James 1:12 (NIV) says: >“Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.” I'm trying to understand what specific kinds of hardship or trials this verse is referring to. Does it include all forms of suffering (e.g., sickness, poverty, personal tragedy), or is it focused more on spiritual trials—such as those that come from the flesh (sinful desires), the world (opposition to godly living), or the devil (temptation and spiritual warfare)? Does persevering through these inner and external spiritual battles also qualify one for the crown of life? Or is the verse mainly referring to persecution and martyrdom for the Christian faith? Also, is the “crown of life” best understood as a metaphor for eternal life itself, or is it a distinct reward for faithful endurance beyond salvation? I'm seeking perspectives grounded in Scripture and theology across Christian traditions.

In the book of Jonah, the prophet is commanded by God to go to Nineveh, but he chooses to flee in the opposite direction. As a result, he faces a storm at sea and is swallowed by a great fish, symbolizing a form of divine intervention or correction. Eventually, he fulfills his mission. Can some of the difficulties or losses that believers experience in life be attributed to them having strayed from the specific purpose or calling God has placed on their lives, similar to Jonah’s situation? - Are there theological or denominational views that support or reject this idea? - How does the New Testament handle this concept, especially in the context of grace and free will? - Are there examples besides Jonah where people faced hardship because of ignoring God’s will?

Why would an all-powerful God allow young children to have terminal diseases like cancer? Why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity allow innocent younglings to experience such profound pain and early death? This question is different from any general questions concerning the Problem of Evil, because it focuses on a particular kind of evil that doesn't seem to lead to any greater good, doesn't seem to be necessary for free will and doesn't seem to be covered by any classical theodicies. There is a distinction between General Problem of Evil ("why would God allow evil in general") and Special Problem of Evil ("why would God allow this particular evil").

When asked "*If there is an omnipotent and good God, why is there suffering in the world?*", the most common response Christians give is something along the lines of "*Suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and it is more important to God to allow free will than to eliminate suffering. All the suffering is ultimately caused by free will.*". I think one of the most serious problems with that response is that suffering predates free will by hundreds of millions of years. Which all beings have free will? I don't think anybody would seriously argue that non-human animals have free will, in the sense that they should be held responsible for their actions. And human beings have existed for, let's say, two million years. But which all animals are capable of suffering, at least feeling physical pain? It's hard to tell, the general consensus seems to be that it is birds and mammals and perhaps octopuses. The latest common ancestors of birds and mammals existed 300 million years ago. Now, many people think that the ability to feel pain has evolved separately in birds and mammals, so that would push the number of years suffering has existed to lower, but we are still talking about hundreds of millions of years. So, for hundreds of millions of years, there was suffering in the world, but there was no free will. How do the proponents of the "free will" theodicy explain that?

You will often hear people say things like, "The Psalms cover every human emotion and situation." There's even a John Calvin quote somewhere. And the "covering every emotions" part may be true. But something has bothered me about this type of statement for a while. Now, I certainly could be missing something, but as I have read the Psalms more lately it seems that it only addresses really two types of suffering: **a)** Attacks/false accusations from enemies and **b)** suffering caused by sin/iniquity. Many Psalms feature the general 'cry of the afflicted' but when the reason is given, it seems to always come down to the two forms I mentioned above. Here's a couple examples: - Psalm 103:3 speaks of "healing our diseases" but there is disagreement from commentators whether this is really referring to the "disease" of sin. - Psalm 34:18 "The Lord is near to the broken-hearted" might at first glance be read as anyone who is grieving or suffered a loss. However in Derek Kidner's commentary on the Psalms he asserts that this "broken-heartedness" is referring to those who are broken over their sins. What does this mean for us? Is this a theological lesson that these two forms of suffering are the only ones that matter? What about physical suffering not caused by sin or enemies? What about the death of a loved one? What about an unexpected job loss? It seems possible to read the testimony of the Psalms as teaching us that these things aren't really important.

I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled [Christianity's Biggest Problem](https://youtu.be/5KDnnp0sDkI) , in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering: - An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs. - An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire. - Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics. - Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general. Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?

