred to be let go just because suffering is involved.

1. Why would God make it so animals have to harm and eat other ones to survive? I mean, isn’t it a little cruel, especially when they mutilate each other too?

All animals die, and disintegrate upon death. In fact, except for the few that become fossils, all provide food for other animals when they die. And, often, natural death can cause more suffering than is experienced by victims of predation.

Happy Holidays and ICXC NIKA.

 

[cassini]

Earlier on I made a thread about why God allows human suffering on earth, and both others and myself worked through the issue. Now I am asking, why does God allow animals to suffer so? They are even more innocent than humans, but have a more difficult and painful life too, and of course they are God’s creations and he would, I imagine, love them. I have two questions:

1. Why will God allow animals which are hurt to keep suffering?
2. Why would God make it so animals have to harm and eat other ones to survive? I mean, isn’t it a little cruel, especially when they mutilate each other too?

I won’t accept:

1. Good afterlife (mortal souls on animals)
2. Result of the fall, I believe in death before the fall.

I know this may be easy to work through, but I’d like some (name removed by moderator)ut on this. Thanks!

For the second time Pieman, I give my opinion. You cannot use words like ‘suffering’ and cruel’ in the above context. Yes animals feel pain, but they do not interpret it like humans do. I have pondered on this question all my long life and have come to the conclusion that God is not like that. Suffering and pain are human states, shared by Him as man. With no salvation purpose other than to assist in the survival on man on earth, God surely would not place suffering and cruelty on His animal creatures. I conclude that they simply do not comprehend pain and death in the (good) survival of the species. What they think, if it be the right word, only the Lord knows. When He left the fish suffocating on the deck of the boat after telling the Apostles to cast their nets, was Christ indulging in an act of cruelty that left fish suffering? Of course not, for His infinite compassion surely designed them free from such consciousness. I do not know how He did (does) it, but I am sure He designed their instincts free from what we call suffering.

 

[danserr]

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7215

here’s a short article on it, just some food for thought.

 

[Spock]

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7215

here’s a short article on it, just some food for thought.

It is a very dumb article, as usual. Life could very easily be without pain and suffering. The only “trick” is to have it without a nervous system, just like with plants. No fight, no pain, no problem. The thinking part (if anyone would want to create that) could easily be done via an alternate method, with a special nervous system not coupled to the life-sustaining mechanism (ehich is fully automatic). There would be no predator-prey pairs, the vegetation could sustain itself with the energy from sunlight. So simple.

Going back to the OP, there is no excuse.

 

[tonyrey]

It is a very dumb article, as usual. Life could very easily be without pain and suffering. The only “trick” is to have it without a nervous system, just like with plants.

You’re not fond of your nervous system - and would prefer to vegetate?

No fight, no pain, no problem. The thinking part (if anyone would want to create that) could easily be done via an alternate method, with a special nervous system not coupled to the life-sustaining mechanism (ehich is fully automatic). There would be no predator-prey pairs, the vegetation could sustain itself with the energy from sunlight. So simple.

The solution to the creation of a perfect ecosystem! Why not give us a detailed blueprint?

 

[Apollos]

1. Why will God allow animals which are hurt to keep suffering? 2) Why would God make it so animals have to harm and eat other ones to survive?

It would help me a lot if you explained why you consider hurting, suffering and harm to be bad.

 

[Windfish]

It would help me a lot if you explained why you consider hurting, suffering and harm to be bad [between non-moral agents].

Fixed.

 

[Apollos]

Fixed.

Ouch

 

[Windfish]

Ouch

 

[BlueShadow123]

Well being an animal lover ( but not crazy like some PETA workers ), its quite sad to me too.

I suggest you find a Christian Zoologist who can answer this, because they will more than likely have an answer possibly much better than ours.

However I might know. You do realize until adam and eve’s death, everything was vegetarian, and there was no death or suffering.

So if they never sinned, it wouldn’t happen. As soon as evil came into this world, stuff like this happens daily.

