Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?

[POI]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Its not talking about what they personally experienced, but this is a very good point: it was good.

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.


Peace again to you!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong.

Well, neither did Adam's offspring do anything wrong (at least not yet). But what we do affects our children (and their children), and what we do affects those things that we are in charge of.

Adam was given the earth and all in it.

Adam subjected/sold the earth and all in it (even his own offspring not yet born) to Death.

It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it,

There is nothing He could do about it UNLESS he reneged on His word (which God does not do)... or unless He didn't care if Adam (and Eve, and their offspring) learned love, empathy, consequences to actions, etc. God gave everything to Adam and Adam sold it to Death. It was done. God ensured that the death Adam took into himself would not be permanent (by confining that death to the flesh and not the spirit - hence God gave Adam and Eve those long garments of skin, which is not clothing, but is the body that we currently possess with sin and death in it). God also made certain that all life (including humans, even Adam and Eve) could return to God and eat from the Tree of Life and receive eternal life.

So God did do something about what happened.

in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything?

The kind of God who keeps His word, who ensures that His children are able to repent, to learn actual wisdom and love, and to be able to be free (knowing to choose the right and reject the wrong). The kind of God who did not give up on his human son (Adam), and did not shun him or kill him for what he did (even ensured that he did not die on that very day), but instead disciplined that child so that he might learn and also be saved.

The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

The flood was necessary to protect life (specifically the seed). Damage control, sure, but the alternative would have been much much worse, if we even survived to see it.


Peace again to you.

Good effort. But I must disagree. While it is perfectly true that Adam's sin dragging down all his descendants with him is indeed immoral, God said that was what he was going to do. However,while God gave command over the animals he also gave Adam life, but if sinning lost him life, surely it lost him command, or at least would give God reason to take the command away so that animals would not fall as well, which is what any moral being would have done. If God's morality at all resembled the one he supposedly gave us.

The Flood was NOT necessary. God could easily have found another method that did not take out all the animals, if he cared about them as much as sinful humans are able to do today. It doesn't help to say that God had given his word. If it is better to do good on the Sabbath than to keep it, it is better to release sinless animals from Adam's authority (which surely he'd forfeited by sinning) than to allow them to Fall along with Adam though no fault of their own.

And I haven't even started on the snake,

[William]

Peace to you,

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Its not talking about what they personally experienced, but this is a very good point: it was good.

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.


Peace again to you!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong. It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it, in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything? The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

What I am arguing is not unrelated to the thread topic. My first comment in this thread was about the mistake sceptics make in going along with the idea that there actually is a 'problem of evil' - maybe materialists created that phrase to begin with, as a way of arguing something that shouldn't be argued from folk who are materialists.

The only problem of evil is that we either believe or we pretend that evil is an actual problem.

Nature doesn't work that way. If nature does it, then it is not 'evil'. That is the same as the bible saying God said "It is Good".

So none of the 'terror' is evil, no matter how bad it gets, and as we know - it does get so bad.

I agree. Secular humanism is beginning to realise that 'evil' is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nature. That isn't the point here. It is that religion, claiming that morality Is a matter of religion has to deal with the question of the Problem of evil, and the fall and destruction of the animals (in the Flood) and indeed the condition of animals thereafter - given that Bible -God made everything (and presumably can do anything), and is Good and would not allow evil (unless it was deserved or it would nullify free will) to happen. So how can Believers explain the evil to happen to animals who committed no sin?

I don't know how you managed to interpret what I wrote, in the back-the-front manner you have, but that is NOT what I am saying at all.
"Secular humanism is beginning to realise that 'evil' is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nature."

I am saying evil is more the invention of religion and has nothing to do with the attributions of nature/natural process.

Dead dinosaurs have nothing to do with evil. They died due to the nature of nature, which - according to the biblical creation story was seen as 'good' in the mind of the BG - not 'Evil' and not even 'bad'.

Good.