A renowned Christian who believes in evolution is [Francis Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) : > Collins also has written books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. After leaving the directorship of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and **advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the idea that the Creator brought about his plan through the processes of evolution**. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In fact, Francis Collins is a well-known advocate of the concept of [Theistic Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) : > Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that > "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and > characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists > describe it, but under the direction of God". He lists six general > premises on which different versions of theistic evolution typically > rest. They include: > > 1. The prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago; > 2. The fine-tuned universe; > 3. Evolution and natural selection; > 4. No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way; > 5. Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and > 6. Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God > among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to > our spiritual nature. However, evolution via natural selection is a process that is inherently plagued with suffering. This suffering emerges from the relentless competition for resources, mates, and survival in an environment where only the fittest prevail. Organisms endure hardships such as hunger, disease, predation, natural disasters, mass extinctions, and territorial disputes as they strive to pass on their genes to the next generation. While natural selection drives adaptation and diversity, it does so through a mechanism that often entails pain and struggle. The evolutionary arms race perpetuates a cycle of suffering as organisms continually evolve to outcompete one another, leading to ever more sophisticated strategies for survival, but also escalating levels of conflict and suffering. I find it quite challenging to harmonize the picture of evolution with what the Bible reveals about God's ideal and desire for animals: Romans 8:19-22 ESV > 19 **For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God**. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, **in hope** 21 **that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God**. 22 **For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now**. Revelation 21:1-4 ESV > Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 **He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away**.” Isaiah 11:6-9 ESV > 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, > and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; > and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; > their young shall lie down together; > and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, > and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 **They shall not hurt or destroy** > **in all my holy mountain;** > **for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord** > **as the waters cover the sea.** Isaiah 65:25 ESV > **The wolf and the lamb shall graze together**; **the lion shall eat straw like the ox**, **and dust shall be the serpent's food.** **They shall not hurt or destroy** **in all my holy mountain**,” says the Lord. How can the tremendous amount of suffering inherent in evolution be reconciled with the concept of a loving God from a Christian evolutionary standpoint? --- *Note*: I came up with this question while reflecting on recent discussions on the problem of evil: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100110/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100129/61679

What is the Christian perspective on animal sentience and their capacity for conscious experience of pain and suffering? Do Christians affirm the consciousness of animals and their ability to suffer? What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on this matter? I'm especially interested in exploring the rationale, evidence, biblical foundations, and arguments put forth to support each viewpoint. *Context*: this inquiry holds significance in the context of grappling with the problem of natural evil, animal suffering, and theistic evolution. It is asked as a follow-up to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100208/61679 --- **Appendix** Evidence that the topic is relevant (and possibly controversial) among Christians: > Recently, some theists have attempted to deal with that part of the problem of evil generated by horrendous animal suffering found in nature - including hundreds of millions of years of animal suffering before we humans even showed up - by saying that animals aren't aware that they are in pain. They maintain this is what "science" has shown. That helps bring the problem of suffering down to size! > > **Indeed, that animals aren't aware that they are in pain is a remarkable "recent scientific discovery", said Christian apologist William Lane Craig in [his debate with me](https://youtu.be/w7FhphWDokA)** , for example. **Craig claimed that all animals other than higher primates lack a pre-frontal cortex, and thus are unaware that they are in pain** (see Craig speaking in the video below from about 2 mins 30 secs - P.S. he says e.g. cats have a level of pain awareness, but he maintains science has shown that cats are unaware that they are in pain, which, he says, will be a great comfort to animal lovers like himself). > > (source: [William Lane Craig: "Animals aren't aware that they're in pain"](https://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/william-lane-craig-animals-arent-aware.html)) > **A second (though unpopular) response to this problem is to deny that animal pain and suffering is real or morally relevant**. Most will react to this response with incredulity: “Isn’t it just obvious that some animals experience pain and suffering?” The answer to that question is yes and no. **We do think it an item of common sense that animals experience pain and suffering. But the scientific evidence for this is not as strong as you might think**. Of course, scientists all acknowledge that many animals display behaviors that make it look like they are in pain. But that is not good enough. To see why, consider the phenomenon of “blindsight.” Patients with blindsight claim to be blind, and yet are at the same time able to point to objects and, in some cases, catch balls--something they could only do if they could in fact see. So are they blind or not? Well, it depends on what you mean by “sight.” They can see in the sense that they can use visual information to regulate their behavior. But they are not consciously aware of the fact that they can do this. > > (source: [#113 Animal Suffering | Reasonable Faith](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/animal-suffering))

