Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[ateista]

God does allow only necessary pain and suffering. But only He knows what “necessary” means as He means it.

And you know this… how? Why is the suffering of animals “necessary”? Why is the suffering of children “necessary”?

Actually, it can be attributed to (your: “blamed on”) man’s free will to have chosen sin over God in Eden!

That won’t wash. To allow innocents to suffer cannot be justified, and the animals are definitely innocent of any wrongdoing. Obviously God is not powerful to create an environment where only the guilty will suffer but the innocents will not. Or maybe he just did not care?

Our environment was created for us with various inherent dangers, such as atmospheric electricity and non-planetary rubish on collision courses with earth’s big pools of water, which we have to deal with.

Yep, sloppy work.

What is your REAL argument? That God as “Good God” can’t exist because a God who allows “seemingly (to you)” unecessary pain and suffering would be an EVIL God?

Not just to “me”. To anyone who is willing to look at the facts with a critical eye.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Your error above is in your use of the “for the afflicted”.

Pain is morally justifiable where necessary, where “necessary” means the pain is a prerequisite for achieving a greater good FOR A PERSON or PERSONS, and NOT “for the afflicted”.

I disagree with your assessment. From your reasoning it would follow that inflicting even necessary of person “A” in order to achieve some greater good for person “B” is morally justifyable.

Please re-write your “formulation” above so that it makes some sense.

You SEEM to be saying that it’s morally justifiable to harm innocent person “A” for the “greater good” of some other possibly innocent person “B”.

It’s never permissible to harm an innocent person. Period.

It IS permissible to harm an innocent animal for the greater good of a person or persons, though. That is the very premise of animal-based FOOD.

 

[ateista]

So, you can’t believe in a “Good God” because you don’t understand how what you see as “neglect” is not neglect as God sees it!?

If you don’t feed the hungry (when all you would have to do is snapping your imaginary fingers), then yes, you are guilty of neglect. If you expose the innocents to pain, then yes, you are guilty of neglect.

In other words, you’re yet another believer in the concept that because the universe is not perfect God can’t possibly exist.

Can’t possibly be “good”.

You demand that God prove that He is “good”, as you understand “good”, to you PERSONALLY!

If the word “good” means one thing when applied to humans, and means something totally different when applied to God, then the word is meaningless.

The typical materialist, or scientistic materialist, gripe is that he needs proof before he will believe. That is his right, but it is precisely backward in matters regarding God.

If there would be proof, there would be no need for “belief”, then there would be knowledge.

One either believes revelation and applies it, or believes what is applied (by agents) and considers that revelation (“revealed knowledge/truth”).

It is senseless to argue that God is good, or even exists, with one who doesn’t believe in revelation.

That is very true. The problem is the lack of revelation. There is no “revelation”, there is just an ancient book with so many scientific absurdities that it is not even funny. A true revelation would be crystal clear, it would be impossible to “misinterpret”, it would not contain contradictions.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
God does allow only necessary pain and suffering. But only He knows what “necessary” means as He means it.

And you know this… how? Why is the suffering of animals “necessary”? Why is the suffering of children “necessary”?

You don’t know this because you don’t believe in revelation.

I do because I do.

The suffering of animals is necessary, when it IS necessary, as determined by God and not by me, because animals are for our use and do not properly suffer per se but are given perfect mercy by God, thus “repaying their suffering” as only God can do.

Now, if WE decide incorrectly that some suffering we inflict on an animal is necessary, then WE pay for our sin of putting our desire before God’s will.

Children learn as do all people, which is by way of experience, which has a high probability of being suffering. Suffering which teaches others is repaid by God’s mercy in His time to him who had suffered.

Once again, the overiding idea in all this is that, “God alone decides what necessary suffering is.” But in any case, we are not to play God and inflict suffering on persons or things as a triviality.

 

[ateista]

With MATH!

What branch of math? Arithmetics? Algebra? Calculus? Game theory?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Actually, it can be attributed to (your: “blamed on”) man’s free will to have chosen sin over God in Eden!

That won’t wash. To allow innocents to suffer cannot be justified, and the animals are definitely innocent of any wrongdoing. Obviously God is not powerful to create an environment where only the guilty will suffer but the innocents will not. Or maybe he just did not care?

Once again, I don’t argue matters like these with believers in “the illusion of revelation”.

