What you feel is the meaning of brutal and senseless suffering?

[johnnyjones]

The consciouness of an animal is not the consciousness of a human. As well we say “suffering” but many animals and even humans go into a protective state of shock or numbness. Most animals go for the throat causing a quick death attacking other animals. Sometimes they are shaken to snap the neck. Is it suffering? I suppose momentarily.

Many of us do ask, why not bliss? Just a pefect indestructible body with no discernable weakness. I think Christianty as opposed to popular movements is about self sacrifice. Jesus himself was born to suffer. I would say the overwhelming thrust of scripture and the lives of the saints is suffering.

The reality is everything breaks down. But could a univerese exist that perpetually remains stagnant? I guess God could do that but the choice was different.
“Fearfully and wonderfully made” says the bible. Maybe intricacy and marvel was the aim which in turn is frail. That model was needed for all to become dust anyway and the living soul (man) to enter into Gods realm. A third heaven if you will.

The thing about suffering is that it ends, however long and brutal. The Holocaust, abducted children etc. are all very hard for me. God knew all this at creation. It does hurt but the mind of God is not the mind of man. Something deeper we may never know on this earth.

 

[andremiguel]

The consciouness of an animal is not the consciousness of a human. As well we say “suffering” but many animals and even humans go into a protective state of shock or numbness. Most animals go for the throat causing a quick death attacking other animals. Sometimes they are shaken to snap the neck. Is it suffering? I suppose momentarily.

Many of us do ask, why not bliss? Just a pefect indestructible body with no discernable weakness. I think Christianty as opposed to popular movements is about self sacrifice. Jesus himself was born to suffer. I would say the overwhelming thrust of scripture and the lives of the saints is suffering.

The reality is everything breaks down. But could a univerese exist that perpetually remains stagnant? I guess God could do that but the choice was different.
“Fearfully and wonderfully made” says the bible. Maybe intricacy and marvel was the aim which in turn is frail. That model was needed for all to become dust anyway and the living soul (man) to enter into Gods realm. A third heaven if you will.

The thing about suffering is that it ends, however long and brutal. The Holocaust, abducted children etc. are all very hard for me. God knew all this at creation. It does hurt but the mind of God is not the mind of man. Something deeper we may never know on this earth.

Moving post. thanks.

 

[andremiguel]

The problem with this is that there were animals for billions of years before people were around to sin. It is simply not possible that an all-loving all-powerful God could allow such suffering as we see in the fossil record to occur. Animals have, according to Catholic teaching, no immortal souls, so there can be no compensation. And they are innocent. It is also not conceivable that an all-knowing God who communicates with people would not explain these points, were he to be there, and were there to be an explanation. remember we are talking about a God that thought it worthwhile to pass on the information, through the church, that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, and a 14-year-old boy can go to hell for masturbating,and that the Father and son are consubstantial as distinct from ‘one in being’. It is simply inconceivable that a God who would bother to explain that would not address the issue of suffering in a way which could be understood. In my view this single issue is the greatest weakness of Christianity and the many writings on ‘the problem of pain’ manage to sidestep the tough questions in favour of advice on how to feel OK about suffering.

You are putting too many questions in the basket.
Let’s face it: we are in the same boat, believers and unbelievers. We all suffer, we all die. Now, I, as a believer, say that I trust in God, I believe in God though I suffer, I will die, I see the suffering of the world. And I do not understand it and I am trying to understand like here. But, not understanding or trying to understand, I stick to my belief to God. There must be a reason that I do not understand.

Now, what is your option? God is too powerful and too intelligent and too good and there must be a reason OR you think that the suffering and the death proves that God does not exist?

Foreseeing, I think that non believing in God brings other problems…But I would like to hear your option what is.

 

[Hokomai]

The consciouness of an animal is not the consciousness of a human. As well we say “suffering” but many animals and even humans go into a protective state of shock or numbness. Most animals go for the throat causing a quick death attacking other animals. Sometimes they are shaken to snap the neck. Is it suffering? I suppose momentarily.

Many of us do ask, why not bliss? Just a pefect indestructible body with no discernable weakness. I think Christianty as opposed to popular movements is about self sacrifice. Jesus himself was born to suffer. I would say the overwhelming thrust of scripture and the lives of the saints is suffering.