Arguments from evil, such as the [logical problem of evil](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100110/61679) or the [evidential problem of evil](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100129/61679) , aim to demonstrate that certain forms of suffering in the world are either unnecessary or gratuitous. Advocates of this argument contend that if it's conceivable to imagine a world with slightly less suffering without sacrificing any greater good, then an all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good being would prevent such instances of unnecessary suffering. For instance, proponents might argue that if a deer, like Bambi, endured one less second of agony in a wildfire in which it got caught without affecting any greater purpose, a benevolent deity would intervene to spare that needless second of suffering. Even if one nanosecond of suffering could be spared without compromising a greater good, it would be spared. However, skeptics point to the plethora of suffering and evil worldwide, both in nature and society, suggesting that for sure at least one instance of suffering must be gratuitous. Or at least that's the abductive argument they purport to make: that at least one instance of suffering could have been prevented, but it wasn't, therefore a wholly good God cannot exist. This motivates my question: Are Christians theologically committed to the belief that every iota of suffering and evil in the world necessarily serves a profound purpose, and that no suffering or evil is without justification, not even a nanosecond of it? **Clarification**: I'm interested in an overview of theological responses to this question.

In essence I'm asking that if there was nothing after death, but we believed that God existed, would there be any reason for us to worship God. It then seems like humans are coerced into worship, which is immoral. You may say that life is a gift from God, but a lot of people who go through hardships (torture, abuse, etc.) will disagree.

God knows, before even creating Earth, which people would choose Him on Earth and eventually go to Heaven. Therefore, God could just create these people and choose not to create the people who will go to Hell. Furthermore, because God is all-powerful, He could instantly implant all the spiritual growth, experiences, knowledge, etc. that these people would have gotten on Earth into their minds in Heaven - making the need for the experience/journey we go through on Earth unnecessary. Therefore, why would God create Earth as a "testing phase" for humans to grow, learn, and choose Him, when He can already have Heaven now with free humans that will love and serve Him? He could bypass all the suffering and evil in the world by doing this and achieve the same end result - a Heaven where all the people, of their own free will, love Him, serve Him, and share in His beautiful creation.

Let me illustrate with a few examples. Examples of good in Christianity: - Love: it's evident that love feels good and promotes behaviors that make others feel good. Therefore, love ranks very high on the "wellbeing scale". - Joy: the experience of joy ranks very high on the "wellbeing scale". - Peace: same thing. - Self-control: this basically means having the ability to avoid falling into the trap of addictions and compulsive behaviors, which is a great ability to have considering that addictions and compulsive behaviors can cause a lot of suffering to oneself and others. So, again, this virtue promotes wellbeing. - Faith: it's less obvious how to put this one in terms of wellbeing and suffering, but if we think of faith as "trust", then faith basically means trusting what God is telling you to do, and if we assume that God is omniscient and therefore has an optimal plan that ultimately seeks to maximize wellbeing (heaven) and minimize suffering (hell), then faith in (and obedience to) this kind of God should promote behavior that maximizes wellbeing and minimizes suffering in a holistic manner (i.e., by trusting and obeying God we are cooperating with God's plan and thus contributing to the ultimate maximization of the wellbeing of the whole creation.) - Etc. Examples of evil in Christianity: - Hatred: it's evident that hatred causes a lot of suffering. - Anger: same thing. - Envy: it can cause a lot of psychological suffering to the envious person, and the envied person may suffer as well if the envious person decides to do something stupid against them. - Stealing: very obvious, victims of stealing can experience a lot of suffering. - Lying: this one can be a bit trickier, since there might be situations in which lying can actually promote wellbeing, e.g. lying to the Nazis to save a Jewish family that is hiding in your basement. But there are plenty of cases when lying can cause suffering, for example when misinformation is propagated, causing people to make wrong decisions based on false information. - Fornication and Lust: this one is even trickier. Sexual desire and sexual pleasure feel good, so in this sense they have positive points on the "wellbeing scale". Perhaps someone might say that fornication might lead to STDs, but if proper safety and hygiene measures are taken, this potential risk can be greatly mitigated, so not a compelling argument in my opinion. Perhaps a better argument could be that lust might lead to pernicious behaviors such as sexual harassment and even rape, and these can undoubtedly cause a lot of suffering to the victims, and so we can trace an indirect path from lust to these harmful behaviors. But again, people can be lustful in private, using their imaginations, porn, etc. Not everyone who has lustful desires is a rapist or a sexual harasser, so this argument would not apply to those cases. Maybe a better reason why lust is seen as wrong is because the level of wellbeing it produces is of "lower quality" than the wellbeing experienced by someone "full of love". In other words, "love" is of a higher quality than "lust", meaning that love ranks higher than lust on the "wellbeing scale", and therefore love should be preferred. But this would only make sense if love and lust are mutually exclusive (otherwise, you could enjoy both love and lust at the same time and have the best of both worlds). Another possible reason against lust and fornication could be that they can lead to compulsive behaviors and obsessions, which may impair a person's ability to behave in loving ways, be productive and useful to society, etc., which can be similarly argued against other compulsions such as alcohol addiction, drug addiction, gambling, etc. - Etc. Are good and evil in Christianity ultimately based on maximizing wellbeing and minimizing suffering? Extra comments on homosexuality: The issue of homosexuality seems to be a good objection and potential counterexample to the view of morality as based on maximization of wellbeing and minimization of suffering that I'm defending here. How is wellbeing increased and suffering decreased by forbidding homosexuality? However, I still think there is a way to frame the prohibition of homosexuality in Christianity in terms of wellbeing and suffering, as follows: - If homosexuality is a sin that can get one sent to hell (maximum suffering) instead of heaven (maximum wellbeing), then it should be in one's best interest to refrain from homosexuality. - Homosexuality is a behavior that doesn't align with God's original plan for humanity. So we could say that God envisioned an optimal plan for humanity, and allowing homosexuality in would make things suboptimal from God's perspective. And maybe the reason has to do with reproduction and other considerations, fewer salvations, and therefore less people enjoying the maximum wellbeing of heaven, I don't know. - We could also include God's wellbeing into the equation. As far as I understand, whenever someone sins against God, that makes God angry and/or sad in some sense. Therefore, in order to maximize God's wellbeing, humans should avoid sinning, which includes homosexuality.

