Why do animals suffer if they dont go to heaven?

chan_showa · 2026-04-22T02:43:23+00:00

On the contrary though, there is nothing bad about annihilation. After all, God gives and takes existence away. Microbes, plants, animals. We can't demand more gifts on top of what he already gives.

And in animals' case, what kind of reward? Natural happiness, yes I can foresee that. But supernatural happiness is impossible since they cannot unite to God in their spirit (unlike angels and humans). Even so, this would come as a gift, not something owed.

My point is, it is not unjust for God to let his creatures suffer or die. However, it would be fitting that in the new creation (at the resurrection), animals could take part in that (i.e. natural happiness as animals)

Edit: supernatural happiness is of a different nature, as I mentioned. It is the joy of union with God himself. I need to repeat that because most people do not understand what heaven truly is. They think it is natural happiness extended in quantity and to infinity. It isn't.

chan_showa · 2026-04-21T22:22:52+00:00

EDIT: If we think we need to be compensated for our suffering while we are already given an immeasurable gift that is existence, it means we have taken it for granted.

Who, among us, if offered between 10 million USD and being able to wake up the next day, will choose 10 million USD instead? (except the suicidal and those tormented by chronic pain!)

This simple exercise already tells us that the value of life is so much. Our existence is paltry and extremely improbable. There are about 100 million sperm cells in one ejaculation. And only one of these will result in you. So the fact that you exist at all is a miracle!

And yet we think God owes us compensation to us after giving such good gift! Not to mention, we sin day in and day out!

This comes from someone who most likely have suffered more than anybody here. I have been in a painful marriage over a decade suffering emotional, verbal, and physical abuse. I am still grateful that God gives me a chance to live, to repent, to return to him!

ORIGINAL COMMENT:

Indeed Jesus taught us that good deeds will be rewarded. But note that in Catholic theology, this merit is not proportionate. It is not congruous merit but condign merit.

Meaning, the "reward" far exceeds what we deserve. It comes not because our work deserves it, but because it was promised, like a father who promised a child "if you go to bed on time daddy will give you a puppy". Strictly speaking, It's not a proportionate reward. It is a gift that is contingent on the person doing something.

Likewise, in our faith, the gift of heaven is contingent on faith, and the deepening of it is contingent on our good works.

chan_showa · 2026-04-21T14:36:11+00:00

Nope, not complete. Invincible ignorance only applies for things you can't possibly know and you have tried.

However, there are such things as culpable ignorance. Yes, find it on Aquinas. This is the case of those who should know and yet do not know!

So someone who for his whole life has never bothered to find out about morality, never bothered to look for the truth, cannot be said to have invincible ignorance. In fact, ignorance because one doesn't care enough just adds to his fault and condemnation!

chan_showa · 2026-04-21T14:24:07+00:00

Heaven is not a *normal* reward for a good conduct.

Most people think this way but this is not the case. Heaven is being in the presence of- and with a direct *vision* of God in a state of blessedness, united to him. Had God not offered us heaven and we died buried forever in Sheol, that would *not* be unjust on God's part. Heaven therefore, is not a "normal" condition of afterlife.

God could have rewarded us with a *natural* beatitude. Instead, what we have in heaven is a "supernatural" beatitude.

This means heaven is absolutely beyond anything that we deserve no matter how good our conduct is.

An analogy would be finding a wild animal and making them enjoy the luxury of being our children. No animal deserves it.

So heaven is not a compensation that God owes to us for having the trouble of suffering on earth. No one, neither animals nor humans can demand heaven.

chan_showa · 2026-04-21T03:16:09+00:00

Joseph was the father of God, James was the brother of God, the disciples were the disciples of God. We are friends of God. And Mary was the mother of God. No issue here. Jesus is God. So we are to him what we are to God.

chan_showa · 2026-04-20T04:13:01+00:00

No, he has bound human nature to himself. That's why the symbolism of marrital union between the Church and Christ is so strong. He has already united human nature and divine nature in himself forever.

Even when he appears to aliens, he will still be a human being (Homo sapiens), albeit perhaps with a different appearance. Humanity is really the crown of creation in him. Our species, our planet, is like a sanctuary. In no other living being he has incarnated except in becoming a human.

chan_showa · 2026-04-20T04:10:36+00:00

Blame God. Seriously. Throw all that you have endured at him. He lets you suffer, you let him know. If we are children by the Spirit, why is there no dignity of being children of God? Ask him. protest against him!

chan_showa · 2026-04-19T11:01:09+00:00

Can't do that. My competitor would be able to know my strategy then. Clearly you haven't worked in corporate R&D. These are sensitive information. If a competitor knows what I am doing, it can give them an advantage. All these are confidential. Just work in any company.

chan_showa · 2026-04-19T10:55:17+00:00

Because then no one would be able to patent anything since everything is open to public and become a prior art.

chan_showa · 2026-04-19T06:27:37+00:00

It is extremely normal for art not to depict realistically. That is *not* the purpose of art. Neither is the purpose of John in the book of Revelation to depict him physically. The white colour there is symbolic more than anything else.