Thus, explaining the suffering of animals before the so-named 'fall of man' is really just a trick-question asked by those who should already understand that such a natural thing is NOT evil, while it is clearly written that the BG did not see such as being 'evil'.

[brunumb]

So if you have an issue with someone listing 'possibilities' (including to account for the chance that their understanding of a particular detail is incorrect or incomplete), does that mean you are a science denier?

When those possibilities are contrary to established science, then the answer is yes.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Its not talking about what they personally experienced, but this is a very good point: it was good.

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.


Peace again to you!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong.

Well, neither did Adam's offspring do anything wrong (at least not yet). But what we do affects our children (and their children), and what we do affects those things that we are in charge of.

Adam was given the earth and all in it.

Adam subjected/sold the earth and all in it (even his own offspring not yet born) to Death.

It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it,

There is nothing He could do about it UNLESS he reneged on His word (which God does not do)... or unless He didn't care if Adam (and Eve, and their offspring) learned love, empathy, consequences to actions, etc. God gave everything to Adam and Adam sold it to Death. It was done. God ensured that the death Adam took into himself would not be permanent (by confining that death to the flesh and not the spirit - hence God gave Adam and Eve those long garments of skin, which is not clothing, but is the body that we currently possess with sin and death in it). God also made certain that all life (including humans, even Adam and Eve) could return to God and eat from the Tree of Life and receive eternal life.

So God did do something about what happened.

in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything?

The kind of God who keeps His word, who ensures that His children are able to repent, to learn actual wisdom and love, and to be able to be free (knowing to choose the right and reject the wrong). The kind of God who did not give up on his human son (Adam), and did not shun him or kill him for what he did (even ensured that he did not die on that very day), but instead disciplined that child so that he might learn and also be saved.

The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

The flood was necessary to protect life (specifically the seed). Damage control, sure, but the alternative would have been much much worse, if we even survived to see it.


Peace again to you.

Good effort. But I must disagree. While it is perfectly true that Adam's sin dragging down all his descendants with him is indeed immoral, God said that was what he was going to do.

I have no problem if we disagree. I am not sure what you are saying, however (in the underlined part)... God said 'what' was what he was going to do?

However,while God gave command over the animals he also gave Adam life, but if sinning lost him life, surely it lost him command, or at least would give God reason to take the command away so that animals would not fall as well, which is what any moral being would have done. If God's morality at all resembled the one he supposedly gave us.

But it was already done.

If you gave someone an island and everything on that island (and since humans lie, lets say this is all done via written contract), they then have the authority to give/sell that island (and everything in that island) to someone else. Or even let in an element that you warned them would be bad.

The animals live on the island.

The Flood was NOT necessary. God could easily have found another method that did not take out all the animals, if he cared about them as much as sinful humans are able to do today.

You can't know something like that. Do you know how the spiritual works? Do you know what might have been required to stop the offspring of angels and humans? Do you know what might have been required to stop those spirit beings who had offspring with women?

And I haven't even started on the snake,

Okay, lol. But it wasn't a snake. It was a serpent/drakon/seraph. A spirit being. The Adversary (the one called Satan) to be precise.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[theophile]

If Christians cannot resolve the presented "animal problem", then maybe it's time to relegate the Bible to the history books; like they presumably have with all other books of claimed 'godly authority'.

Your statement goes too far. i.e., The only thing you're dissatisfied with is the various Christian views presented on the matter (excluding mine which you didn't want to engage with).

It is an unjustified leap on your part to assume that the views presented are true of the bible, and that the bible should essentially be thrown out.

Well, I do not find that your view falls within the confines of the "Christian view".?.?.? You appear not to have set clear boundaries to examine? Hence, I opted not to engage, as this problem presents to defined Christians. And the fact that none of them choose to continue, is quite telling thus far. Maybe they will engage later, or maybe other Christians will come forth to engage in the future? But for now, the problem looks to be presented, with no clear path for 'resolve' for the Christian?