How do Christians respond to a claim in the Qur'an that God can not be the father of Christians because God gives them bad things in life to endure? Here is the quote in question set into context: > We also took a covenant from those who said: 'We are Christians'; but they forgot a good portion of the teaching they had been imparted with. Wherefore We aroused enmity and spite between them till the Day of Resurrection, and ultimately Allah will tell them what they had contrived. People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you: he makes clear to you a good many things of the Book which you were wont to conceal, and also passes over many things. There has now come to you a light from Allah, and a clear Book through which Allah shows to all who seek to please Him the paths leading to safety. He brings them out, by His leave, from darkness to light and directs them on to the straight way. Indeed those who said: 'Christ, the son of Mary, he is indeed God', disbelieved. Say (O Muhammad!): 'Who could have overruled Allah had He so willed to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?' For to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them; He creates what He wills. Allah is All-Powerful. **The Jews and the Christians say: 'We are Allah's children and His beloved ones.' Ask them: 'Why, then, does He chastise you for your sins?' You are the same as other men He has created. He forgives whom He wills and chastises whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. To Him is the eventual return.** People of the Book! After a long interlude during which no Messengers have appeared there has come to you Our Messenger to elucidate the teaching of the true faith lest you say: 'No bearer of glad tidings and no warner has come to us.' For now there indeed has come to you a bearer of glad tidings and a warner, Allah is All-Power-ful. - Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:12-19 It seems to say that if he was a loving father he wouldn't make them suffer at times in their lives, i.e. that their circumstances would be different than others.

As Christians go through trials, the trials are supposed to strengthen the faith the the Believers. One example is Romans 5:3-5 (NIV): > Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. The Bible is also filled with passages about the apostles glorifying God in the midst of their suffering. Contemporary Believers have also testified to being given the strength to persevere through trials and forgive their persecutors. However, from my own personal life, I have not found my trials to produce anything beneficial in my life. When I go through trials, I usually find myself growing more bitter, irritable, and discouraged as the trial progresses. These feelings and attitudes persist even after the trial is over. Obviously, since this attitude is not what I am supposed to have during trials, I tried to find a solution to my dilemma. Unfortunately, based on the research that I have done, the solution for my problem has been “just get over yourself and push through it” or “just praise God and the change will come.” Neither of these answers is very satisfying (especially to someone currently in the midst of trials); but I cannot find any other solutions. So, how are trials supposed to build my faith when my faith feels weaker after each trial? And how do I make the trials build my faith?

