Why does a loving God allow animals to suffer?

[The Kilted Heathen]

Animals are all innocent and do not learn lessons or grow spiritually from suffering.

How do you know? And for someone with a finite view of animals (no afterlife, probably no spirit), why would it matter?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you go to the book of Genesis 1:26--"God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have Dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

There you have it, So if animals suffer it's by the hands man's, seeing man has the Dominion over the animals.

Sorry, that does not compute. You can't use Genesis to refute scientific facts. Well, you can if you want to, but my religion teaches the harmony of science of religion and that if a scripture goes against science, it is mere superstition.

However, in this case it is not about a scripture contradicting science, it is about interpreting scripture to say what it is not saying. Just because we have Dominion over the animals that does not mean that all the animals on earth are within our reach and that we can prevent the suffering of all the animals on earth, especially wild animals. So we cannot say that all animal suffering is by the hands of man. God created these animals all the while knowing they would live in the wild, outside of the reach of man, so God is left holding the bag for their undue suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

If animals suffer in the wilderness and those animals are found, then hopefully they are found and taken to a vet to help them get better over their sickness and diseases.

So either man can help the animals or let them suffer.

Sure, if man finds them, man can help them. But man cannot find them all, probably not even very man of them, so God is still left holding the bag because an omniscient God knew this would happen when he created them. Why not just admit what is obvious; God does not care. God only cares about humans and even that is debatable.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know? And for someone with a finite view of animals (no afterlife, probably no spirit), why would it matter?

I really do not know everything about animals as I told someone else a while ago.
Science has a lot yet to discover...

I do not have a finite view of animals, I just do not know whether they have an afterlife or not. I do know they have a spirit though. They definitely have a spirit.

 

[Trailblazer]

*EDITED by staff.*

Think what you like. I do not consider the suffering of animals insignificant and in fact it was an atheist on another forum who pointed out to me that is one reason he cannot believe in the benevolent God of the scriptures.

If you do not like the thread nobody is making you read it. There are a lot of threads on here I have never read at all.

 

[Katzpur]

Suffering of humans can be explained by the fact that we are sinful, we have free will and we cause a lot of our own suffering. Other suffering that we endure is at the hands of other humans. Humans learn lessons and grow spiritually by suffering and we have recompense in an afterlife, so one can still accommodate a loving God that allows suffering...

I believe that human suffering stems from basically three things (1) bad (i.e. cruel, selfish, immoral) choices on our own part, (2) the cruelty of man to his fellow human beings, and (3) illness and natural causes. I believe that animal suffering is caused by (1) cruelty of man towards animals, and (3) natural causes. I don't believe animals have the capability to be cruel for the sake of cruelty, for the enjoyment of causing some other animal to suffer. Yes, there are animals that will "play" with the prey they have attacked, but it's a not a moral choice on their part. Therefore, I believe that animals are incapable of "sinning."

Animals are all innocent and do not learn lessons or grow spiritually from suffering. Also, as far as we know from scriptures, animals do not have an afterlife. Although it is possible they continue to exist in some form, that was not mentioned in any scriptures that I know of.

I've seen a few of your posts in which you talk about animals, and I think you love them as I do. I am convinced that they will have an afterlife. While it is not specifically in the scriptures, I know that my religion teaches that they, too, will be resurrected from the dead and live again. If I don't have my pets with me in Heaven, it won't be Heaven. I can't imagine God creating the animals that bring such joy to our lives and then just snuffing them out of existence. I don't dwell on this all that much because I just trust God to make it right.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah this is a complex subject and it goes into the nature of Nirvana.

The unconstructed means simply that paradoxical nature that escapes all forms and human definitions. That great unspeakable that the Buddha acknowledged was there since it is one and the same with Nirvana, but refused to say anything about.

The Buddha entered Nirvana at his death. Even so, Buddhists have continued asking him and all the Buddhas for help, appealing to his great heart of pity for all suffering creatures. Nirvana is not extinction in traditional Buddhism. It's not something we say much about, however.

