So here's an interesting question Indi came up with the other day. But before we get to talkin about it, we have to make some stuff clear.
The problem of evil and soul-making
The problem of evil is maybe the oldest and definitely the most famous objection to the existence of God there is. The simple version of it goes like this:
If God exists, he is really, really powerful and a good guy. If he's a good guy, he doesn't want people to suffer. If he's powerful, he has the ability to stop people from suffering. But people suffer. Why? Because he can't stop it? Then he's not really powerful. Because he doesn't want t stop it? Then he's not really good. So either God's not really all that powerful, or he's an evil bastard. Or he doesn't exist at all.
For thousands of years, no one has been able to solve the problem of evil, although tons of people have tried. Eventually, every attempt to solve it degenerates into "God moves in mysterious ways" - which is a cowardly way to solve the problem that abandons all reason.
Normally discussion stops there, cause if you want to say "God moves in mysterious ways", you can have God do anything you want and you never have to explain it. But today, we gonna to take one extra step, and take one of those answers that degenerates to "God moves in mysterious ways" head on.
The idea of this answer is called "soul-making". It's basically this: evil exists because, for whatever reason, unknown to us, it is really, really important to God that we experience evil and suffering, as part of some process that is sometimes called "soul-making". God's ultimate goal is to condition our "souls" in some way to make them ready for some higher, ultimate purpose, and the only way to do it is to have those souls suffer a bit. Of course, when you ask why it's so important, and why God can't just make souls already made with that ultimate purpose in mind, you get the standard answer: "God moves in mysterious ways".
So it's not really a solution to the problem of evil, but it's the one used in one form or another by pretty much every major monotheistic religion. Now I've totally simplified everything and skipped out most of the details, but that's ok cause I'm not really interested in talkin about the problem of evil right now. Just keep in mind that the idea is that the reason humans suffer is because for some mysterious godly reason that they have to in order to get their "souls" made ready for something in the "next life".
Won't somebody please think of the chicken!
Well that's all fine and mysteriously good, but what about animal suffering? Do animals even suffer?
Why would God make animals suffer? The only reason humans suffer is so their "souls" can be "made". If animals suffer, then they would have to have "souls" too, and they must also be destined for heaven or whatever it is that follows in the next life. But if that's the case, then they must also have to know about God and what they're supposed to be learning while they're suffering - but they have no bibles and no clerics to pass on that knowlege, so they must be born with the knowlege. If that's so, then animals are better than us, because they have everything we have - "souls" and a destiny in the next life - plus they all already have the knowlege of why they are suffering where we all have to figure it out and take it on blind faith.
Now that doesn't really jive with any religion, which leads to the obvious conclusion - animals don't really suffer.
They can't suffer if they don't have a "soul", unless God is a cruel bastard, because the only reason to suffer is to condition a soul. So if they don't have "souls", they don't suffer.
And if they don't suffer, they're no different than rocks, or machines that we make. Which means that animal rights is a farce and animal cruelty is a stupid idea - you don't see any groups organized to combat cruelty against rocks, do you?
Therefore, anyone who believes in God... wouldn't believe in animal rights.
Is there anyway to argue for animal rights while still believing in God? What about the religions that believe in not harming anything and not eating meat, but still believing in a higher power?*animesweatdrop*
From everything I've heard God is NOT all powerful at all, and angels make human souls, not God. We are considered God's children because he made the first angel, the angel made other angels, and thsoe angels made humans and other things. most animals do have souls, have you ever heard of the idea of Otherkin? (once I get my webpage on that up and running I'll give you a link) The idea of otherkin is the idea that an animal or other being is incarnated within a human body, and some people are actually animals.
