Why do animals suffer?

[Bill_Cherry]

Animals are?
Sentient: Yes
Intelligent: No
Have a will: No
Subject to the laws of nature: Yes
Subject the Natural Law: No

The answers for the above points for humans are all yes. Animals and humans are hardly “just like us”.

Suit yourself. My dog is very smart. He can even make decisions and he knows when he has done wrong and some times even tries to hide the evidence. Seems fairly intelligent to me. At least as intelligent as a four or five year old child. And he is definitely strong willed. Some might assign this to his breeding (He’s a Healer- he likes to “round things up”) But, I know other animals that are just as similar in behavior and the are of different breeds. I notice you are making a distinction between “laws of nature” and “Natural Law” - enlighten me please!
Otherwise, he gets sick, and stung by wasps and soak and wet when it rains…and he is getting older and will die. Just like me. Sometimes he is sad. Although, I am pretty sure he lives just to make me and my family happy. I wish I could remain as steadfast and loyal in my relationship with Jesus as my dog does with me.
I am inclined to believe you have never had a real pet. One that you can actually be “friends” with. As a matter of fact, Our Holy Father is said to be just as passionate about his cats.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Hmmm… Interesting, David, then that chimps have less thatn 2% difference from us in DNA. I guess that that is God"s 2%? And what about Oliver, the “humanzee?”

Love Schrodingers cat in your signature!!!

 

[severus68]

Animals are?
Sentient: Yes
Intelligent: No
Have a will: No
Subject to the laws of nature: Yes
Subject the Natural Law: No

The answers for the above points for humans are all yes. Animals and humans are hardly “just like us”.

I have to agree wth Billy Cherry. Animals are suject to natural law, the law of nature, same thing. They are inteligent maybe a single celled amoeba not so much but then not all humans are intelligent. I do agree they have no free will and so cannot sin. Like us they are part of God’s creation.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I have to agree wth Billy Cherry. Animals are suject to natural law, the law of nature, same thing. They are inteligent maybe a single celled amoeba not so much but then not all humans are intelligent. I do agree they have no free will and so cannot sin. Like us they are part of God’s creation.

I haven’t been called “Billy” since I was 12! Thank you for the compliment by the way!

 

[severus68]

I haven’t been called “Billy” since I was 12! Thank you for the compliment by the way!

Oops so sorry Bill and you are most welcome. Just what I believe.

 

[tonyrey]

Hmmm… Interesting, David, then that chimps have less than 2% difference from us in DNA. I guess that that is God"s 2%? And what about Oliver, the “humanzee?”

What does that prove?

 

[Detales]

What are you guys who always want proof? Lawyers or something? Proof doesn’t mean a blessed thing, as we know from some grave mistakes made in judicial systems. And how do you prove that you smell a rose? Or that you feel love? You can’t even prove that Jesus was, except by pointing to ink on paper. You can’t even prove most of the things of your life, except by a memory that is questionalble. And the “world” you live in is consensual and habitual. Try dropping yourself somewhere you don’t know the language, and where there is snow or sand only, or something you don’t know how to deal with. Or the law is Muslim, or not derived from English maritime law. Truth, other than that God IS, is limited and relative. And God is the ultimate FACT, and no one can even prove that.

What about just wondering about something? I mean, here was this chip, genetically a chimp, yes, who shunned other chimps, always walked upright, had astounding intelligence, and so on and so forth. He was part of a family, even, Your proofs, Tonyrey, are in a very small realm of intellection, and work by leaving things out. Even a perfect syllogism may be absolutely valid, but not true. And even those can be reduced to general forms, “proving” that there is a layer before contents, called, perhaps, “idea.”

I think it is great, Tonyrey, that you have a belief system that allows you to cope with the world. But you gotta remember, that such things work, as our minds generally do, by excluding more than they include. They may be valid, but that is a far cry from Universally and ALL inclusively True.

Why does our “animal” suffer? Because we tend to uncritically accept a handed down. questionable, limited world view that is a deterioration of an actual method of transformation that can reveal the glorification of the animal, your animal, as a vehicle for the Divine. Read, if you haven’t, the second quote in my signature. I find it curious that in all of these fora where suffering was mentioned, no one has made a comment on that statement.