As to the Buddha being a man, certainly he was born as one and lived. However, he wasn't like other men. He had auspicious birthmarks on his body and was born to become the Buddha.

Nothing could have prevented that destiny. Once he became enlightened he claimed to be neither god or human, but Buddha (awake).

He had knowledge and abilities through his enlightenment most of us don't have.

In the sense Mahayanists have believed that Shakyamuni descended from the Pure Land of the Buddhas and was born a man for the salvation of beings- it has been held he was more than human.

Historically Buddhists have always treated it of such fundamental importance that the Buddha was not just an ordinary man that texts like the Parinirvana Sutra (part of the canon of both vehicles- Theravada: Parinibbana Sutta) anathemize anyone who would say so, or deny the Buddhas manifest from the Ultimate.

Thanks for explaining all of that. What I have discovered is that Buddhists do not all believe the same things about the Buddha and they have different beliefs about other things.

In many ways, what Buddhists believe is more palatable to me than the Abrahamic religions, but I believe in the One God, so.... Also, I do not think reincarnation makes sense and I could not believe in that. But I would be a Buddhist before I would be a Christian.

One reason I gravitate towards Buddhism is that the moral and ethical teachings are similar to Baha’i beliefs: Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith

I know most Buddhists do not believe in God, but some do. It seems like you know a lot about the Bible, so maybe you were formerly a Christian? I was never a Christian so I know little about the Bible, just what I have learned from posting to Christians on various forums for about five years and what I have looked up on the internet as a result.

Anyhow, on the primary forum I posted on for about four years, which I just left last December, there were a few Buddhists and some of them were very averse to what Baha’is believe, namely that Buddha was a major Prophet of God, because they said that the Buddha was just a great teacher.

The way you describe the Buddha, neither god nor human and having a paradoxical nature that escapes all forms and human definitions, is exactly what Baha’is believe about a Manifestation of God (Prophet). We believe that they are neither God nor human, but rather something in between, something like a God-man. Below is a synopsis of what a Manifestation of God is according to my understanding of the Baha’i Writings:

A Manifestation of God is a subtle, mysterious and ethereal Being that has been assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. His body is human but His Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather preexistent. In that preexistence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God. Although the Messenger had to translate that Revelation into a form we could understand, His Words are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that human suffering stems from basically three things (1) bad (i.e. cruel, selfish, immoral) choices on our own part, (2) the cruelty of man to his fellow human beings, and (3) illness and natural causes. I believe that animal suffering is caused by (1) cruelty of man towards animals, and (3) natural causes. I don't believe animals have the capability to be cruel for the sake of cruelty, for the enjoyment of causing some other animal to suffer. Yes, there are animals that will "play" with the prey they have attacked, but it's a not a moral choice on their part. Therefore, I believe that animals are incapable of "sinning."

Thanks. I agree with all of that.

I've seen a few of your posts in which you talk about animals, and I think you love them as I do. I am convinced that they will have an afterlife. While it is not specifically in the scriptures, I know that my religion teaches that they, too, will be resurrected from the dead and live again. If I don't have my pets with me in Heaven, it won't be Heaven. I can't imagine God creating the animals that bring such joy to our lives and then just snuffing them out of existence. I don't dwell on this all that much because I just trust God to make it right.

I guess all Christians believe differently about animals having an afterlife. I had a good Christian friend who I met in an online forum for cats with CRF and then we started to converse daily in e-mails for about three years. Anyhow, she was a real cat lover like me and she also had Persian cats. She knew the Bible very well and she could not find anything saying that animals have an afterlife. There is also nothing in the Baha'i Writings that says that, and there are a couple of passages that Baha'is think mean that they don't. However, many Baha'is believe that they do, so as with Christians it is a mixed thing. I used to use animal communicators and I was convinced that animals have an afterlife. I still think they probably do but I cannot know for sure as I do with humans.

This sounds silly to most people, but the reason I want animals to have an afterlife is more for them than for me. It sounds silly to people because they do not think animals matter that much or that they would care if they were dead. The same could be applied to humans though. How could they care if they were just dead?

