A Religious Question for Christians on a Sunday Afternoon re. Animal Suffering

[null]

Why did god build a system where billions of animals suffer through no fault of their own?

If animals can morally be allowed to suffer because they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future, is it therefore moral for people to make christians suffer today, because they are also due to get restitution in the future?

i.e. Does future restitution justify current suffering (across the board)?

[assumptions: God makes the rules. God allows the suffering.]

If yes, then we descend into an anti-biblical "moral" moral free-for-all where making people suffer is ok i.e. God is wrong.

If no, making animals suffer is unjust i.e. God is wrong.

Either way God is wrong.

Or are the universal morality lines all kind of squiggly

Is animal suffering lesser "struggle-suffering"?

​

 

[Chrishaune]

1 star

 

[African Peasant]

Low effort.

Do better

 

[MMS]

If animals can morally be allowed to suffer because they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future, is it therefore moral for people to make christians suffer today, because they are also due to get restitution in the future?

this is basically Islam's take on Christianity

if the veil is becoming like food (this is why the desire/phrase to be "like God" is misleading in more than one way)

reality inverts

in other beliefs like Judaism animals don't have souls like people because it only explicitly states that God breathed in to the mans nose the breath of life, it doesnt say he breathed into the animals "noses" the breath of life

thats kinda shocking but in games like "Diablo" almost all the animals are evil/demonic so take that how you will (except for cows, chickens, and some insect species)

IE say that cooking food had nothing to do with keeping you from getting sick but rather the food is at odds with you whether you cook it or not. So the logic isn't cook it to kill the bacteria/parasites but to keep hellfire over the animals until they are subdued forever

Surah Al-Baqarah - 1-286 - Quran.com

Read and listen to Surah Al-Baqarah. The Surah was revealed in Medina, ordered 2 in the Quran. The Surah title means "The Cow" in English and consists...

quran.com

 

[null]

if the veil is becoming like food (this is why the desire/phrase to be "like God" is misleading in more than one way)

analogies are illustrational examples but are not in and of themselves proof though.

 

[Wargames]

I stopped eating meat partly for this reason and because I think meat is a major carcinogenic. I converted to a pescatarian cause fish seem to be mostly unintelligent. It wasn’t cause I thought they had a soul (I am not even sure humans have souls) but birds and mammals seem to be more intelligent than people like to admit and suffer from birth to death to be consumed by us.

 

[null]

join the campaign to get negs increased to -10

 

[invalid]

If animals can morally be allowed to suffer because they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future

how did you come to this conclusion?

in addition, when you say "God builds a system", the system was free will. and free will *brings* sin and suffering. consequences. what is the point of free will, if you don't allow cause and effect?

in other beliefs like Judaism animals don't have souls like people because it only explicitly states that God breathed in to the mans nose the breath of life, it doesnt say he breathed into the animals "noses" the breath of life

this is generally the christian - protestant/catholic view as well (not sure about orthodox) although "stewardship" of the earth and all that is therein presupposes "ethic".

 

[null]

how did you come to this conclusion?

why do animals suffer?

in addition, when you say "God builds a system", the system was free will. and free will *brings* sin and suffering. consequences. what is the point of free will, if you don't allow cause and effect?

animals have "free will"?

 

[invalid]

why do animals suffer?

animals have "free will"?

answer my queries first kind sir which are clarifying because your position begins with flawed assumptions.

 

[null]

answer my queries first kind sir which are clarifying because your position begins with flawed assumptions.

what you quoted is NOT a conclusion

animals don't have free will reasoning capacity, so universal free will has nothing to do with them.

 

[invalid]

what you quoted is NOT a conclusion

this is a conclusion:

they will get a reward or restitution (as individuals) in the future

of this:

If animals can morally be allowed to suffer

because of this:

because

animals don't have free will reasoning capacity, so universal free will has nothing to do with them.

i agree. that "free will reasoning capacity" wasn't directed at the animals. you're almost close to filling in the gaps.

 

[null]

this is a conclusion:

of this:

because of this:

i agree. that "free will reasoning capacity" wasn't directed at the animals. you're almost close to filling in the gaps.

that is not an operative "because". the "because" is part of the conditional

operative example: my laptop no longer works because i dropped it.

conditional example: if cats were dogs because of a miracle then cats would be dogs.

in the second sentence the "because" is not ME implying causation i.e. i think a miracle happened, it is part of the scenario being presented.

it is not saying that i believe in "miracles".

similarly me stating "if god created the system because of love" does not mean that i believe that or am even concluding that. it is me using the conditional of a commonly held position.

if i were stating a conclusion i would not start with "if".

i would simply say "god created the system because of love".

not sure why i have to say this .. but then again american uni insisted we all did EWR so i get it

 

[MMS]

why do animals suffer?



animals have "free will"?

unless you have been behind the eyes of the animal how would you know?

for each question, in either case

the image of God is not found amongst them, they copy sexuality but only on biological timers. So its arguable they are like higher dimensional robots that you dont fully perceive

as I said in another thread, is it paws to the earth or their claws to the earth?

 

[MMS]

analogies are illustrational examples but are not in and of themselves proof though.

what do you "need" proof of

this is why the Quran states that some beings will never believe, and it will cause them to be near the fire.

Ezekiel 20:26 Hebrew Text Analysis

Nimrod proclaims to Abraham that we should worship fire. Abraham responds that water puts out fire. So Nimrod declares they worship water. Abraham responds that clouds hold water. So Nimrod declares they worship clouds. Abraham responds that wind pushes clouds. So Nimrod declares they worship wind. Abraham responds that people withstand wind.

Nimrod becomes angry with Abraham and declares that Abraham shall be cast into the fire, and if Abraham is correct, i.e. that there is a real God, then that God will save him. Abraham is cast into the fire and is saved by God.

if one or more of these entities arent people

what are they?

Calypso (mythology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Genesis 15:11 Hebrew Text Analysis