raymond frantz

Joined

• started 228 topics
• posted 1,106 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by raymond frantz

• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  You're obviously refering to blind faith (as most atheists do ).Christian faith is evidence based :"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for,+ the evident demonstration*of realities that are not seen."(Hebrews 11:1)

  Never confuse these two ,they are worlds apart.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  I'm a man of faith .It is easy to look at a particular situation and pronounce it to be cruel or violent. When you look at the whole picture of the natural world, you see violence and destruction to be the exception, not the rule. Overall, the natural world functions in a very consistent and beautiful way with various forms of plants and animals assisting and providing for one another in complex ways.I would suggest this system is a much stronger argument for God's wisdom and design than it is for His cruelty. I'm happy to accept this explanation and expect God to explain to me the rest later .I'm happy to wait on God than some scientist that may provide me (or maybe not) a more satisfactory answer one day.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  There is also a theological side to it all .I'm pretty sure most of my atheist friends here will strongly disagree but I will quoted nonetheless . There is a direct connection between man falling from Grace and the corruption of the physical creation .

  Romans 8:21,22:"the creation itself will also be set free+ from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now."

  How much has that contributed to the animal creation is something that can only be revealed in time.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  3.Predators is a more viable option for a complex eco-system: The alternative to predation is worse. When a zebra is killed by a pride of lions, it may appear to be a horrible end to a beautiful pastoral life for the zebra. The reality of the situation is that predation is normally a merciful end to a troubled animal. In a balanced natural ecosystem, healthy animals are rarely eaten. It is the old, crippled, infirmed, diseased, wounded animals that are usually the victims of predators.

  What would happen if there were no predation? Suppose every animal born lived to a ripe old age with no threats of ever being eaten or removed from the population. It is very obvious that in short order there would be so many animals that all food supplies would be exhausted. Low food supplies make animals vulnerable to all kinds of disease and problems.

  The other factor that needs to be mentioned in this discussion is that man has caused many of the problems that animals face. Injudicious use of the land has led to restricted habitat for many forms of life. When predators are faced with restricted habitat, they sometimes engage in activities that they would not be a part of were they not under enormous stress.

  It is easy to look at a particular situation and pronounce it to be cruel or violent. When you look at the whole picture of the natural world, you see violence and destruction to be the exception, not the rule. Overall, the natural world functions in a very consistent and beautiful way with various forms of plants and animals assisting and providing for one another in complex ways.I would suggest this system is a much stronger argument for God's wisdom and design than it is for His cruelty.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  Thanks cognisonance ,I read your article and it makes many valid points which I will try to address to the best of my ability .While I'm answering it I'll try to brake it down to small sections so we deal with one thing at a time.

  1. Anthropomorphizing animals :Much of the question of cruelty involves the tendency of humans to anthropomorphize animals. From early childhood, we are shown animals acting like humans. In cartoons and comic strips, animals talk, kiss, read, dance, play golf, and sing as humans do. Films like Lion King have carried the tradition of Disney on with the same effect.

  The inability to distinguish between fantasy and the real world has become a problem in many ways in our culture, but it is especially serious when it results in human suffering and need. Animals are not humans and the portrayals that give them the total range of human abilities and feelings is at least misguided.

  As I said earlier the more complex the biological entity the more complex it's nervous system and therefore it's ability to feel pain .

  2.Animals do not feel pain as we do. Pain is a psychological experience separate from behavioral reactions to injurious stimuli. Pain involves both perception and an emotional response. When you hit your thumb with a hammer, there is an immediate perception that you have been injured. The emotional aspect that follows involves suffering, but is not necessarily a part of the perception. You can have a great deal of pain that results from the death of someone you love and not have any perceptual response at all.

  The term nociception refers to the detection of an injury by the nervous system (which may or may not lead to pain). A starfish has a primitive nervous system that interconnects sensory receptors that detect injurious stimuli with muscle cells that cause movements enabling the starfish to move away from nociceptive stimuli. Starfish have no brain so there is no pain.

  The human central nervous system has a large cerebral hemisphere and a brain stem connected to a spinal cord. Nociceptive stimuli can cause an immediate protective reaction called a reflex, but pain has not been felt by the person. The nociceptive activity is transmitted to the brain stem where additional protective reactions take place (avoidance responses, verbalizations). The nociceptive activity is transmitted from the brain stem to various parts of the cerebral hemispheres where it activates conscious awareness of the nociceptive stimulus and generates the emotional unpleasantness of pain.

  In a fish, you have a simpler version of the spinal cord and brain stem, but the neural functions are similar to that of humans. The cerebral hemispheres of the fish lack the regions necessary for conscious awareness and for generation of pain experience. Awareness of pain is associated with the brain stem and spinally generated behavioral reactions.

  All mammals have enlarged cerebral hemispheres that are mainly an outer layer of neocortex. In humans, this neocortex is massively developed and this is the key to our ability to experience pain. If the cerebral hemispheres of a human are destroyed, a comatose vegetative state results. If the cerebral hemispheres of a fish are destroyed, the fish's behavior is normal in most ways. The unpleasant part of pain in humans is generated by specific regions of the frontal lobes of the cerebral hemispheres. Other mammals have radically different sized frontal lobes. The brains of sheep and deer, for example, have a tiny fraction of the frontal lobe mass that humans have. Their perception of pain cannot possibly be anything like ours. Note: The above data is from an article by Dr. James D. Rose, Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, titled "Do Fish Feel Pain?," In Fisherman, December, 1999.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  this sound more like a Gnostic approach to the nature of God .This approach has been there since the beginning of the Christian congragation.The sense of rightousness is inherent to you because you have been given a counscience and an internal moral code by a Source .Objective moral values have no meaning ,or your sense of injustice without a Moral Law giver.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  maybe the question pacopoolio is not what is right in your eyes but what is more viable in God's eyes .Maybe we live in a universe that complex biological ecosystems are viable in that order .We are dealing with an inteligence vastly superior than our understanding or sense of justice.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  Also God in order to create viable compex ecosystems that can sustain life had to introduce predators ,otherwise such ecosystems wouldn't have been viable.