I can't even know what the afterlife is like, so I cannot say I will care about having my cats as I do here. Yet I cannot even imagine being without them to go on a vacation, so it is hard to imagine never seeing them again for eternity.

Like you though, I try not to think about it and just trust God. It might not sound like I trust God given what I have said on this thread, but I simply have some questions that are not answered... I am sure God knows that and does not take offense.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

One reason I gravitate towards Buddhism is that the moral and ethical teachings are similar to Baha’i beliefs: Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith

Thanks, I will give that a read

I know most Buddhists do not believe in God, but some do.

The Buddha is stated in the scriptures of both vehicles to have said god(s) exist. Though it is rare to believe in the kind of god monotheists do among Buddhists. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily incompatible with the path.

Some modern Buddhist teachers equate the Abrahamic god with Indra/Sakra, who is indeed the highest god of the traditional Buddhist pantheon and Indian equivalent of Zeus.

However, since Abrahamics hold their god as creator- I would think Brahma is more relatable.

Buddhists do not necessarily have to believe in gods, but I question why they think the historical teaching is wrong if they don't. Skepticism isn't enough reason in my opinion, because that degree of doubt could be used to throw out any part of the teaching one desires.

It seems like you know a lot about the Bible, so maybe you were formerly a Christian?

Raised agnostic with Christian relatives. Studied Judaism and Christianity when I got older. I like Judaism better.

there were a few Buddhists and some of them were very averse to what Baha’is believe, namely that Buddha was a major Prophet of God

Yes, that would be something a Buddhist wouldn't accept. However, I don't see why we can't be friends, or at least agreeable while having our differences.

Speaking as a Buddhist, I think the Baha'i religion is probably better for humanity than the other Abrahamic religions. The others are too dualistic and their scripture is too vague about when violence and prejudice are allowed.

The kind of venomous hatred some Christians and Muslims in particular entertain toward certain minorities is opposed to the kind of compassion and understanding Buddhism calls for. The suffering and violence this causes said minorities to undergo, a Buddhist ought to find morally abhorrent.

Buddhists tend to see globalism as ideal I think, and nationalism certainly isn't inherently virtuous. Here we agree with Baha'is.

However, some traditional Buddhist populations like Japan have attempted to use nation to implement globalism. I question if this can work or not, and certainly don't agree with the Imperial approach of WWII Axis Japan.

I will say that war and hatred persist in this time, when we're more connected than ever and see our common humanity is a great shame.

because they said that the Buddha was just a great teacher

I try not to make a big deal over these kinds of differences, but as a traditional Buddhist I am rather put off by secular interpretations of my religion.

Buddhism is left very lacking and hollow without the traditional understandings. It's deeper teachings also serve no purpose without them.

The way you describe the Buddha, neither god nor human and having a paradoxical nature that escapes all forms and human definitions, is exactly what Baha’is believe about a Manifestation of God (Prophet).

Yes, that is interesting. Peace

 

[Jedster]

Who thinks up this nonsense?

...people who have too much time on their hands?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sorry, that does not compute. You can't use Genesis to refute scientific facts. Well, you can if you want to, but my religion teaches the harmony of science of religion and that if a scripture goes against science, it is mere superstition.

However, in this case it is not about a scripture contradicting science, it is about interpreting scripture to say what it is not saying. Just because we have Dominion over the animals that does not mean that all the animals on earth are within our reach and that we can prevent the suffering of all the animals on earth, especially wild animals. So we cannot say that all animal suffering is by the hands of man. God created these animals all the while knowing they would live in the wild, outside of the reach of man, so God is left holding the bag for their undue suffering.

First your in the forum of "General Religious Debates" The forum says nothing about science.

So when I quoted the book of Genesis, I believe I was within my right to do so.

You said there are some animals that are out of our reach, there is no animals in the wilderness that is out of our reach, there is people living in places that is not out of the reach of animals.

To day we have the means to travel to all places on earth, so animals are not out of the reach of man.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sure, if man finds them, man can help them. But man cannot find them all, probably not even very man of them, so God is still left holding the bag because an omniscient God knew this would happen when he created them. Why not just admit what is obvious; God does not care. God only cares about humans and even that is debatable.

