Does God Hate Animals?

[PaulS]

Fundamental Christians usually justify life's troubles and the difficulties that can arise from making a living from the earth, as a result of our curse of Original Sin. That's why sometimes we suffer hardship in life, and ultimately why we all expire.

 

But what about the animals God created? As far as I'm aware, the story doesn't suggest original sin was committed by animals, so why do they suffer slavery, violence, exploitation and abuse? Why do the die? Does God not care about them?

 

Obviously coming from me this is a bit rhetorical because presently I don't believe there is a God that somehow demonstrates active love and compassion for humans and/or animals, but what might others have to say around this subject?

Edited November 14, 2014 by PaulS

[JosephM]

Paul,

 

I think one could say that God's love and compassion is actively demonstrated through people and that includes animals also as the recipients. Some even seem to treat their animals better than they do other people

 

It seems to me that allowing the experience of suffering in this world to exist doesn't take anything away from a loving or compassionate God. While i don't personally wish my children to suffer, if i want to allow them to make their own choices and live their own lives rather than me forcing my will on them, then how does it make me less loving or compassionate to allow them to do so? In fact it may, in my view, be more loving not to interfere in their evolution process.

 

THEN AGAIN, Perhaps we will find that this thing we call our life is but a vapor and the suffering that appears is but a drama and form of entertainment that we have immersed ourselves in so deeply that we forget we are merely watching the movie? That to me sounds more likely.

 

Just musing,

Joseph

[PaulS]

It seems to me that allowing the experience of suffering in this world to exist doesn't take anything away from a loving or compassionate God. While i don't personally wish my children to suffer, if i want to allow them to make their own choices and live their own lives rather than me forcing my will on them, then how does it make me less loving or compassionate to allow them to do so? In fact it may, in my view, be more loving not to interfere in their evolution process.

 

I could agree Joseph, but when that pain and suffering has nothing to do with their own choosing or decision-making and is in fact forced upon them by others, I see that as simply cruelty which I don't think any god of love would demonstrate.

 

 

THEN AGAIN, Perhaps we will find that this thing we call our life is but a vapor and the suffering that appears is but a drama and form of entertainment that we have immersed ourselves in so deeply that we forget we are merely watching the movie? That to me sounds more likely.

 

That is about the only possibility I can imagine, if indeed there is a purpose to our existence (heh, that could be a good topic for another thread )

[JosephM]

 

I could agree Joseph, but when that pain and suffering has nothing to do with their own choosing or decision-making and is in fact forced upon them by others, I see that as simply cruelty which I don't think any god of love would demonstrate.

 

 

That seems a valid point to me also but then we do not really know the totality of what has brought us to the circumstances that befall us. We know very little about the mind in general and the subconscious in particular. Is it even local to the body? It seems to me NOT, although it gives the appearance it is.

 

Yes i think God, the creator, the universe, the One, Being or whatever term you use loves animals.

 

Joseph

Edited November 14, 2014 by JosephM

[romansh]

I must admit I have a problem with these type of questions, unless they are aimed at literalist Christians.

 

In one breath we say g(G)od is transcendent (ie beyond all categories of thought) and then in the next we ask what are the attributes of g(G)od?

 

We stand a better chance with the ineffable philosophical conundrums than with effable theology. Hope the pun was OK?

Edited November 15, 2014 by romansh

[JosephM]

Paul,

 

Concerning my use of the word love above: It is important to note that there is no opposite to love. It is a state of being. The word love that is often used with hate as an opposite is a dualistic term that describes an emotion. God, the Universe, or whatever cannot hate that which it is one with.

 

Joseph.

 

Rom,

Since we are limited by language, i think it is fair enough to use attributes for God though i admit they can be easily misunderstood . I would say God is both transcendent and immanent though one could say God is neither and i would not debate it. Some would even say not immanent and not transcendent, not neither, nor both. Take your pick at the conundrum.

[minsocal]

If God created the Universe, then the Universe, and everything in it, is God's Creation. If you believe in a God of Love, and not in a God of Hate, then God Loves all of Creation. That is just another way of saying that God's Love is unconditional.

 

I suppose you could say that God's Love is conditional, That does not make much sense to me. It God's Love is conditional, then I have dragged God down to my level, so why have a God in the first place? In other words, I create God in my image, and not the other way around. Would God aspire to be human? Or would a human aspire to be God?

 

Then, you could say that God did not create all of the universe. There is another part of Creation not attributable to God. Then you enter polytheism. That has been done before or, more correctly, that is where the debate began thousands of years ago.

 

And where are we today?

Edited November 16, 2014 by minsocal

[minsocal]

Put another way, do we understand Creation only by what we think and feel? If we were "created in God's image" does not mean that 'image' and 'original' are one and the same thing!

[minsocal]

And then, an image is only an abstraction from an 'original'. It is most difficult, to say the least, to work from an abstraction and find the 'original'.

[romansh]

Joseph Since we are limited by language, i think it is fair enough to use attributes for God though i admit they can be easily misunderstood.

 

I don't think we are limited by language, though I would agree language has its limits.

 

Joseph I would say God is both transcendent and immanent though one could say God is neither and i would not debate it.

 

God is transcendent and immanent ... this I think is one of those dualities our language forces us into. The only concept of god that makes any sort of sense (to me) is the pantheistic one. I also can't help thinking I agree with Richard Dawkins that pantheism is sexed up atheism. - ie the god of Einstein or Spinoza

 

As an agnostic I can't help thinking our biological sensors, computers and outputs, can't help but be a reflection of the biology. which in turn is a reflection of our environment and ultimately the universe. Is this in someway limiting?

Edited November 16, 2014 by romansh