Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I asked why God would allow/cause some innocent animal , unknown to and unseen by humans, to have, for instance, a tree fall on it,not kill it right away and lay, perhaps for minutes,hours or even days, in agony.
Can any of you believers give even the thinnest palatable reason for this?
I think the problem is with the question.
First, There are animals and there are trees and rocks. All were created by God. At various times a rock or tree will fall on an animal and cause pain.
Pain was created by God to let us know when something is wrong. For example when we touch something glowing red, we get burned. So, in the future we avoid this glowing red thing until we can determine if it is safe to touch. However the glowing red thing is good, especially if it can cook our food and kill the bacteria in our food to keep us living longer or without stomach pain due to some dysentery.
So the animal that had a branch fall on it, got hurt and realized to stay away from falling branches. And the animal that had a tree fall on it learned real well to stay away from falling trees, that is if it survived.
When you say "innocent" animals, you are refering to a point which is irrelevant. Innocent of what? How does innocence prevent the laws of physics? Or why should someone who is innocent not have the laws of physics applied to their person when it can cause their pain or demise?
Why do human have to be there to make the tree falling on the animal any more relevant to the animal or to God?
The moral of the story...God created trees and rocks. Sometimes they fall and if they do stay away from them!
Some years ago I had the time to waste so let a door knocker entertain me for awhile.
We ended up sparring in a friendly enough manner until I presented her with a question that I said, if she could answer, I would listen to her furthur.
Knowing that pain and suffering of man is excused with several reasons, I asked why God would allow/cause some innocent animal , unknown to and unseen by humans, to have, for instance, a tree fall on it,not kill it right away and lay, perhaps for minutes,hours or even days, in agony.
After several visits and after using up and casting off 'original sin' and 'sins of the father',she was stymied so passed it off to another fellow she declared better versed.
(I was finally given an explanation I have to admit couldn't factually counter. ...it was a stretch but not arguable)
Can any of you believers give even the thinnest palatable reason for this?
Wait! You can't just leave us hanging like that!
Before I give my own take on the "little bunny rabbit pinned down by the fallen tree"...I want to know what the JW said was the reason.
Since mostly we only get evasive answers to most questions, guess I shouldn't be disappointed that there haven't been any from the apologists to this one
I said it was a stretch but at least it was imaginative.
Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer.
You have to admit, I can't prove that one otherwise.
Well...I was expecting something profound...but that explanation is no better or even worse perhaps than the one I gave...nothing but speculation.
I think I'd give religious people much more respect if they'd just admit that they don't know...that they are just giving us their opinions and interpretations of what they think...instead of trying to baffle people with their BS...that those of us who have taken the time to study don't buy anyway.
Sorry...guess I should have indicated the answer more clearly. "Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer."
Nikk, the animal in question did not survive so unless there are falling limbs in heaven, I doubt the lesson learned will never come in handy.
The purpose of the question in the first place was to see what a believer in a wonderful loving god would use as an excuse for allowing animals to suffer.
There seem to be acceptable reasons for man to be allowed to suffer in order to not label god not much more than innattentive at best and a sadist at worst
But why a sinfree (innocent) squirrel (or bunny)
Sorry...guess I should have indicated the answer more clearly. "Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer."
...and THAT reply 'trumped' you???
Sorry man but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to surrender your 'International Association Of Godless Heathens' membership card.
Since mostly we only get evasive answers to most questions, guess I shouldn't be disappointed that there haven't been any from the apologists to this one
I said it was a stretch but at least it was imaginative.
Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer.
You have to admit, I can't prove that one otherwise.
The negative side of an arguement does not bear the burden of proof, it is the positive side, the assertion, that must prove it's position. The proof of the negative side is the lack of evidence on the positive.
Sorry...guess I should have indicated the answer more clearly. "Since man wasn't there to suffer from having to witness, maybe God has it arranged so that the animal doesn't feel pain or suffer."
Nikk, the animal in question did not survive so unless there are falling limbs in heaven, I doubt the lesson learned will never come in handy.
The purpose of the question in the first place was to see what a believer in a wonderful loving god would use as an excuse for allowing animals to suffer.
There seem to be acceptable reasons for man to be allowed to suffer in order to not label god not much more than innattentive at best and a sadist at worst
But why a sinfree (innocent) squirrel (or bunny)
Yeah that's obviously false. If an animal has a broken limb, and is limping around, they are obviously feeling pain.
Sorry man but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to surrender your 'International Association Of Godless Heathens' membership card.
It's in the mail
But you might tell me what you could have countered it with...short of a general answer of "B.S."
I gave him credit for addressing the question with an answer specific to it rather than the usual vague generic response
Maybe I'm just easily impressed
Actually, the reason for posting the story at all was to see if any of the believers here would give an answer as to why their god would allow it since the formula answers as to why humans suffer do not.
Maybe it should have been put in the Christianity forum.
Sounds like the old "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it does it make a sound"...Of course it does, and of course the animal suffered....How on earth did that answer trump you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