Even with people. Albert Fisch, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer. they seem pretty animal like too, so its not just animals that do this kinda stuff.

Many times through history you see sacrifice, or torturing like in the medieval times, or even eating other humans. So once again, it is not just animals.

But you also might refute my statements by saying that animals act on instinct. Humans do too… but only to a point.

So truly I think this has to do with adam and eve’s sin which brought evil into the world.

So, this is how nature is now.

 

[vera_dicere]

It is a very dumb article, as usual. Life could very easily be without pain and suffering. The only “trick” is to have it without a nervous system, just like with plants. No fight, no pain, no problem. The thinking part (if anyone would want to create that) could easily be done via an alternate method, with a special nervous system not coupled to the life-sustaining mechanism (ehich is fully automatic). There would be no predator-prey pairs, the vegetation could sustain itself with the energy from sunlight. So simple.

Going back to the OP, there is no excuse.

I once cared for someone who had that condition where they had no ability to feel.

Ongenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis I believe its called - I had to google the spelling. this individual had sustained some nasty burn to their hand, while cleaning the inside of the oven one of the top elements was left on and they weren’t aware of this until they smelt burning flesh. They had to have skin grafts, microsurgery, leech therapy as the graft didn’t take and will face months, perhaps years of physio and will never have a fully functioning hand again. It doesn’t hurt, but the patient ironically stated that it was “pain in the ar…”

Its assainine to think some kind of higher form of life, animal, man, could function without this valuable assert we need pain, its an early warning system.

But I do have to say I find it so amusing when people with atheist leanings * start goign on about hwo the human body would function better if only something was missing or if this bone was in that place. If they’re so convinced about the ease of creation of humanity and the mechanics of it, have it, make a better mousetrap.

It was like the atheist who told me a ball and socket joint would work better instead of the C spine as it currently is… they of course, couldn’t explain where the spinal cord would pass through and what would protect it.*

 

[tonyrey]

.

But I do have to say I find it so amusing when people with atheist leanings * start goign on about hwo the human body would function better if only something was missing or if this bone was in that place. If they’re so convinced about the ease of creation of humanity and the mechanics of it, have it, make a better mousetrap.

It was like the atheist who told me a ball and socket joint would work better instead of the C spine as it currently is… they of course, couldn’t explain where the spinal cord would pass through and what would protect it.*
It is facile to suggest piecemeal improvements but to design an entire coherent system is a far different proposition - which has never been accomplished! When challenged there is no response…

 

[Spock]

I once cared for someone who had that condition where they had no ability to feel.

Ongenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis I believe its called - I had to google the spelling. this individual had sustained some nasty burn to their hand, while cleaning the inside of the oven one of the top elements was left on and they weren’t aware of this until they smelt burning flesh. They had to have skin grafts, microsurgery, leech therapy as the graft didn’t take and will face months, perhaps years of physio and will never have a fully functioning hand again. It doesn’t hurt, but the patient ironically stated that it was “pain in the ar…”

Its assainine to think some kind of higher form of life, animal, man, could function without this valuable assert we need pain, its an early warning system.

But I do have to say I find it so amusing when people with atheist leanings * start goign on about hwo the human body would function better if only something was missing or if this bone was in that place. If they’re so convinced about the ease of creation of humanity and the mechanics of it, have it, make a better mousetrap.

It was like the atheist who told me a ball and socket joint would work better instead of the C spine as it currently is… they of course, couldn’t explain where the spinal cord would pass through and what would protect it.*
You points are not bad, but you did not dig deep enough.

The early warning system is a good principle. The implementation, however is not so good. Consider the excruciating pain a tooth decay brings and contrast it to the total lack of pain of cancer in the early stages. Cancer is much more dangerous, and in the early stages it can be handled. Yet, there is no early warning system there. Why not? A planaria can be cut in half, and both sides regenerate. Rodents have their teeth regrow, even if they lose some. The whole animal kingdom offers great examples for improvement, yet, we, the “kings of creation” exhibit none of them.