You should check out my post on the story of the beginning, it explains MY beliefs. The beliefs given to me by an otherkin guy who says he's an angel, who's taught me for almost a year now and gives me so much random life-changing philosophy I can't put to words how much my thinking has changed. I wish he'd get done with HIS bible of teachings though... 
the preacherlady who stopped me told me
that orgionally before noah and his ark everyone was veggie.
but then after that we wetn carnivorous. dont ask me why.
which leads me to a question, what did the carniverous anmals eat on the ark?
| Lobo23 wrote: |
| What about the religions that believe in not harming anything and not eating meat, but still believing in a higher power?*animesweatdrop* |
If they have the same problem of evil, and solve it in the same way, then their beliefs don't make any rational sense.
| Lobo23 wrote: |
| From everything I've heard God is NOT all powerful at all, and angels make human souls, not God. We are considered God's children because he made the first angel, the angel made other angels, and thsoe angels made humans and other things. |
If God isn't all that powerful, then what's the point in worshipping it? I mean, seriously, if there's a child stepping out into the road in front of a car, I have the power to prevent that child from getting hurt. If God doesn't, then you should be worshipping me, because I can do more to keep you safe than it can.
Whatever your religion, it has to explain why evil exists. If it can do that without running into the problem of evil, then none of this applies. Not every religion has the problem of evil.
| Lobo23 wrote: |
| most animals do have souls, have you ever heard of the idea of Otherkin? |
Yeeeessss, but if animals have their own souls, then they're better than humans, because unlike humans - who have to learn about God and then have to choose to live the life right - the animals would right away.
On the other hand, if animals have human souls in them that don't have the special pre-knowlege, then you'd be doin them a favour by killing them, because either those souls are in holding pattern until they get into humans so they can learn about God or they've already been humans and are now bein put in animals rather than moving onto the next life - which implies punishment.
Since I dunno the details, I can't offer detailed comment - but if it's your religion, it's not my responsibility to think it all out for you anyway. It's yours. Why don't you consider why evil exists and what the status of animals is in your religion?
| Yantaal wrote: |
| which leads me to a question, what did the carniverous anmals eat on the ark? |
Bah, Noah's ark is one of the stupidest bible stories there is - on just about every level: logical, moral, physical, zoological.
But of course people have tried to figure out the answer to that question, and they've come up with some amusing turds. Like, for example, that all the animals were vegetarians back then, too. Or just that God magically made it happen somehow in some unspecified way. If you don't wanna take the story metaphorically, then it's up to you to choose which way you want to surrender your intelligence until you can believe it.Just a thought:
What if you said that you didn't need any knowledge of God in order to go to heaven?
Think about the people who have never been exposed to the concept of God. Do you think God would be understanding about this? Especially if they have done no real wrongs and have tried to do what they thought was best for themselves and others around them.
If he was, and you didn't need to be knowledgable about God in order to get into heaven, then it goes to say that animals wouldn't need to know about God either. So they could have souls, and since they suffer, they have a place in heaven too.
Would this be a plausible theory?
P.S. My kitty cat is watching me type this... I think he knows what I'm up to, Lol.
| laurenrox wrote: |
Just a thought:
What if you said that you didn't need any knowledge of God in order to go to heaven?
Think about the people who have never been exposed to the concept of God. Do you think God would be understanding about this? Especially if they have done no real wrongs and have tried to do what they thought was best for themselves and others around them.
If he was, and you didn't need to be knowledgable about God in order to get into heaven, then it goes to say that animals wouldn't need to know about God either. So they could have souls, and since they suffer, they have a place in heaven too.
Would this be a plausible theory?
P.S. My kitty cat is watching me type this... I think he knows what I'm up to, Lol. |
Excellent question. First, let me offer this story as the first part of the answer:
| Annie Dillard wrote: |
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
"No," said the priest, "not if you did not know."
"Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?" |
On a larger scale: if God really were even a remotely benevolent being, and if it is true that those who do not know will go to heaven by default...
...
... then he wouldn't have revealed himself to us.That's where the suffering comes in, isn't?
But then that brings the question to mind - Would we still be suffering if we had no knowledge of God?
I hesitate with saying this next statement because I understand it as I thought but I'm not sure how to put it into words, so if this is unclear, just say so and I'll try to phrase it better.
Perhaps God revealing himself had something to do with us finding our paths through him/her/it.