Why do you take something, religion, any religion, that is contents in your mind as the fundamental reality of your world, when you have not yet examined the container? Did not the container precede the contents? Is not the container allegedly made in the image and likeness of God? If that image is accurate, would it not tell you something about God if you looked in the mirror of Self inquiry? Why do so may dismiss what is the sole/soul and ancient method of discovering a Way from belief and the suffering of separation from God? Why not do deliberately what “hard knocks” do by accident? The veil is so thin, yet, who penetrates it with a simple question to find that they were always already on the other side? This is always already the “other” wold, save for your thoughts that it is Earth, and you have to earn something that you already are, but don’t* see*. You may yet experience pain, but you need not have suffering.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

**You know…this is actually sort of a stupid question…
No offense. But, think about it. Why do humans suffer? Because we are in distress. Pain. We feel sorrow. It is the same for animals.

Since animals are part of the same creation and therefor experience the same objective reality as humans (as opposed to the subjective reality of humans) then why would they not experience distress? They would be inanimate then.

I suppose that would then make them ‘inanimals’.**

 

[Detales]

I’ll say it again. I think that there is, for humans, at least, a distinction between pain and suffering. Suffering is thoughts about pain. Gandhi had his appendix out w.out anesthetic. I mean, it has much to do with mental stance. And I’m certainly not advocating not using analgesics or anesthetics, thank goodness we have them! I’m just pointing to an aspect of our awareness which I’m not sure animal awareness overlaps or not. I kind of get the “meatbot” idea, but don’t completely concur with it.

 

[JDaniel]

There can be but one answer: animal suffering is, when caused by men, a measure of the goodness in men. If a man knowingly allows an animal to suffer, how does that make us think of him. And, if we think of him as a kind of slime, unworthy of life among decent people, how do you think God thinks of him?

In the wild, suffering is almost always short-lived. Besides, I think God has provided a higher pain awareness threshold to the animals than to humans. But, this is not the purpose of this thread, I think. The purpose of this thread is to amalgamate each of us into understanding that we must proceed in two directions over this: (1) we must NOT commit animals to suffer; and, (2) we must do all that we can to stop, or prevent, animal suffering when we see it.

jd

 

[Detales]

Yes, and that is inextricably tied with how we treat the “Human animal.” What universal remedy might be aplicable to the question?

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I’ll say it again. I think that there is, for humans, at least, a distinction between pain and suffering. Suffering is thoughts about pain. Gandhi had his appendix out w.out anesthetic. I mean, it has much to do with mental stance. And I’m certainly not advocating not using analgesics or anesthetics, thank goodness we have them! I’m just pointing to an aspect of our awareness which I’m not sure animal awareness overlaps or not. I kind of get the “meatbot” idea, but don’t completely concur with it.

:ehh: say what?

kpeople:**I do in no way condone the following example. I am using it only to illustrate a point!:compcoff:

See that cat which may or may not be in that box? Strike it really hard with a stick.(assuming it is there) If it doesn’t react in some fashion…and I am not talking about Newtons laws of motion…**then it probably didn’t feel anything. If it screams in pain and runs away…it probably felt something. How can one possibly place the sentience of an animal in the abstract? Is it possible that it is a subconscious form of protecting oneself from the guilt of cruelty?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

:ehh: say what?

kpeople:**I do in no way condone the following example. I am using it only to illustrate a point!:compcoff:

See that cat which may or may not be in that box? Strike it really hard with a stick.(assuming it is there) If it doesn’t react in some fashion…and I am not talking about Newtons laws of motion…**then it probably didn’t feel anything. If it screams in pain and runs away…it probably felt something. How can one possibly place the sentience of an animal in the abstract? Is it possible that it is a subconscious form of protecting oneself from the guilt of cruelty?

if a roomba senses a step or a wall it avoids it. it senses a “danger” and “runs”, entirely as a matter of its deterministic programming, though an animals systems are much more sophisticated, i dont see any real difference that gives them the ability to “suffer” as detales describes it, any more than a roomba suffers. i assure you that if my roomba “screamed in pain and runs away”, i would no more interested in assigning it “suffering” than i am when the cat does so.

such arguments completely rely on anthropomorphism. because they seem like us they are like us, not a rationally objective position.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

There can be but one answer: animal suffering is, when caused by men, a measure of the goodness in men. If a man knowingly allows an animal to suffer, how does that make us think of him. And, if we think of him as a kind of slime, unworthy of life among decent people, how do you think God thinks of him?