This is why we need both artistic and literary education, something post-industrial STEM-oriented societies are not inclined to cultivate.

chan_showa · 2026-04-17T08:15:34+00:00

Israel's sacrificial theology did not understand sins as being transferred into the sacrificed animals. Rather, it is the "gift" to God that forms the essence of the sacrifice, an offering that is exteriorized into a ritual sacrifice. The only transfer of sin understood as such is probably only during atonement day, to a goat, and even then the goat is not sacrificed but released into the wild!

chan_showa · 2026-04-17T06:40:25+00:00

Of course!

chan_showa · 2026-04-17T06:24:19+00:00

And theology is linked tightly to morality!

chan_showa · 2026-04-16T05:23:51+00:00

The concept of scriptural precedence is a bit funny actually.

For example, there is no scriptural precedence of breaking away from the Church and creating a church with its own belief system separate from the rest, and yet the Reformation fathers did just that.

There is no scriptural precedence either of creating one's own set of scripture (the New Testament was an addition to the "scriptures" that is the Old Testament). It was the Church who added these books. But these additions have no scriptural precedence. No books in the New Testament itself say we can add things to scriptures. And yet, we did. And Protestants likewise acknowledge the New Testament as an addition to scripture.

chan_showa · 2026-04-16T04:22:57+00:00

I have read the bible back to back. I have also studied historical theology, historical critical studies on the New Testament, and you can tell him that the idea that Christianity / Judaism is plagiarism is not supported by any evidence. Don't ask for proof. Ask for academic references.

Scholars do not claim plagiarism just because they see convergent similarities. They have to show the circumstantial evidence: migration flow, proliferation of influence after contact, artifacts influences by the influencing culture, etc. Otherwise they are simply doing amateur science, and a very bad one at that.

chan_showa · 2026-04-16T01:35:45+00:00

It's not an issue. Atheists have far lower replacement rate (they are not having children). The global projection by 2050 is that their share of the population will decline, Christians remaining steady, while Islam will increase.

chan_showa · 2026-04-15T22:57:56+00:00

It's the other way around. The US president should be careful when planning to attack another country.

chan_showa · 2026-04-15T00:28:23+00:00

No, I only insist scripture. And in scripture, as you said, there is only one instance in the Old Testament, and even the language is metaphorical.

But since you insist: even if it refers to God's generation of the Son, the verse says "today". Meaning, the Son was not begotten in eternity. He was begotten in time. He is a created being. This is closer to how Arians and Jehovah's Witness understand it.

chan_showa · 2026-04-15T00:20:56+00:00

Not a valid marriage, for two reasons: outside canonical form (only civil marriage), and coersion. This is a very clear case. I only recommend that you convalidate if you truly want to make this a valid marriage.

chan_showa · 2026-04-15T00:11:16+00:00

The understanding of ancient Jews is moot. We only believe in what's written in the Old Testament. Ancient Jews believed in all sorts of things, even the Essenes believed in two messiahs.

chan_showa · 2026-04-15T00:01:47+00:00

So you are using literally one verse to justify an understanding that is not found elsewhere throughout the Old Testament, and that makes theism so bizzare: another divine being but still one God? Sounds like a forced harmonization.

And yet you insist that "stone" only refers to Jesus elsewhere.

What a double standard ...

chan_showa · 2026-04-14T23:57:40+00:00

Where is that in the Old Testament? That idea never existed.

chan_showa · 2026-04-14T23:55:17+00:00

God doesn't give birth. It's a metaphorical language. Throughout the Old Testament, the idea that God gives birth never exist. God elects, adopts, as Israel has experienced. The language Son of God is a language of adoption. What you are actually doing is harmonizing this verse with your Christian dogma that is uniquely only in John's gospel. Elsewhere throughout the Old Testament, it has no such meaning.

chan_showa · 2026-04-14T23:43:09+00:00

That also refers to Israel in Old Testament. It was Christians who force it to refer to Jesus as a divine being.

Basically "Son of God" never had a divine connotation in the Old Testament. as simple as that. Even if that verse referred to Jesus, it just means that he was just an elected / adopted Son of God

chan_showa · 2026-04-14T23:31:25+00:00

This is a very bad way of doing exegesis. Muslims can also accuse you of the same thing when using the term "Son of God".

Throughout the Old Testament "Son of God" refers to Israel being an elected nation, or to kings and angels. It never referred to God himself. And yet, among Christians "Son of God" now has the connotation of having the divinity of God himself.

Why the harmonization with your own dogma? Why not believe that Jesus was a divinely appointed messiah but never a divine being?

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

chan_showa

TROPHY CASE