If it is God who lets people suffer or indeed causes the suffering , directly or indirectly then to God its the same as you pulling a splinter from a childs finger, a God would have a bigger picture of the game of life and its fleeting place in eternity
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| If it is God who lets people suffer or indeed causes the suffering , directly or indirectly then to God its the same as you pulling a splinter from a childs finger, a God would have a bigger picture of the game of life and its fleeting place in eternity |
Did you even bother to read the contents of this topic, or did you just read the first two paragraphs and get bored?
That last sentence is just rephrasing the quote, "God works in mysterious ways." We've already established that God is creating the suffering, but why? | laurenrox wrote: |
That's where the suffering comes in, isn't?
But then that brings the question to mind - Would we still be suffering if we had no knowledge of God?
I hesitate with saying this next statement because I understand it as I thought but I'm not sure how to put it into words, so if this is unclear, just say so and I'll try to phrase it better.
Perhaps God revealing himself had something to do with us finding our paths through him/her/it. |
All that may be true, but if it is the case that it was somehow necessary for God to reveal himself to humans, why not animals?
That's really the problem question here. Either animals already know about God while we have to learn about him... which puts us on a lower scale. Or animals do not already know about God and are condemned to the same fate as humans who don't know... which raises all kinds of problems. Or the question is irrelevant because animals don't have souls, and thus they can't suffer.
It sounds to me like you're going for option 2 - that animals do have souls and are on the same level as humans who do not know about God. Is that right? And then also, you're saying that those who have not heard about God end up in heaven by default.
But if that's true, then the best thing God could have done for humanity was keep his mouth shut. Then everyone would go to heaven. Unless God is sadistic, that clearly cannot be the case. So there has to be some benefit to knowing about God. But then animals either cannot - in which case they are all needlessly screwed - or they already do - in which case humans are the ones who are needlessly screwed. | Indi wrote: |
| laurenrox wrote: | That's where the suffering comes in, isn't?
But then that brings the question to mind - Would we still be suffering if we had no knowledge of God?
I hesitate with saying this next statement because I understand it as I thought but I'm not sure how to put it into words, so if this is unclear, just say so and I'll try to phrase it better.
Perhaps God revealing himself had something to do with us finding our paths through him/her/it. |
All that may be true, but if it is the case that it was somehow necessary for God to reveal himself to humans, why not animals?
That's really the problem question here. Either animals already know about God while we have to learn about him... which puts us on a lower scale. Or animals do not already know about God and are condemned to the same fate as humans who don't know... which raises all kinds of problems. Or the question is irrelevant because animals don't have souls, and thus they can't suffer.
It sounds to me like you're going for option 2 - that animals do have souls and are on the same level as humans who do not know about God. Is that right? And then also, you're saying that those who have not heard about God end up in heaven by default.
But if that's true, then the best thing God could have done for humanity was keep his mouth shut. Then everyone would go to heaven. Unless God is sadistic, that clearly cannot be the case. So there has to be some benefit to knowing about God. But then animals either cannot - in which case they are all needlessly screwed - or they already do - in which case humans are the ones who are needlessly screwed. |
I'm not sure I really understand you're train of thought on this one. But my thinking is this:
1) Everything on earth suffers because it lives...
2) Those who haven't been exposed to God (including animals), and have never caused any real harm go to heaven...
3) The point of human beings being exposed to God was to "weed out the baddies". Best way I know how to say it, sorry, =P. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | If it is God who lets people suffer or indeed causes the suffering , directly or indirectly then to God its the same as you pulling a splinter from a childs finger, a God would have a bigger picture of the game of life and its fleeting place in eternity |
Did you even bother to read the contents of this topic, or did you just read the first two paragraphs and get bored?
That last sentence is just rephrasing the quote, "God works in mysterious ways." We've already established that God is creating the suffering, but why? |
So the real question is why does God move in mysterious ways ???
fleeting place in eternity....yes that fits in there
So from Gods point of view how long is eighty years in an eternity ?