In the wild, suffering is almost always short-lived. Besides, I think God has provided a higher pain awareness threshold to the animals than to humans. But, this is not the purpose of this thread, I think. The purpose of this thread is to amalgamate each of us into understanding that we must proceed in two directions over this: (1) we must NOT commit animals to suffer; and, (2) we must do all that we can to stop, or prevent, animal suffering when we see it.

jd

Yes, and that is inextricably tied with how we treat the “Human animal.” What universal remedy might be aplicable to the question?

If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
Francis of Assisi

 

[Bill_Cherry]

if a roomba senses a step or a wall it avoids it. it senses a “danger” and “runs”, entirely as a matter of its deterministic programming, though an animals systems are much more sophisticated, i dont see any real difference that gives them the ability to “suffer” as detales describes it, any more than a roomba suffers. i assure you that if my roomba “screamed in pain and runs away”, i would no more interested in assigning it “suffering” than i am when the cat does so.

such arguments completely rely on anthropomorphism. because they seem like us they are like us, not a rationally objective position.

**:yukonjoe: Hmm. Let’s think about this.

npatrol: Calling the Vatican…come in Vatican…do you readme?

This is the vatican. Go ahead.**

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2002/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020329_via-crucis_en.html

SIXTH STATION
Jesus is Scourged and Crowned with Thorns

V.Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.

R.Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.

From the Gospel according to Mk 15,17-19
The soldiers clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. And they began to salute him:
“Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.

MEDITATION

O Christ, you are the true King, yet men mocked you and gave you a crown not to adore but to deride you. We suffer with you because people are blind and deaf to your message of salvation. Your Kingdom is not of this world, but we humans look for honour, power, success, wealth: a world without suffering. Yet we inflict pain upon others, even the unborn, even animals. By your sacrifice you taught us to break the cycle of violence. True man, you bore unspeakable pain; contemplating your face, we find strength to bear our sorrows, in the hope of finding welcome in your Kingdom, the true and only Kingdom.

Yeah. I’m pretty sure that the Church teaches us that animals feel pain. And, again, I say, that the lines are getting muddled.

 

[JDaniel]

There can be but one answer: animal suffering is, when caused by men, a measure of the goodness in men. If a man knowingly allows an animal to suffer, how does that make us think of him. And, if we think of him as a kind of slime, unworthy of life among decent people, how do you think God thinks of him?

In the wild, suffering is almost always short-lived. Besides, I think God has provided a higher pain awareness threshold to the animals than to humans. But, this is not the purpose of this thread, I think. The purpose of this thread is to amalgamate each of us into understanding that we must proceed in two directions over this: (1) we must NOT commit animals to suffer; and, (2) we must do all that we can to stop, or prevent, animal suffering when we see it.

jd

Just so that everyone knows, I am not a member of PETA. My belief system is a slight drop off from normality, not a plummet! God bids us to have dominion over the animals, not to subjugate them as Michael Vick, and his friends, did.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**:yukonjoe: Hmm. Let’s think about this.

npatrol: Calling the Vatican…come in Vatican…do you readme?

This is the vatican. Go ahead.**

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2002/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020329_via-crucis_en.html

SIXTH STATION
Jesus is Scourged and Crowned with Thorns

V.Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.

R.Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.

From the Gospel according to Mk 15,17-19
The soldiers clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. And they began to salute him:
“Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.