You say that it is “asinine” to assume that it is possible to have a highly complicated system without pain. That is just an unsubstantiated assumption. There is no logical reason why higher level thinking processes cannot be developed in a different medium. A being made out of metal would need no pain. Its components could be replacable. A much better solution for an engineer.

About 95% of all the microbes are either beneficial or neutral. The remaining 5% which cause the diseases could be eliminated without any negative side effects. As it turns out, those are “mistakes”, since they can kill the host, in which they dwell. The successful ones are the ones which live in symbiosys with their host, and both parties benefit from the relationship.

Let’s face it: “we are made of lousy material with shoddy workmanship”. So much for the “perfect” creation.

 

[Shin]

Life is a priceless gift. Being given that gift, whatever pain you experience in it, on the material level, does not outweigh the value and gift of existence.

Therefore, God creating animals which feel pain, and endure pain for varying lengths of time does not outweigh the gift of life itself.

And so pain, being not a moral evil in and of itself, is perfectly acceptable as a part of creation.

 

[tonyrey]

Life is a priceless gift. Being given that gift, whatever pain you experience in it, on the material level, does not outweigh the value and gift of existence.

Therefore, God creating animals which feel pain, and endure pain for varying lengths of time does not outweigh the gift of life itself.

And so pain, being not a moral evil in and of itself, is perfectly acceptable as a part of creation.

Although pain is not a moral evil in itself the fact that God permits it does introduce a moral dimension.

In individual lives there seems to be an excessive amount of pain which outweighs its value but it is impossible for us to know precisely how much pain others experience. What we do know is that there are limits to what can be endured before one becomes unconscious. That is why it fails as a disproof of God’s goodness. The immense value of existence for the vast majority of living beings justifies our belief in a loving Father.

 

[GEddie]

It was like the atheist who told me a ball and socket joint would work better instead of the C spine as it currently is… they of course, couldn’t explain where the spinal cord would pass through and what would protect it.

Not only atheists have such “moments.”

I have often wondered why our bodies were not made to synthesize vitamin C, like most other mammals. This gives us a nasty pathway of death (scurvy) that dogs, cats, etc, are free from.

However, I accept that our psychikon soma was just not made to live eternally and leave it at that.

But a ball-and socket instead of a neck??? What would happen to such a body when the head popped out of place the way shoulders often do? And what would keep persons from becoming permanently crippled when the “neck” of their head’s ball-joint eroded with age?

Many apparent design flaws in our psychikon soma are really not such at all.

Happy Holidays and ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

You points are not bad, but you did not dig deep enough.

The early warning system is a good principle. The implementation, however is not so good. Consider the excruciating pain a tooth decay brings and contrast it to the total lack of pain of cancer in the early stages. Cancer is much more dangerous, and in the early stages it can be handled. Yet, there is no early warning system there. Why not?

Cancer begins as our own body-cells, and of course we have no defense against our own cells.

If your immune cells were triggered by cells in your own body, you’d have autoimmune disease, which is equally hideous and potentially fatal as cancer.

And in a natural world, tooth decay is dangerous, since it is near the brain. The severe pain does have a survival value.

A planaria can be cut in half, and both sides regenerate.

A planarian hemibody is far less complex than a human hand or leg, and requires far less matter to regrow. There’s really no comparison.

And it would do you no good to be able to regrow a hemibody, since if divided in this way, you would bleed to death at once.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Although pain is not a moral evil in itself the fact that God permits it does introduce a moral dimension.

In individual lives there seems to be an excessive amount of pain which outweighs its value but it is impossible for us to know precisely how much pain others experience. What we do know is that there are limits to what can be endured before one becomes unconscious. That is why it fails as a disproof of God’s goodness. The immense value of existence for the vast majority of living beings justifies our belief in a loving Father.

There are limits to the possible intensity of pain, but not to its duration at a lower intensity. So the question remains.