If we assume there is a God who causes/or is indirectly the cause of all suffering to humans or animals, we have to assume your existence is bigger than your present existence a "." in a long line of "............"
the real question is why would God give anything a soul or allow any suffering or whats the point of diminishing returns with regard to suffering
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Did you even bother to read the contents of this topic, or did you just read the first two paragraphs and get bored? |
Ouch you poked me with a sword of words.....I suffer (only a little dont get worried 
).... you put your point across, see you answered your own "why" 
Back to what I see as the point.....
Is there anyway to argue for animal rights while still believing in God?
What rights do animals allready have....some animals are protected by law but in general most people give the unwritten right to animals that you should be no more cruel to them than you need to be, you dont cause them to suffer more than you have to
*someone knocks my front door as I am pondering all thats written above*
"Hello" she says holding two lap dogs one in her arm one on a lead "Im from (mumble) dog sanctuary you called about these rescue dogs" ... "Eh!" I reply .. well its not the sort of thing that happens to me everyday.., "yeessssss this is x aaaa rd isnt it" she says ,"No this is x but bbbb rd" I reply , I give her directions as I stroke the little dog in her arm ,I cant help but chuckle inside at the coincidence of me typing about animal rights and someone who is obviously helping with the welfare of animals turns up at my door.....Off she toddles and I sit back down at the pc
I know this has no real context but it was a coincidence and how many times has that been the reply to God moves in mysterious ways, is its just a coincidence, so for a laugh and in the cause of holistisism I google a name meaning site take the top one and type in spaniel....hoping it means "mysterious ways"(I found the thought of that so funny or is that ironic !) anyway it said Not found did you mean "Swapnil" | laurenrox wrote: |
| 1) Everything on earth suffers because it lives... |
Just because? Like, just for the hell of it?
Or, is there a reason for the suffering?
If there is no reason, then God is just sadistic. Why make us suffer if there was no reason for it.
On the other hand, if there is a reason, what is it? Soul-making is the best theology has been able to come up with. And even that is a little weak.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| 2) Those who haven't been exposed to God (including animals), and have never caused any real harm go to heaven... |
That's a troubling philosophy.
If it is true that heaven is pure bliss and hell is pure torment (or even if heaven is just "kinda nice" and hell is just "mildly discomfortable"), and that anyone who has never heard of God or caused any real harm gets to go to heaven... then if you are a compassionate person, the best thing you can do for your newborn baby is kill it. Before it has a chance to do harm or learn about God.
Further, if everyone in every religion was really as good as they claim to be, they should burn their bibles and never speak of their gods again. That way, more people would have more chance of getting to heaven.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| 3) The point of human beings being exposed to God was to "weed out the baddies". Best way I know how to say it, sorry, =P. |
If that were true, then it also must be true that no one who has not heard of God can be a "baddie"... otherwise they would be able to slip through the cracks and get to heaven despite being bad.
But if that is true, then it still makes more sense to prevent people from hearing about God at all costs. Because anyone who has not heard of God cannot be a "baddie".I'm looking at the points i just made as a whole, not individually. I'm concentrating on them working together instead of apart. Some of the things you argued against with one point were explained in another point.
| Quote: |
laurenrox wrote:
1) Everything on earth suffers because it lives...
Just because? Like, just for the hell of it?
Or, is there a reason for the suffering?
If there is no reason, then God is just sadistic. Why make us suffer if there was no reason for it.
On the other hand, if there is a reason, what is it? Soul-making is the best theology has been able to come up with. And even that is a little weak.
|
Suffering would be to prove that reguardless of it, you do what would be best...
| Quote: |
laurenrox wrote:
2) Those who haven't been exposed to God (including animals), and have never caused any real harm go to heaven...
That's a troubling philosophy.
If it is true that heaven is pure bliss and hell is pure torment (or even if heaven is just "kinda nice" and hell is just "mildly discomfortable"), and that anyone who has never heard of God or caused any real harm gets to go to heaven... then if you are a compassionate person, the best thing you can do for your newborn baby is kill it. Before it has a chance to do harm or learn about God.