Why should I admit to something that you have no idea what your talking about.

How do you know for sure that God knew that animals would suffer as you say ?

 

[Trailblazer]

The Buddha is stated in the scriptures of both vehicles to have said god(s) exist. Though it is rare to believe in the kind of god monotheists do among Buddhists. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily incompatible with the path.

Some modern Buddhist teachers equate the Abrahamic god with Indra/Sakra, who is indeed the highest god of the traditional Buddhist pantheon and Indian equivalent of Zeus.

However, since Abrahamics hold their god as creator- I would think Brahma is more relatable.

Buddhists do not necessarily have to believe in gods, but I question why they think the historical teaching is wrong if they don't. Skepticism isn't enough reason in my opinion, because that degree of doubt could be used to throw out any part of the teaching one desires.

The whole idea of many gods is foreign to me because I have only ever known about the Abrahamic religions who believe in One God that is omnipotent and omniscient, in which case it would be logically inconsistent to have more than one God. I do understand though, that before Judaism other religions believed in many gods. Baha’is believe those religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are legitimate so when people ask me why they believe so differently about God/gods I just have to say what makes sense to me according to Baha’i beliefs about progressive revelation.

The people in those ages of history and in those cultures were not yet ready to hear about in the One God concept, along the same lines of what Jesus said about the many things he had to say that you could not bear now. Also, those religions are so old it is difficult to know what they really taught; also since we do not have the original writings of the Founders, which means that the followers could have changed whatever was revealed or their beliefs about that.

Raised agnostic with Christian relatives. Studied Judaism and Christianity when I got older. I like Judaism better.

I was also raised agnostic. I vaguely recall my mother having is saying the Lord’s Prayer at bedtime but that is all. Both my parents were raised as Christians but never attended Church after they became adults and I know my father became an agnostic or atheist. My mother might have retained her beliefs in Jesus, but she never talked about that. So, I cannot remember thinking about God as a child, and then I became a Baha’i at age 17. Even after that, I do not remember thinking much about God, because I joined the Baha’i Faith for the social and spiritual teachings, not for God. It is almost as if I never even thought about God at all, although I knew God was behind the religion.

Then when I got much older I started thinking about God and I was angry at God for about 10 years because of suffering I had to endure, much of it because of animals. Then in January 2013 I got curious about what other people were saying on the internet and I stumbled upon the Planet Baha’i forum, which was the beginning of my decision to try to make peace with God and the Baha’i Faith, which had gotten lost in the shuffle of my sordid life. I never lost my belief in Baha’u’llah but I was alienated from the Faith and inactive in the Baha’i community for decades. I am still inactive in the community but at least now I have a lot of Baha’is online that I converse with. My husband has been a Baha’i 53 years so he is on the same page as me although he and I relate to God quite differently.

Yes, that would be something a Buddhist wouldn't accept. However, I don't see why we can't be friends, or at least agreeable while having our differences.

I certainly do not think that people have to agree on beliefs to be friends. Some of my best friends have been nonbelievers and Christians on other forums.

Major Prophet sounds a bit ominous and language can be misleading. The one reference I know of to the Buddha says:

Question.—To which category do Buddha and Confucius belong?
Answer.—Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images. Some Answered Questions, p. 165

Speaking as a Buddhist, I think the Baha'i religion is probably better for humanity than the other Abrahamic religions. The others are too dualistic and their scripture is too vague about when violence and prejudice are allowed.

The kind of venomous hatred some Christians and Muslims in particular entertain toward certain minorities is opposed to the kind of compassion and understanding Buddhism calls for. The suffering and violence this causes said minorities to undergo, a Buddhist ought to find morally abhorrent.

I do think that Buddhism and Baha’i are compatible in the sense that they are both very tolerant and peaceful religions, and also teach detachment. Detachment from self and the material world, albeit not asceticism, is an important Baha’i teaching. I think that was also taught in Christianity but it got lost in the morass of Christian doctrines about original sin and salvation by the blood of Jesus, which became more important than the actual teachings of Jesus.

