J
JMMJ
Guest
Hmmmm… When I slammed that car door on my dog’s tail he yelped, cried, and generated tears. I am pretty sure it hurt and caused him pain and suffering.
Last edited:
There is no doubt that animals react to external stimula, but this does not prove that feel pain or any other kind of sensations similar to ours. Also my phone reacts to my vocal commands, but this does not mean it feel any auditory perception.Hmmmm… When I slammed that car door on my dog’s tail he yelped, cried, and generated tears. I am pretty sure it hurt and caused him pain and suffering.
But now you’re forced to choose between solipsism and panpsychism. Recognizing that any position in-between is totally subjective. Personally, even as a solipsist, I recognize that lacking evidence to the contrary, the reasonable position is to assume that seemingly sentient beings, actually are, and therefore treating them with the compassion that such sentience deserves, is the prudent thing to do. The Catholic position however, is to assign higher level sentience simply in a manner that portrays God in the most favorable light. It would seem to be a rather odd juxtaposition, that lacking absolute proof, the solipsist would choose to act more compassionately than the theist.Compassion has nothing to do with the present issue; according to your logics, the assumtion that rocks don’t suffer would not be compassionate.
Nah. I get your expression of your beliefs.I think you may be projecting, in response to my beliefs as I share them.
Catholics believe we come into the world broken and with a need to be fixed.
So… you get that these two are mutually exclusive, right? If “not broken”, then “perfect.” But hey – as a Catholic, I get it that deviations from Catholic theology tend toward incoherence. (Sorry.).I also don’t believe humans are perfect.
I think you misread what I wrote. I’ll try again: it’s patently obvious, when someone expresses their faith, that the context is “what I believe”. Obvious, that is, to the point that explicitly saying “I believe that…” is superfluous. Asserting that it’s necessary feels, well… kinda pedantic.I am glad you understand the importance of saying “I believe” before teaching someone what you believe.
He ‘cried’? Anthropomorphize much?When I slammed that car door on my dog’s tail he yelped, cried, and generated tears. I am pretty sure it hurt and caused him pain and suffering.
Nope. According to the creation narratives, it wasn’t that God looked and said “perfect!”, but rather, “very good.”But was that God’s original intent…that we be perfect from the outset?
No. The Church doesn’t teach utopianism. (Some non-Catholic Christian denominations made this part of their interpretation of the Book of Revelation – namely, that the “thousand year” period was a time during which humanity would perfect themselves in anticipation of the eschaton. As it turns out, the global events of the twentieth century kinda took the bloom of that rose, and this kind of utopianism was largely abandoned.)Isn’t it Catholic teaching that we’re on a journey to perfection, or some such thing.
Yes… and no.And if it’s exactly what God intended, then isn’t it perfect…suffering, death and all?
Thanks! I got to squeeze one more in, before CAF goes dark!Oh, and happy anniversary.
Would you mind sharing a source or two meltzerboy?However, in Judaism, the practice of judging Gd Himself is not unknown, especially on the day of Yom Kippur.
There’s an interesting philosophical point to be made here. With luck, emotion won’t get in the way of it, although I have my doubts…Animals are innocent for the most part, why should they suffer because humans failed?
Sacred Scripture and psychology aren’t mutually exclusive.I
believe in psychology.
Unless its true. Then not teaching them about it is a horrible thing.Please know teaching small children that they arrive into the world as damaged is a horrible thing to do.
The feeling of bodily pain or pleasure in animals and humans comes from the sense of touch which God created animal nature with for a purpose. Animals are not rocks but are living beings of flesh, blood, and bone. Through the sense of touch, animals know what to avoid because it causes pain and what to pursue if it causes pleasure. Animals avoid fire because burning hurts otherwise if they didn’t have the sense of touch they could potentially walk through fire and get burned up and die or severely injured. Animals mate because mating which involves the sense of touch is pleasurable. Prey naturally flee from predators because being attacked and bit or chewed on hurts. The sense of touch in animals and humans and the pleasure or pain which arises from it is there for survival. A human can’t go naked up in the mountains in a blizzard for very long and expect to survive or not get frostbite.The is a substantial literature on the suffering of non-human animals. You can Google it. There is no doubt that they experience pain and suffering.
That a loving God would allow such a thing is a major challenge to the Christian belief system.
Saying it does not exist is not an answer.
You should consider that we are already able to build devices which can establish what to avoid without feeling anything; the “sense of touch” (if you refer to our tactile perception) is not necessary for our devices to work, and certainly it is not necessary for God’s “devices” as well. You should be aware that your idea that animals feels pain or pleasure is only an assumption, which is not necessary to explain animal behavior or their reactions to external stimula.The feeling of bodily pain or pleasure in animals and humans comes from the sense of touch which God created animal nature with for a purpose. Animals are not rocks but are living beings of flesh, blood, and bone. Through the sense of touch, animals know what to avoid because it causes pain and what to pursue if it causes pleasure.
Christianity doesn’t intend to offer a satisfactory explanation for the mystery of suffering. What we can do is acknowledge that suffering happens. And at the same time we can acknowledge that it is good to exist.One of the many things I have not had satisfactorily answered on CAF is how a loving God could impose pain and suffering on animals as a result of original sins with no countervailing prospect of eternal life.
Animals don’t intend to commit evil. Agreed. They might by instinct pursue an action that has a result that we classify as evil.Well regardless of you’re saying here, animals are a lot more “innocent” than humans, wouldn’t you agree with that at least?
Why not? …Christianity doesn’t intend to offer a satisfactory explanation for the mystery of suffering
To be clear, Christianity does attempt to explain suffering, but not in the sense of giving a definitive materialist answer as to why and how suffering exists. If nothing else, Christianity at least admits suffering realistically.goout:![]()
Why not? …Christianity doesn’t intend to offer a satisfactory explanation for the mystery of suffering