Further, if everyone in every religion was really as good as they claim to be, they should burn their bibles and never speak of their gods again. That way, more people would have more chance of getting to heaven.
|
Again with going through life to "weed out the baddies"...
| Quote: |
laurenrox wrote:
3) The point of human beings being exposed to God was to "weed out the baddies". Best way I know how to say it, sorry, =P.
If that were true, then it also must be true that no one who has not heard of God can be a "baddie"... otherwise they would be able to slip through the cracks and get to heaven despite being bad.
But if that is true, then it still makes more sense to prevent people from hearing about God at all costs. Because anyone who has not heard of God cannot be a "baddie". |
Again, if they have never heard of God, then they would have ASLO had led a good life.
And I know that you're probably saying, "Well why didn't God just make all of us perfect so there wouldn't be any bad people?" Perhaps because he wanted to give us a choice in it? i'm still not seeing your point. Are you saying that animals go to heaven if they lead a "good life" (assuming that animals do not know about God)? How would an animal lead a "bad life"?
Who said an animal could lead a bad life? Since most animals rely on instinct, then they wont nessicarily have the ability to do anything bad. However, I can think of a couple of things that would make an animal "bad". Maybe a 5 y/o kid was walking around in their back yard and a dog came up and killed him?
Just an example... But animals would have a less of a tendancy to be bad.
Animals understand the God role they must play in this life. They are always in Divine accord, whereas the human free-will element separates us. Animals are just receiving God info 24/7. Humans are not, but can if free-will aligns with Divine accord, which it always does. God is tricky!
Hare Krishna.
Animals are a part of this creation, a creation executed for the benefit of man. Adam and Eve were given dominion over the earth and all its creatures. My only concern for "animal rights" would have to do with how we are measuring up to our stewardship of God's creation.
Many believe in reincarnation, effectively the 'recycling' of spirits. Assuming for a moment that that is true, I'd have to believe animal 'spirits' are potentially upwardly mobile toward a greater existence. If this is the end of that journey for us and we have eternal rest in store; I would hope that the way we consider animals would be in keeping with our connection or kin to them spiritually.
I eat animals and use other products made from what's left over. I have no problem with that. I am troubled by indiscriminate killing, abuse and inappropriate treatment.
| Indi wrote: |
On a larger scale: if God really were even a remotely benevolent being, and if it is true that those who do not know will go to heaven by default...
|
Only if they love others as they love themselves.The most beautiful and benevolent BEING that I have ever met in my life was a large dark black dog (I know not of what breed) who had the brightest purplest aura of any female being I have ever met. (I see benevolent auras on male beings as green and not purple).
She would nuzzle up under my crotch so happily with no knowledge of human gender, just happy to see me. Her owner would scolder her fiercely despite her obvious innocent exuberance, as if she were attacking me, even though I smiled from ear to ear at her loving caresses, with no thought that she was impinging on my balls. The old hag had another dog, her favorite, a lap dog, but I must admit I despised it. I hate soulless feral animal creatures, I stomp on them without remorse, insects nothing more, but a being with a soul I fawn over and pet with great affection. (Even semi-feral insects, such as spiders, I put outside with respect, but soulless ants and moths I crush with a bit of paper.)
Hm, three different points of view on the topic.
| laurenrox wrote: |
Who said an animal could lead a bad life? Since most animals rely on instinct, then they wont nessicarily have the ability to do anything bad. However, I can think of a couple of things that would make an animal "bad". Maybe a 5 y/o kid was walking around in their back yard and a dog came up and killed him?
Just an example... But animals would have a less of a tendancy to be bad. |
No one said that an animal could lead a bad life, but i'm trying to figure out how your ideas apply to animals. You say that a human that has never heard of God can get to heaven only by living a good life. Fair enough. So on the assumptions that animals cannot learn of God and that the same rules apply, then an animal can get to heaven only by living a good life, correct?