I tend to identify more with Judaism because I believe it is closer to what was revealed by God because I consider the Torah more authentic than the New Testament. Then again, I do not know a lot about Judaism, only what I have learned from Jews on forums.

Buddhists tend to see globalism as ideal I think, and nationalism certainly isn't inherently virtuous. Here we agree with Baha'is.

However, some traditional Buddhist populations like Japan have attempted to use nation to implement globalism. I question if this can work or not, and certainly don't agree with the Imperial approach of WWII Axis Japan.

I will say that war and hatred persist in this time, when we're more connected than ever and see our common humanity is a great shame.

I believe that will change in due time and there will be no more war, but of course I am a Baha'i.

I try not to make a big deal over these kinds of differences, but as a traditional Buddhist I am rather put off by secular interpretations of my religion.

Buddhism is left very lacking and hollow without the traditional understandings. It's deeper teachings also serve no purpose without them.

I am not sure what you mean by secular interpretations and traditional understandings as all I have is a general idea what Buddhists believe and of course they all say different things so it can be almost as confusing as Christianity to me. Given I am a Baha’i I am accustomed to having a religion where we all share the same set of beliefs even though we tend to relate to them differently since we are all different..

 

[Trailblazer]

First your in the forum of "General Religious Debates" The forum says nothing about science.

So when I quoted the book of Genesis, I believe I was within my right to do so.

I was not implying that you had no right to quote Genesis or even that it is wrong, only that there are many things that science can explain that are not found in religion. Religion is not science. Religion and science are both necessary to the progress of humanity, they are like two wings of a bird and we need both to fly. For example, if we were to help those animals in the wild, science would be necessary, but religion is also necessary because that is where we get morality and compassion.

You said there are some animals that are out of our reach, there is no animals in the wilderness that is out of our reach, there is people living in places that is not out of the reach of animals.

To day we have the means to travel to all places on earth, so animals are not out of the reach of man.

Are you implying that we can go out in the wild and find all the injured and ill wild animals and nurse them back to health? That is a nice thought but I do not think it is realistic given how and where animals in the wild live and all the other problems that humans have with other humans in the world.

Maybe in the distant future when humans can learn to live in peace and harmony and stop fighting there will maybe more time and resources to help animals, but I do not think we will ever be able to help them all... Such is the nature of this world, a storehouse of suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, but luckily we are here only for a short while.

 

[Skwim]

God allows what man allows,

So then we're pretty much in control of God. If I want god to allow rape then all I have to do is allow it myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should I admit to something that you have no idea what your talking about.

How do you know for sure that God knew that animals would suffer as you say ?

I admit I do not know. How could I ever know if God cares about animals or humans? We have the scriptures that say that God cares about humans but that is not proof. So of course I am talking out of my hat because I am not too happy with animal suffering. Maybe God does care and maybe animals have a recompense after they die, I do not know that either. It sure would have been nice if God revealed more about animals in scripture instead of being singly focused on humans. That is what makes me think God does not care. But we do not always get what we want in life.

I know that God knew that animals would suffer because God is omniscient; so God knows everything about the past present and future all at once. Either that, or the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

[12jtartar]

Suffering of humans can be explained by the fact that we are sinful, we have free will and we cause a lot of our own suffering. Other suffering that we endure is at the hands of other humans. Humans learn lessons and grow spiritually by suffering and we have recompense in an afterlife, so one can still accommodate a loving God that allows suffering...

Animals are all innocent and do not learn lessons or grow spiritually from suffering. Also, as far as we know from scriptures, animals do not have an afterlife. Although it is possible they continue to exist in some form, that was not mentioned in any scriptures that I know of.

If God created animals out of love, why does a loving God allow animals to suffer? I cannot accommodate that in my logical mind or in my heart.