The reality is everything breaks down. But could a univerese exist that perpetually remains stagnant? I guess God could do that but the choice was different.
“Fearfully and wonderfully made” says the bible. Maybe intricacy and marvel was the aim which in turn is frail. That model was needed for all to become dust anyway and the living soul (man) to enter into Gods realm. A third heaven if you will.

The thing about suffering is that it ends, however long and brutal. The Holocaust, abducted children etc. are all very hard for me. God knew all this at creation. It does hurt but the mind of God is not the mind of man. Something deeper we may never know on this earth.

So what is your response to the famous comment of Charles Darwin?

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.

 

[Hokomai]

You are putting too many questions in the basket.
Let’s face it: we are in the same boat, believers and unbelievers. We all suffer, we all die. Now, I, as a believer, say that I trust in God, I believe in God though I suffer, I will die, I see the suffering of the world. And I do not understand it and I am trying to understand like here. But, not understanding or trying to understand, I stick to my belief to God. There must be a reason that I do not understand.

Now, what is your option? God is too powerful and too intelligent and too good and there must be a reason OR you think that the suffering and the death proves that God does not exist?

Foreseeing, I think that non believing in God brings other problems…But I would like to hear your option what is.

Well, I do not say that innocent suffering proves there is no god or gods - just that it proves there is no all-loving, all-powerful God. he is clearly not all-loving, since he allowed the suffering we see in the fossil record before there was any sin, or not all-powerful, since he did not stop it. People who argue that animal suffering is not suffering have an awful lot of animal welfare science to overcome.

 

[Hokomai]

The consciouness of an animal is not the consciousness of a human. As well we say “suffering” but many animals and even humans go into a protective state of shock or numbness. Most animals go for the throat causing a quick death attacking other animals. Sometimes they are shaken to snap the neck. Is it suffering? I suppose momentarily.

Your opinion on the ‘protective state of shock’ is not based on any science I have ever heard of. This is one of the most studied areas in science. Animals do suffer, and in ways that are measurably similar to the way we suffer. What about animals that die of starvation with a broken limb? Or cancer? Or who are slowly eaten by parasites? If you are a believer, you should be able to reconcile your belief with these relaities. If you cannot, how can you believe in an all-loving and all-powerful God?

 

[reconman]

Well, I do not say that innocent suffering proves there is no god or gods - just that it proves there is no all-loving, all-powerful God.

He is (in my opinion) all powerful. But I agree, He is not all loving (at least not by logic that a human can understand). He couldn’t possibly be. Since He allows suffering of some people, and others not, that is the only conclusion that can be reached.

He loves some, and therefore spares them this suffering, others He does not. It is inexplicable.

 

[gabjus]

Well, I do not say that innocent suffering proves there is no god or gods - just that it proves there is no all-loving, all-powerful God. he is clearly not all-loving, since he allowed the suffering we see in the fossil record before there was any sin, or not all-powerful, since he did not stop it. People who argue that animal suffering is not suffering have an awful lot of animal welfare science to overcome.

I love animals and I think that they suffer too.

1. Sin (or evil or whatever you want to call it) existed before humans exist, since Satan fell before earth was created.
2. The fact that animals do not have souls do not mean that they will not be in heaven. The same animals I mean, since it is conclusive that there will be animals in heaven.
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14030 This thread seems to think its at least possible.

Suffering exist → God is either 1) not all-powerful, 2) not all-loving or 3) not all-knowing (maybe this should be included in the all powerful part) is a logically strong argument against the existence of such a God that has been used for a very long time.
However, what constitutes ‘all-loving’ is extremely hard to define and to be agreed upon. One of the most common counter-arguments (I’m neither affirming nor denying it, its just an example) is that ‘giving someone a choice’ (which naturally includes a choice to reject oneself) is more loving that ‘not giving someone a choice’.