But now you're saying that an animal can't lead a bad life - or at the very least, it's really, really hard. Which basically comes full circle, because it means that animals have a better chance of getting to heaven than humans. Basically, you are saying that all animals are going to heaven by default, as long as they act "normally". It takes a really far out action to make them bad enough to not get to heaven. Humans, on the other hand, have a comparatively very difficult time getting to heaven.
In other words, you are saying that animals are better than humans.
(It's a tricky problem, hm?)
| bluedragon wrote: |
Animals understand the God role they must play in this life. They are always in Divine accord, whereas the human free-will element separates us. Animals are just receiving God info 24/7. Humans are not, but can if free-will aligns with Divine accord, which it always does. God is tricky!
Hare Krishna. |
And you also are claiming that animals are better than humans. For some reason, there are two different sets of standards for getting to "heaven", one for humans and one for animals. And we got the bad deal, compared to the animals. All an animal has to do is exist (and not do anything against instinct, according to laurenrox), and they're going to heaven. We, on the other hand, have to struggle, and have a very good chance of failing to make the cut.
| utamnis wrote: |
Animals are a part of this creation, a creation executed for the benefit of man. Adam and Eve were given dominion over the earth and all its creatures. My only concern for "animal rights" would have to do with how we are measuring up to our stewardship of God's creation.
Many believe in reincarnation, effectively the 'recycling' of spirits. Assuming for a moment that that is true, I'd have to believe animal 'spirits' are potentially upwardly mobile toward a greater existence. If this is the end of that journey for us and we have eternal rest in store; I would hope that the way we consider animals would be in keeping with our connection or kin to them spiritually.
I eat animals and use other products made from what's left over. I have no problem with that. I am troubled by indiscriminate killing, abuse and inappropriate treatment. |
Alright, so your position is slightly different (and confusing because it changes twice). You do not give animals any special divine credit, you say they're just there - they're part of the background like trees and rocks. You say that they deserve no special concern, any more than the concern you would give for, say, the ozone layer or the polar ice caps. You wouldn't give a thought to smashing an icicle at the Antarctic, but destroying the entire ice mass is a problem. Similarly, you don't give a thought to butchering a calf for food, but wiping out the species would be a problem. Then you change your tune completely for a minute (which i'll get to in the next paragraph) then come back to say that you're "troubled by indiscriminate killing, abuse and inappropriate treatment". That's fair, but that doesn't make any of those things wrong. For example, i love my guitar and i take good care of it, and it breaks my heart to hear tales of people smashing or burning guitars for the spectacle because i think all instruments have their own musical "personality" and should be cared for, because each is unique and therefore special. So i would never indiscriminately destroy a guitar. But i cannot tell you that you are wrong to do it. i don't like it, and i would never do it, but it's not wrong. It sounds like you are saying the same thing about animals. You don't like (indiscriminate) cruelty to them, and you would never do it, but you can't say it's wrong.
But then you change your tune completely and say that animals do have "souls", in that they (may) harbour the reincarnated (or preincarnated) souls of people. But... if that's the case, is it really right to eat them? You wouldn't eat a human, would you? | Indi wrote: |
| Is there anyway to argue for animal rights while still believing in God? |
That is quite a stretch. Belief in God gives animal rights coherent meaning instead of whimsical capriciousness. Otherwise the only real motivation is simply wanting to save the pretty animals. God help you if you are an ugly animal in the face of atheistic animal rights. Theistic animal rights activists have deeper motives than simply saving the cute and fuzzy ones.
===========================================
As to the problem of evil, that has been covered repeatedly. Evil is necessary for evolutionary purposes, or there would be no incentive to strive for the good and to evolve your spirit. What does good mean without evil? Without evil, goodness becomes utterly meaningless and there is no impetus to grow and learn. Without evil what is left is an utterly dead and stagnant universe. Evil is live spelled backwards.
It is really very ABC stuff, elementary. If I am wrong then address the flaw in the reasoning rather than simply falsely asserting that the subject has never been addressed. It has been addressed quite conclusively, beyond any capacity for you to find any objection against. Although I must admit that you are beating the slop out of these people who seem to need the reminder much more than you do.