Trailblazer,
The real reason that animals, as well as men suffer, is not because of The Almighty God, Jehovah, but because Satan is the god of this world.
God gave Adam and Eve a very easy to obey rule, do not eat of one tree in the Garden of Eden, The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This simple rule would give Adam and Eve the chance to show God that they loved Him and wanted to obey His rules, because they knew that He knew better than they did, what was best for them. They failed this simple test, took and ate of The Tree, thereby showing God that they would rather follow Satan. For that reason, God has allowed Satan to rule over mankind even down to now, 2Corinthians 4:3,4, Matthew 4:8-11, John 16:7-11, 1John 5:19, Revelation 12:7-12. The verses 13-17,
the persecution would bring to, especially God’s people, because Satan has been confined to earth, until he is destroyed, Revelation 20:10.
So, you see, it is not God who causes suffering!! The truth is; God is the Great Indemnifier, He will bring an end to suffering forever, and bring to earth a paradise, that we can enjoy throughout all eternity, Revelation 21:1-8. That time is very close, as Jesus told us what the conditions would be on earth, just before he comes to Judge this world and start the Paradise, Matthew 24:14,34, Acts 17:31, Matthew 25:31-46.
God loves mankind and wants the best for us, He even allowed His Beloved Son to die as a Ransom Sacrifice, so we could live forever, if we just obey him, John 3:16, 1Timothy 2:3-6, 2Peter 3:9. Agape!!!

 

[blü 2]

Suffering of humans can be explained by the fact that we are sinful, we have free will and we cause a lot of our own suffering.

Have you read Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of our Nature? In it he makes the point that violence worldwide has been declining on a per capita basis for centuries and continues to decline. It would appear that, sinful or not, our morality as a species is getting better at non-violence, reducing at least that kind of suffering.

So if you're right about sin generating suffering, it would also appear that as a species we're becoming less sinful.

Humans learn lessons and grow spiritually by suffering and we have recompense in an afterlife, so one can still accommodate a loving God that allows suffering...

My wife and I raised three kids who've grown up decent and capable, so I have some experience of the role of a loving parent. They don't, for example, sit on their hands when their children are suffering; they work out what's appropriate and they do it. They act. And good neighbors and citizens, when they see problems, act. A god who watches suffering and never acts can't be called a loving god.

Animals are all innocent

In what sense? They prey on each other, those that live gregariously have peck orders and thus social winners and losers; the boundaries of their lives are accordingly much more defined by sudden violent death or injury than ours are. And we can discuss their mating mores if you wish.

as far as we know from scriptures, animals do not have an afterlife.

As I understand it, HIndu scripture disagrees with you. And then we have that statement from Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?​

If God created animals out of love, why does a loving God allow animals to suffer? I cannot accommodate that in my logical mind or in my heart.

Theologically I don't recall any part of the Genesis creation story where Yahweh states a reason for creating the earth or living things ─ it seems to be just his pleasure. He does add one afterwards, when he decides to create Man: 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (And later he gives a reason for creating Eve, but it's not the one I was expecting.)

But if you look at it in terms of evolution then it all becomes very clear.

 

[ChristineM]

Suffering of humans can be explained by the fact that we are sinful, we have free will and we cause a lot of our own suffering. Other suffering that we endure is at the hands of other humans. Humans learn lessons and grow spiritually by suffering and we have recompense in an afterlife, so one can still accommodate a loving God that allows suffering...

Animals are all innocent and do not learn lessons or grow spiritually from suffering. Also, as far as we know from scriptures, animals do not have an afterlife. Although it is possible they continue to exist in some form, that was not mentioned in any scriptures that I know of.

If God created animals out of love, why does a loving God allow animals to suffer? I cannot accommodate that in my logical mind or in my heart.

How is a young child with leukemia sinful?

How is a stillborn baby sinful?

A god who allows the innocent of his pet creation to suffer will have no problem causing distress in animals who dont even bow down to him.

Just one of my qualms toward religion

 

[Nous]

Just to reiterate or expand upon what several people have already said: It's only with the concept of God as a wholly separate being where the conundrum of animal (including human) suffering arises. A concept in which God is not thoroughly separate from the world would seem to resolve the problem. It cannot be denied that creatures' experience of pain is an important aspect of evolution and learning (“Ooh, remember not to disturb those beehives next time . . . “).