People who are disappointed with the reality which exists and would prefer one that is utterly centered on them will always be distraught that “God is so cruel”, and that they aren’t “allowed” to be God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What is your REAL argument? That God as “Good God” can’t exist because a God who allows “seemingly (to you)” unecessary pain and suffering would be an EVIL God?

Not just to “me”. To anyone who is willing to look at the facts with a critical eye.

So, to you, God does not exist because if He did He would necessarily be evil, and you just can’t bring yourself to accept that God is evil?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
So, you can’t believe in a “Good God” because you don’t understand how what you see as “neglect” is not neglect as God sees it!?

If you don’t feed the hungry (when all you would have to do is snapping your imaginary fingers), then yes, you are guilty of neglect. If you expose the innocents to pain, then yes, you are guilty of neglect.

If you don’t EXIST then how can you feed the hungry? Isn’t that your real question?

The way that God feeds the hungry is by prompting the not-hungry to feed the hungry.

God DOES feed the hungry! Where do you think FOOD comes from, and where do you think His “tools” to feed the hungry (us) come from?

From God.

Could it be that it’s WISER to have not-hungry people feed hungry people than to simply “make everyone not-hungry”?

I feel for your sense of despair that “the world isn’t run by me (you) and isn’t perfect because it isn’t”, but might it not be healthier to deal with REAL reality?

 

[ateista]

You SEEM to be saying that it’s morally justifiable to harm innocent person “A” for the “greater good” of some other possibly innocent person “B”.

No, I don’t say that. You implied it, but now you clarified your position.

It’s never permissible to harm an innocent person. Period.

Well, then you have another task. There are innocent children who suffer and die due to lack of rain or random diseases. In this existence they get no reward. You may argue that their reward will come in the afterlife (which does not carry a lot of weight), but more importantly you would have to prove that their suffering is necessary to be rewarded in heaven.

In other words, you have to bring up arguments which prove that if those children died in a quick and painless manner, they would not get rewarded. No reward justifies the prior suffering (retroactively), if there is no logical reason which couples the suffering to the reward.

It IS permissible to harm an innocent animal for the greater good of a person or persons, though. That is the very premise of animal-based FOOD.

Which is not necessary, even though our dentition makes us omnivorous. We could survive on vegetable based food, too.

But I was not talking about a quick way to kill the animals for food. I was talking about the senseless and painful death or random animals in disasters.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
In other words, you’re yet another believer in the concept that because the universe is not perfect God can’t possibly exist.

Can’t possibly be “good”.

So CAN God exist as “not good”? (To you, of course.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You demand that God prove that He is “good”, as you understand “good”, to you PERSONALLY!

If the word “good” means one thing when applied to humans, and means something totally different when applied to God, then the word is meaningless.

Why?

It is often good for an adult to cross a busy street by himself.
It is seldom good for a toddler to cross a busy street by himself.

(( How’s it going Agnostheist!? ))

Is it really wise to be so literal, and think you know precisely what you’re talking about when your use of words is obviously flawed?

May your dictionary-olotry be overcome, my friend.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
One either believes revelation and applies it, or believes what is applied (by agents) and considers that revelation (“revealed knowledge/truth”).

It is senseless to argue that God is good, or even exists, with one who doesn’t believe in revelation.

That is very true. The problem is the lack of revelation. There is no “revelation”, there is just an ancient book with so many scientific absurdities that it is not even funny. A true revelation would be crystal clear, it would be impossible to “misinterpret”, it would not contain contradictions.

That is why those who claim (but can’t truly believe) that there is no revelation from God are so angry, despairing and hopeless.

They demand instant perfection when all that is available is reality. A very frustrating situation for worshippers of “instant perfection”, who can’t deal personally with reality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
With MATH!

What branch of math? Arithmetics? Algebra? Calculus? Game theory?

The branch dealing with TRUTH.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It’s never permissible to harm an innocent person. Period.

Well, then you have another task. There are innocent children who suffer and die due to lack of rain or random diseases. In this existence they get no reward. You may argue that their reward will come in the afterlife (which does not carry a lot of weight), but more importantly you would have to prove that their suffering is necessary to be rewarded in heaven.

It is simply axiomatic that if the suffering IS allowed by God, then it is necessary suffering, and rewarded by God when He sees fit.