As a catholic, recently I’ve been feeling very guilty and anxious. The reason being is that because, during the course of my life, I’ve probably taken the lives of so many insects unintentionally and I’m in so much guilt to the point that when I go for a walk in the grass or a drive it’s inevitable that a tiny insect will die because of me. I feel like it’s unavoidable and I’m feeling super guilty and anxious and afraid of going to hell for it. I know this may sound like a dumb or stupid post, but it’s been bothering as of late. Now I know that killing insects isn’t a sin in the bible, but it feel like a sin to me I was wondering how do you find peace with God that you’ve taken the lives of so many creatures accidentally during your life. How can I stop feeling guilty and live my life guilty free. Thank you and god bless.

### What is "offering it up" As a Protestant, the Catholic practice of "offering it up" is new to me, although once I am acquainted with it, it seems very Biblical; see - [this article](https://catholicstrength.com/tag/offering-up-our-sufferings-for-others/) which interprets the practice in light of sharing in Christ's suffering in union with Him (*cf* Rom 8:17, Phil 2:17-18, Col 1:24, and 2 Cor 4:8-12) - Paul's advice to Timothy to "share in [Paul's] suffering [in Christ]" (*cf* 2 Tim 2:3) Other articles explaining "offering it up": - 2017 [*Catholic Digest* article](https://www.catholicdigest.com/amp/from-the-magazine/ask-father/what-does-it-really-mean-to-offer-it-up/) by Fr. Thomas V. Berg, Ph.D. - 2019 [*Word on Fire* article](https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/fellows/lets-get-reacquainted-with-the-idea-of-offering-it-up/) by Benedictine Oblate Elizabeth Scalia ### Offering it up *vs.* other suffering and works of love My question has to do with comparing "offering it up" (#4) to other 5 practices that can arguably produce merit: 1. "active" (visible) meritorious works of love ([congruous, not condign merit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Christianity)#Nature_of_merit) , done in the state of grace). Examples: [corporal works of mercy](https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/jubilee-of-mercy/the-corporal-works-of-mercy) , [spiritual works of mercy](https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/jubilee-of-mercy/the-spiritual-works-of-mercy) , etc. 1. "invisible" works of love we do in private. Examples: reward for praying in private *cf* Matt 6:5-6, reward for invisible fasting *cf* Matt 6:16-18, [mass intentions](https://www.catholiccompany.com/magazine/how-to-offer-up-your-intentions-at-mass-6222) , novenas, etc. 1. following evangelical counsels producing supererogatory merit (see Routledge entry on [Supererogation](https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/supererogation/v-1/sections/historical-antecedents)) 1. enduring unexpected hardship in life that we can designate ("offering it up") as [redemptive suffering for the spiritual benefit of others](https://catholicstrength.com/tag/offering-up-our-sufferings-for-others/) 1. penance for one's own satisfaction of temporal punishment, either prescribed by a priest or self-imposed 1. suffering because of persecution by others for the sake of Christ ### Is "Offering it up" a mere penance or can it also add to the treasury of merit? On the surface, #1, #2, and #3 are "positive" in character (in that there are **no effects of sin** factor into the acts), while - in #4 our suffering is through ***no fault of our own*** (like Job's), but maybe God's way to refine our character - in #5 it's clearly because of ***our*** sins - in #6 it is because ***other*** people's sins / provocations but what we do (i.e. not denying Christ at the risk of dying, or not ashamed of being a Christian in spite of jeers) will clearly be rewarded per Jesus's own promise in Matt 5:11-12. Per St. Cyprian (*c*. AD 250), Jesus's reward for dying for Him as martyrs clearly adds to the treasury of merit which apostates (*lapsi*) can then apply toward their penance. **My related questions**: 1. Does "offering it up" (#4) produces merit that is counted to the treasury of merit similar in #6 or should it be counted only as an unexpected opportunity to do penance for the sufferer's own temporal purification similar in #5? 1. But "offering it up" in its character of *redemptive suffering* seems to be heavily linked with the Catholic understanding of *communion of saints* where we help others in the purification process. So if our suffering in #5 can be "offered up" that God then redistributes to helping others, how does it compare with the **merit** rewarded by God as in #1, #2, and #3 ? An answer that addresses how each of the 6 cases relate to the treasury of merit would be appreciated.