 

[chosen_people]

My research has led me to understand that every single item on this list was and is done by the exact same group of people throughout history. When I found a copy of the Talmud on the internet a few years back, and read it, I realized that the Talmud instructs the
Askenazi Rabbis to do these sorts of things to anyone who is a ‘non-jew’. It allows child molestation and demands that all these horrors be done in a way that is ‘unperceived’’ or else God is not pleased with the offering. I have a list of some pretty horrifying quotes from this book that would shock people. The sad part is that the people who have been controlling our nation and our world through ‘banking’ (with our stolen money) are of this ‘religion’. It is actually satanism. Michael A. Hoffman II has delved into this subject on his website revisionisthistory.org . The number of Christians who support this veiled satanism is saddening. They are misled and need to read the uncensored Talmud but they don’t. This Talmud and the people who follow it are not the Hebrew Tribe of Judah, but they are Khazarian. The is the synagague of Satan, those who say they are jews but are not. They lie. The weed and the wheat grow together for a time. But then there comes the End of Time and the reaper separates the wheat from the chaff. Meanwhile, we are to wait with patience and hopeful expectation, maintaining our own purity and not questioning God’s ways.

I hope you realize that you didn’t read the Talmud but an anti-Semitic tract on an anti-Semitic website with the same validity as the protocols of the elders of Zion and similar works.
see: talmud.faithweb.com/

What I find truly remarkable is that there are so many Gentiles, so easily convinced to believe any negative thing about Jews, no matter how nonsensical. So just the set the record straight: That super advanced field hospital that Israel set up within 48 hours after the Haiti earthquake - no organ harvesting. 9/11 - not us. Using blood of murdered Christian children for religious religious rituals and baking matzah - not true.

To be fair the stuff here about us in this link is true (but please don’t spread it around)
youtube.com/watch?v=W-C3UYq-UxA

 

[Hokomai]

I love animals and I think that they suffer too.

1. Sin (or evil or whatever you want to call it) existed before humans exist, since Satan fell before earth was created.
2. The fact that animals do not have souls do not mean that they will not be in heaven. The same animals I mean, since it is conclusive that there will be animals in heaven.
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14030 This thread seems to think its at least possible.

Suffering exist → God is either 1) not all-powerful, 2) not all-loving or 3) not all-knowing (maybe this should be included in the all powerful part) is a logically strong argument against the existence of such a God that has been used for a very long time.
However, what constitutes ‘all-loving’ is extremely hard to define and to be agreed upon. One of the most common counter-arguments (I’m neither affirming nor denying it, its just an example) is that ‘giving someone a choice’ (which naturally includes a choice to reject oneself) is more loving that ‘not giving someone a choice’.

I often think of Anglicanism as a heroic attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable - and i think it is most laudable. Catholics do not agree with you about animals, except possibly through re-creation. Your argument about Satan is interesting, but it suggests that God created animals and us, with the intent that we suffer for satan’s sin. Possible, I suppose, but not standard Christianity.

 

[johnnyjones]

So what is your response to the famous comment of Charles Darwin?

I wouldn’t hold Darwin’s comment higher up than anyone else who wants to comment on the topic of suffering. Darwin posed many conundrums including, "Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? Of course he went on to answer in his own speculative way.

You might ask are the pain receptors of insects on a compatible level with higher life forms. Also make sure not to equate brutality with pain. My answers can not justify the thriving horrors around us.

 

[johnnyjones]

Your opinion on the ‘protective state of shock’ is not based on any science I have ever heard of. This is one of the most studied areas in science. Animals do suffer, and in ways that are measurably similar to the way we suffer. What about animals that die of starvation with a broken limb? Or cancer? Or who are slowly eaten by parasites? If you are a believer, you should be able to reconcile your belief with these relaities. If you cannot, how can you believe in an all-loving and all-powerful God?

I’m sure a fellow of your intellect is aware of a condition known as shock. I use the word "protective’ because that’s what it seems to do. There is case upon case of humans being attack and even partially devoured by animals who say they felt nothing during the incident. Some report being in a type daze accompanied by numbness if they still had consciousness.

I don’t deny suffering. Working in a hospital for years I’ve seen cancer patients given the legal amount of morphine hourly which only worked for seemingly minutes. To reconcile the age old questions of God and suffering makes me God, and one that can solve the mysteries of the universe. You can look at a maggot eaten brain and see horror, which it is. You can also look at your own body and if it is working well be astounded.

By what right do we make the in- betweens of life and death the way we want them?