MEDITATION

O Christ, you are the true King, yet men mocked you and gave you a crown not to adore but to deride you. We suffer with you because people are blind and deaf to your message of salvation. Your Kingdom is not of this world, but we humans look for honour, power, success, wealth: a world without suffering. Yet we inflict pain upon others, even the unborn, even animals. By your sacrifice you taught us to break the cycle of violence. True man, you bore unspeakable pain; contemplating your face, we find strength to bear our sorrows, in the hope of finding welcome in your Kingdom, the true and only Kingdom.

Yeah. I’m pretty sure that the Church teaches us that animals feel pain. And, again, I say, that the lines are getting muddled.

and thats fine that they do, pain is simply another deterministically driven mechanism, no different than the warning system a roomba uses to avoid dangerous situations. animals are simply deterministically driven meatbots. the moment you assign anything other than that to them, you are anthropomorphising them. that is simply an emotional reaction, not a rational position.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

and thats fine that they do, pain is simply another deterministically driven mechanism, no different than the warning system a roomba uses to avoid dangerous situations. animals are simply deterministically driven meatbots. the moment you assign anything other than that to them, you are anthropomorphising them. that is simply an emotional reaction, not a rational position.

There are times when I wish that I could just turn off my dog. But I can’t find the battery compartment. If I were to ‘anthropomorphise’ my buddy, Then I would be putting tacky sweaters on him and trying to use him as a tax write off. Maybe even register him to vote. But, he is just a dog. And he knows when he has done something wrong. He even has gone so far as to try and hide the evidence so I don’t see it. As I type this he is tapping his food bowl with his paw and sort of softly half way barking. I think he is telling me he is hungry. Can your ‘roomba’ do that? Does your ‘roomba’ hide when it runs over a power cord and cuts it? Or when it gets on the carpet, catches a string and unravels part of the rug? Does it know it has made a mistake? Is it aware of it own existence? If you tried to kill it,…would it defend itself?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There are times when I wish that I could just turn off my dog. But I can’t find the battery compartment. If I were to ‘anthropomorphise’ my buddy, Then I would be putting tacky sweaters on him and trying to use him as a tax write off. Maybe even register him to vote. But, he is just a dog. And he knows when he has done something wrong. He even has gone so far as to try and hide the evidence so I don’t see it. As I type this he is tapping his food bowl with his paw and sort of softly half way barking. I think he is telling me he is hungry. Can your ‘roomba’ do that? Does your ‘roomba’ hide when it runs over a power cord and cuts it? Or when it gets on the carpet, catches a string and unravels part of the rug? Does it know it has made a mistake? Is it aware of it own existence? If you tried to kill it,…would it defend itself?

of course a roomba does none of these things, animals are simply a more sophisticated system. given the appropriate programming and processing systems a roomba would be capable of the same “behavior”

to be clear when i talk about anthropomorphization, i mean the following.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anthropomorphism

an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm) KEY

NOUN:

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

of course a roomba does none of these things, animals are simply a more sophisticated system. given the appropriate programming and processing systems a roomba would be capable of the same “behavior”

to be clear when i talk about anthropomorphization, i mean the following.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anthropomorphism

an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm) KEY

NOUN:

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Well, then, I guess that would better describe the animation of Bugs Bunny and the Big Bad Wolf and such. Animals already have similar motivations, characteristics, and behaviors. No body has to ascribe these things to animals. One merely has to observe an animal to recognize them. I am more inclined to believe that your use of the word “anthropomorphism” is somewhat disingenuous. I am not a psychologist. But, it seems as if you are simply in denial. Which is understandable. Particularly if you really like eating meat. Possibly even believing that you would become unhealthy or even die with out it. But, the recovering drug addict doesn’t die, as neither does the recovering alcoholic or ex smoker. All of whom may have believed they would
Which is not to imply that the consumption of animal flesh is wrong. Only that even though the human condition is influenced by ‘original sin’, we are still relatively compassionate beings by nature. We are hardened (our hearts become 'hard- sort of like bad spiritual cholesterol) over the course of our lifetimes by negative experiences and such as a means of coping with the harsh realities we encounter on a daily basis…