  Animals are part of a broader ecosystem in which the human drama is played out. And such an ecosystem must be balanced if it’s to be viable. It is no accident that every ecosystem involves predators of some sort. For example, recently the Canadian authorities started reintroducing wolves into the wild in Canada. Why? Because in the absence of these predators the caribou herds were over populating because there was no one to pick off the diseased and the aged. And as a result they were over grazing and therefore dying of starvation! The predators actually enhanced the survivability and the health of the caribou herds on which they preyed, so that predators are an essential part of an ecosystem. In a world without predators, the insects would soon take over, since there would be nothing to eat them, and all the animals would soon die because all the vegetation would be consumed by insects. And once the insects had consumed all the vegetation, they would die off as well. So any viable ecosystem needs to have predation in it in order to succeed.
• 
  34

  Reconciling animals and suffering

  by Pacopoolio in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we know that christians generally go through ridiculous mental voodoo to explain why a benevolent god allows human suffering, and none of it makes any sense, or is filled with bunk logic.

  that's what happens when you try and retrofit a jewish "god is good and evil" religion into a benevolent religion.. .

  one of the biggest "trips" to a jw/christian in continuing this line of thought is asking them why god would create animals simply to suffer and die, then, after they try to blame everything on adam (whose brain god supposedly created, and who put him into the exact situation that had an influence on that brain to cause him to sin).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  I had the same problem until I read this .It might not solve all your questions but definetely sheds light to why whould a benevolant God let animals suffer ,let me know what you think:

  In his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, Michael Murray explains on the basis of neurological studies that there is an ascending three-fold hierarchy of pain awareness in nature:

  Level 3: Awareness that one is oneself in pain
  Level 2: Mental states of pain
  Level 1: Aversive reaction to noxious stimuli

  Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so is built into them by natural selection. The experience of pain is thus not necessary for an organism to exhibit aversive behavior to contact that may be injurious. Thus when your friend asks, “If you beat an animal, wouldn't it try to avoid the source of pain so that way 'it' wouldn't suffer? Isn't that a form of 'self-awareness?'," you can see that such aversive behavior doesn’t even imply second order pain awareness, much less third order awareness. Avoidance behavior doesn’t require pain awareness, and the neurological capacities of primitive organisms aren’t sufficient to support Level 2 mental states.

  Level 2 awareness arrives on the scene with the vertebrates. Their nervous systems are sufficiently developed to have associated with certain brain states mental states of pain. So when we see an animal like a dog, cat, or horse thrashing about or screaming when injured, it is irresistible to ascribe to them second order mental states of pain. It is this experience of animal pain that forms the basis of the objection to God’s goodness from animal suffering. But notice that an experience of Level 2 pain awareness does not imply a Level 3 awareness. Indeed, the biological evidence indicates that very few animals have an awareness that they are themselves in pain.

  Level 3 is a higher-order awareness that one is oneself experiencing a Level 2 state. Your friend asks, “How could an animal not be aware of their suffering if they're yelping/screaming out of pain?" Brain studies supply the remarkable answer. Neurological research indicates that there are two independent neural pathways associated with the experience of pain. The one pathway is involved in producing Level 2 mental states of being in pain. But there is an independent neural pathway that is associated with being aware that one is oneself in a Level 2 state. And this second neural pathway is apparently a very late evolutionary development which only emerges in the higher primates, including man. Other animals lack the neural pathways for having the experience of Level 3 pain awareness. So even though animals like zebras and giraffes, for example, experience pain when attacked by a lion, they really aren’t aware of it.

  To help understand this, consider an astonishing analogous phenomenon in human experience known as blind sight. The experience of sight is also associated biologically with two independent neural pathways in the brain. The one pathway conveys visual stimuli about what external objects are presented to the viewer. The other pathway is associated with an awareness of the visual states. Incredibly, certain persons, who have experienced impairment to the second neural pathway but whose first neural pathway is functioning normally, exhibit what is called blind sight. That is to say, these people are effectively blind because they are not aware that they can see anything. But in fact, they do “see” in the sense that they correctly register visual stimuli conveyed by the first neural pathway. If you toss a ball to such a person he will catch it because he does see it. But he isn’t aware that he sees it! Phenomenologically, he is like a person who is utterly blind, who doesn’t receive any visual stimuli. Obviously, as Michael Murray says, it would be a pointless undertaking to invite a blind sighted person to spend an afternoon at the art gallery. For even though he, in a sense, sees the paintings on the walls, he isn’t aware that he sees them and so has no experience of the paintings.

  Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

  Viewed theologically, this discovery magnifies the mercy and goodness of God. God has shielded almost the entire animal kingdom throughout its history from an awareness of being in pain! For those of us who are pet owners and lovers of animals, this is a tremendous comfort and a cause of praise to God for His goodness and wondrous, even ingenious, care of creation. Who would have guessed that God had done such a thing? These neurological insights, documented by Murray, greatly reduce the force of the problem of evil posed by animal suffering.
• 
  17

  2014-06-01 Coordinator of the body of elders ---NEWS BOE---

  by WatchTower87 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  instruction: press the 'skip ad' button top right, you should then see the download screen more easily.

  no virus ;-).

  pdf : http://adf.ly/pkuhp.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  raymond frantz

  of course that begs the question ,"are there any curent govering body members over the age of 80?"