If their suffering is caused by the culpable sin of others (or another) then those others need to repent of their sin and be forgiven or have their sin drag them to hell.

In other words, you have to bring up arguments which prove that if those children died in a quick and painless manner, they would not get rewarded. No reward justifies the prior suffering (retroactively), if there is no logical reason which couples the suffering to the reward.

You are over formulating.

If one is innocent, and suffers, then one is rewarded as an innocent who suffered.

If one is innocent, and doesn’t suffer, then one is rewarded as an innocent who didn’t suffer.

All innocents are rewarded, period. Their actual reward is ALWAYS the most merciful and loving reward.

You seem to be beating about the bush to prove SOMETHING! What is that “something” you’re trying to prove?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It IS permissible to harm an innocent animal for the greater good of a person or persons, though. That is the very premise of animal-based FOOD.

Which is not necessary, even though our dentition makes us omnivorous. We could survive on vegetable based food, too.

You may choose to be vegetarian. “Omnivorous” means “eats everything” and animals are our food.

It IS permissible to harm innocent animals to make them food. Period.

But I was not talking about a quick way to kill the animals for food. I was talking about the senseless and painful death or random animals in disasters.

Senseless to whom? To you?

Painful ainful death inflicted by WHOM? By humans being sadistic? By humans nourishing themselves? By our environment (nature) which God created for us?

So, to you, it is a proof of the nonexistence of God, or a proof that God is evil, that it’s possible that animals can “senselessly (as defined by you)” suffer?

 

[Benadam]

But I was not talking about a quick way to kill the animals for food. I was talking about the senseless and painful death or random animals in disasters.

What about the death of spiders? Caterpillars or even tree’s?

An injustice requires a victim. What constitutes victimhood? Surely a blade of grass isn’t a victim is it? What about a tree? Can it claim an injustice because of the forest fire God allowed? Wouldn’t an injustice require a victim?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

What about the death of spiders? Caterpillars or even tree’s?

An injustice requires a victim. What constitutes victimhood? Surely a blade of grass isn’t a victim is it? What about a tree? Can it claim an injustice because of the forest fire God allowed? Wouldn’t an injustice require a victim?

Only persons who aren’t non-incarnate God can be victims, of course. And only persons who aren’t God can be victimizers.

The victim of an abusive and evil act of sadism on an animal is the non-God person who does such a thing. God is simply incapable, axiomatically, of doing evil, and is capable of being a victim only in His incarnation.

 

[Benadam]

Only persons who aren’t non-incarnate God can be victims, of course. And only persons who aren’t God can be victimizers.

The victim of an abusive and evil act of sadism on an animal is the non-God person who does such a thing. God is simply incapable, axiomatically, of doing evil, and is capable of being a victim only in His incarnation.

Ateista is thinking certain living creatures are victims? Or all living creatures? Or does the sense attributed to a nervous system constitute victimhood? I wonder where the line is drawn for bodily damage caused by movements of matter allowed by God constitutes an injustice

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ateista is thinking certain living creatures are victims? Or all living creatures? Or does the sense attributed to a nervous system constitute victimhood? I wonder where the line is drawn for bodily damage caused by movements of matter allowed by God constitutes an injustice

Ateista is fundamentally incorrect, of course, in that no animal is ever a victim. You probably agree with me about that.

Ateista is stuck with arbitrariness in his distinctions. And that is his downfall in this argument.

I’m on your side, Benadam.

 

[Benadam]

Ateista is fundamentally incorrect, of course, in that no animal is ever a victim. You probably agree with me about that.

Ateista is stuck with arbitrariness in his distinctions. And that is his downfall in this argument.

I’m on your side, Benadam.

Yup, and I’m really just adding my thoughts that your argument has inspired that I would like ateista to consider .

 

[ateista]

What about the death of spiders? Caterpillars or even tree’s?

An injustice requires a victim. What constitutes victimhood? Surely a blade of grass isn’t a victim is it? What about a tree? Can it claim an injustice because of the forest fire God allowed? Wouldn’t an injustice require a victim?

In order to experience pain, one needs a nervous system. Plants have no nervous system, but animals do. A tree does not feel pain, if one of his branches is broken or it is uprooted by a hurricane. A spider feels pain if one of its legs is torn off. The difference is the nervous system, which allows to feel pain and pleasure.