Yes animals suffer. And there is plenty to show why animals are attacked in various ways to minimize that. Broken limbs, starvation, parasites come and they go. Do they suffer forever? Maybe love is in death. You can stomp your feet as Job demanding answers.
Some like yourself may say I will not believe in a God until I get the answers I want, and that’s okay, your free to do that. Personally I go back to the issue of creation, simplify it, and work from there. I am not a person of great faith, just faith the size of a mustard seed.

 

[Hokomai]

I wouldn’t hold Darwin’s comment higher up than anyone else who wants to comment on the topic of suffering. Darwin posed many conundrums including, "Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? Of course he went on to answer in his own speculative way.

You might ask are the pain receptors of insects on a compatible level with higher life forms. Also make sure not to equate brutality with pain. My answers can not justify the thriving horrors around us.

And indeed they do not. But your belief in a loving God who allows it for an undefined reason and does not share the reasoning with us cries out for explanation. Yours is a God who reveals, through his Church, that The Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father, but from the Father and the Son. He reveals, though his Church, that people cannot enter it, unless they are baptised through immersion or sprinkling or pouring of water. Wipe the water, and you are not in, but out! But while he can reveal things of that order, he has somehow overlooked explaining suffering to us.

I do not accept, by the way, that different forms of life are ‘higher’ and ‘lower’. They are simply different adaptations. I accept that different forms have different levels of awareness of different sensations. There is no reason to think that insects do not experience worse pain that us.

 

[Hokomai]

I’m sure a fellow of your intellect is aware of a condition known as shock. I use the word "protective’ because that’s what it seems to do. There is case upon case of humans being attack and even partially devoured by animals who say they felt nothing during the incident. Some report being in a type daze accompanied by numbness if they still had consciousness.

And what happened to them next?

Some like yourself may say I will not believe in a God until I get the answers I want, and that’s okay, your free to do that. Personally I go back to the issue of creation, simplify it, and work from there. I am not a person of great faith, just faith the size of a mustard seed.

That is not quite what I say. I cannot conceive of an answer that would explain how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow the suffering of innocents. That leads to a definite conclusion that such a God does not exist. It does not preclude the possibility that other Gods, or spiritual processes such as reincarnation occurring. My efforts in discussion are not to find an answer to an impossible question, but to understand why and how people continue to believe in the face of such an impossibility. The ‘why’ I get. We unbelievers experience mortality without hope of immortality. We know why others prefer the idea of immortality. It means you won’t die. the ‘how’ this is believed, on the other hand, continues to baffle me, despite the kind efforts of those on CAF who try to help me see.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

[T]he ‘how’ this is believed, on the other hand, continues to baffle me, despite the kind efforts of those on CAF who try to help me see.

At least you seek an answer! We pray for your discernment …

 

[johnnyjones]

And indeed they do not. But your belief in a loving God who allows it for an undefined reason and does not share the reasoning with us cries out for explanation. Yours is a God who reveals, through his Church, that The Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father, but from the Father and the Son. He reveals, though his Church, that people cannot enter it, unless they are baptised through immersion or sprinkling or pouring of water. Wipe the water, and you are not in, but out! But while he can reveal things of that order, he has somehow overlooked explaining suffering to us.

I do not accept, by the way, that different forms of life are ‘higher’ and ‘lower’. They are simply different adaptations. I accept that different forms have different levels of awareness of different sensations. There is no reason to think that insects do not experience worse pain that us.

If you are not a vegetarian then life forms are lower. You wouldn’t eat a human, but possibly a cow or fish. If you are a vegetarian (or not) and you eat off the vine that food source is alive according to some. Native Americans believe plants feel pain and respect that prior to consumption. There are some that feel fruit and vegetables are sentient beings unable to defend themselves. Silly? Maybe not.

There are tribal people who know nothing of Christianity who have a regular diet of insects. They may be causing much pain to the suffering insects. Studies have concluded it is more likely insects respond to impulses rather than “pain” though. The level of consciousness is a factor as well. Basically insects are responding to stimuli. You are not required to "accept’ this but some study on the subject may help.