In the Catholic Church there is a certain mystic aspect regarding to the suffering of Jesus Christ in which often faithful who go trough sufferings, especially for the faith, see their suffering as somehow joining to that of Christ. Very often Matthew 16:24-26 is cited here. Must we all suffer in life?

Where in the Bible does it mention that God mourns with us when we mourn? I have heard this from the philosopher Peter Kreeft, and some others as well. I would like to be pointed to the biblical source of this. Thanks. (Or is it an extrapolation of Christ's suffering?)

One of the most popular and strongest arguments for veganism is what I would call the 'animal cruelty' argument, namely, that non-vegan diets--including vegetarian ones that tolerate dairy and egg consumption--promote a food industry that inflicts tremendous suffering on animals such as chickens, cows and pigs, which are perpetually raised and killed by the millions in factory farms, in order to meet the demands of an insatiable non-vegan population. For example, [this site](https://www.animalaid.org.uk/veganism/why-veganism/going-vegan-animals/) summarizes the argument as follows: > Going vegan is one of the best things you can do to help stop animal cruelty. By refusing to pay for animal products, you reduce the demand for them, which ensures fewer animals are bred to suffer and die on farms and in slaughterhouses. Alex O'Connor, popularly known for his YouTube Channel [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ) , published a video clip of an interview titled ["I Like How it Sounds to Kill Dogs" | Veganism Explained](https://youtu.be/0A8WoXkfen0) that makes a great use of the rhetorical device of analogy to get the point across in a different way. Below the transcript: > The person who is paying for animal products is implicitly accepting the ideology that is morally permissible to kill an animal because of the way it tastes. Not everybody does, but the vast, VAST majority of people who do that are doing it for taste pleasure. If you are doing that, then what you are doing is you are paying for an animal to be tortured for the appeasement of your sense pleasure. Just to make this easier to understand how it feels like to be told that I shouldn't be telling people not to do that, just swap out the variables, take a different sense pleasure. I'll take a different non-human animal. Let's say somebody was killing dogs or paying for someone to torture dogs and put them into a gas chamber because they really like the way that it sounded when the dog squealed. Like I'm gonna pay you to put a dog into a gas chamber because I just love the way that it sounds. You don't understand it. It sounds so amazing to me when they squeal for their life and desperately try to escape, right? You would think that I am the most disgusting human being you'd ever come across. But that is exactly what we are doing when we justify the torture of a pig because of the appeasement of our taste pleasure. But because it's become so normalized, we don't even see it as a choice. We don't even see it as us making a decision or making an action, because it's just buying a burger, right? It's not buying a burger. It's demanding with your money, economically speaking, for an animal to be forced into a gas chamber to have its throat cut, to have its child separated from its mother, right? And so people call me extreme for wanting this to end? If you want extremity, look no further than what we're doing to animals. Intuitively, I think the argument seems to make sense: if there are alternative meal plans that are equally or more healthy than a normal meat-based diet that also avoid causing unnecessary suffering to animals, and given that Christianity's most exalted virtue is love (for God and others), then I see no obvious reason for a Christian not to go vegan out of love for animals. What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the 'animal cruelty' argument for veganism? Is this a compelling or at least reasonable argument for most Christians? To what extent do born-again Christians have ethical responsibilities toward animals, and if they have any, do these ethical responsibilities have any bearing on the way Christians are to eat?

An atheist has argued with me that suffering is going against "intelligent design" in humans and animals. He would agree that pain is vital for our nature to indicate when something is wrong, but he is saying that people are experience deep suffering which can change someone entire life and some people can never recover (like huge depression, mental illness etc.) Also there are unnecessary suffering like, why suffer when someone dies? He said that if God is perfect in creation we shouldn't have this experiences... I was defending in two ways: 1. original sin 2. unknown reason God may have to allow this, since he is all knowing, we cannot argue that we are imperfect, because we do not see the entire picture and we cannot understand fully what is the purpose we were made for... Therefore our current features could actually be perfect for a specific purpose. I'm wandering how would you answer this question; Is suffering a flaw in intelligent design?