As far as being “not in” with God upon some form of rejection you may have to get into a discussion about truth. If you got on a plane and the pilot told you he was flying to Florida for example, and you asked what is your flight path and he responded it doesn’t matter, no matter how we fly we’ll get there. That would not only be odd but wrong. If there is a God there can only be one and he would have to be true. Truth is universal. Everywhere you go in the world 1+1=2. It may be linguistically different but it is 2.

From a biblical standpoint suffering is a result of sin. We have corrupted the natural order of things and suffer the results of that.

 

[johnnyjones]

And what happened to them next?
They either lived to report it or died. End of suffering.

That is not quite what I say. I cannot conceive of an answer that would explain how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow the suffering of innocents. That leads to a definite conclusion that such a God does not exist. It does not preclude the possibility that other Gods, or spiritual processes such as reincarnation occurring. My efforts in discussion are not to find an answer to an impossible question, but to understand why and how people continue to believe in the face of such an impossibility. The ‘why’ I get. We unbelievers experience mortality without hope of immortality. We know why others prefer the idea of immortality. It means you won’t die. the ‘how’ this is believed, on the other hand, continues to baffle me, despite the kind efforts of those on CAF who try to help me see.

My question to follow up yours about being unable to “conceive an answer”. What if something far greater than you can comprehend doesn’t care what you think? I don’t say that sarcasticly but just as a matter of contemplation. One must admit accompanying the horrors of the world are also staggering complexities and wonders. Only your thoughts (and many others) do not lead to a “definite conclusion that such a God does not exist.” They are just conceived ideas that you can’t explain. The origin odf the universe can not be answered with certainty. Does that mean it didn’t happen or it doesn’t exist?

I can’t make you “see” because I am short many of the answers myself. Maybe our minds are limited to not understand because we already have enough suffering. My intent is not to come off nasty to you so please take no offense.

 

[Hokomai]

My question to follow up yours about being unable to “conceive an answer”. What if something far greater than you can comprehend doesn’t care what you think? I don’t say that sarcasticly but just as a matter of contemplation. One must admit accompanying the horrors of the world are also staggering complexities and wonders. Only your thoughts (and many others) do not lead to a “definite conclusion that such a God does not exist.” They are just conceived ideas that you can’t explain. The origin odf the universe can not be answered with certainty. Does that mean it didn’t happen or it doesn’t exist?

I can’t make you “see” because I am short many of the answers myself. Maybe our minds are limited to not understand because we already have enough suffering. My intent is not to come off nasty to you so please take no offense.

None taken! . I have been wrong in my thinking before (about half an hour ao was the last time, I think) so it is entirely possible I am wrong about this. But there are three objections I am raising to the idea of an all-knowing and all-loving God. The first two are that the widespread suffering of innocent animals and innocent people shows that God is either not all-powerful, or all-loving, or both. The third objection is that if a God was all-powerful and all-loving, and the suffering we observe occurs, such a God would have explained the reason you believe ‘must be there’. To that, Catholics reply that God does not need to do what we want. Indeed. But their God is one who, through his Church, tells us about the difference between ‘consubstantial’ and ‘one in being’, and just how much gluten is required for transubstantiation. Such a God could not possibly leave us in ignorance of any reason for suffering.

 

[Hokomai]

From a biblical standpoint suffering is a result of sin. We have corrupted the natural order of things and suffer the results of that.

Only if you are a young earth creationist. In reality, hundreds of billions of animals suffered before people existed and were able to sin.

 

[johnnyjones]

Only if you are a young earth creationist. In reality, hundreds of billions of animals suffered before people existed and were able to sin.

Please take a look at post 56 regarding some other issues.

But as to young earth or theistic evolution ,the animals suffering in the theistic evolution model are going through a process. The view is that God needed time to make all we have now so the suffering more aptly fits. With a young earth you have suffering but on a far less scale. Sin and it’s destructive nature also makes more sense. I suscribe to the latter view. What would you imagine could be the opposite of a loving God and suffering?

The lion laying down with the lamb, right? That is the true biblical concept that has been allegorized. What is the alternative to life sustaining foods? Bodies that don’t require food? Then you have no pleasure in eating and the wide variety associated with that. What would we be? How would pleasure be derived? Even in my human mind I can’t fathom bliss on earth.

You can’t have free will without there being an opposite to good which is evil. Maybe you cant’ have bliss without it’s opposite, suffering.