Again, WLC, a very well versed Christian, argues (2) points:

1. Predation is needed
2. Animals do not experience 3rd order pain

Can you beat that? WLC had a lot of time to come up with the 'best' counterpoints for the presented problem. Does the guy in the video defeat them? If not, why? Or, if you feel you have 'better' ones, please let us know? However, I still do not know if we can continue, in success, with you not defining your boundaries?

Your question in the OP was: "Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering?" I answered that and have no desire to discuss predation or animal experience of pain.

My answer (which referred to well established Christian traditions such as process theology) was that it is due to the nature of God's power.

God doesn't have in Godself any power to directly intercede on an animal's behalf. God's power is persuasive in nature (to refer again to process theology), and depends on other beings-in-the-world (notably human beings) to answer the call and do something about it.

So God "allows it" quite simply because there isn't anything God can do about it.

I already touched on this...

Animals were around well before humans, unless you wish to dispute this discovery? Did animals suffer before humans were around to 'do something about it"? If so, who was there to 'do something about it'? And did they?

Thus, did animals suffer/die prior to humans? If so, why?

These are not the questions in the OP. The question in the OP was specifically why God would allow animal suffering.

I have no proof but it seems pretty obvious to me that animals suffered before humans existed (just as they continue to suffer now). What does that have to do with the question posed in the OP?

I ask the follow up question(s) based upon your prior response. In post #171, you states "God's power is persuasive in nature (to refer again to process theology), and depends on other beings-in-the-world (notably human beings) to answer the call and do something about it. So God "allows it" quite simply because there isn't anything God can do about it."

Okay, but none of your questions address my answer. Or at least, it's very unclear where you're going with them. But let's find out.

If God's power is merely "persuasive in nature", who the heck would He be granting the powers of 'persuasion' to before humans?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

What is the point for animal suffering, for millions of years, if there is no one to stop it?

Who said it had a point? That said, I'm sure it could have had many points. Like, pain to let the animal know that it is in trouble and needs to act.

Further, if animals cannot learn from such "suffering", your response suggests that God just really likes to watch animal suffering?

Who said animals can't learn from their suffering? Pretty sure my dog learns from the pain that it feels.

Also who said God is watching? Sure, God saw that it was good at one point, and presumably this included some degree of animal suffering. But that doesn't mean God is watching, or that it was specifically the animal suffering that God was referring to as 'good'. I tend to think rather that it was the diversity of animal life that God said was good, even though still in a 'wild' state of nature (which many today would also deem 'good' I think, i.e., the earth's remaining wildernesses).

Also my point stands that if God saw the animal suffering I'm pretty sure God would call for the suffering to be addressed. Case and point, why God creates us to take care of it all...

So, did God do anything about it, or were other 'agents' responsible for the care of all animals, prior to humans? If there was no responsibility, then this means that animals suffered for millions of years. So why take care of them later, if it did not matter before?

I already said God can't do anything about it. Not directly at least in the way you're thinking. But I'm sure other non-human agents could fill the role. I don't think that's out of the question by any means.

[POI]

This is why I did not feel this engagement would be very productive.... Anywho, moving forward...

Okay, but none of your questions address my answer. Or at least, it's very unclear where you're going with them. But let's find out.

Yea, let's find out...

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Who did God persuade, before humans, to 'do something about it'? And by 'it', this means be the care-taker for the animals?

Who said it had a point? That said, I'm sure it could have had many points. Like, pain to let the animal know that it is in trouble and needs to act.

Well, you mentioned, prior, (paraphrased) - "human beings are to answer the call to take care of the animals." Thus, you made a specific point.

Who said animals can't learn from their suffering? Pretty sure my dog learns from the pain that it feels.

Also who said God is watching? Sure, God saw that it was good at one point, and presumably this included some degree of animal suffering. But that doesn't mean God is watching, or that it was specifically the animal suffering that God was referring to as 'good'. I tend to think rather that it was the diversity of animal life that God said was good, even though still in a 'wild' state of nature (which many today would also deem 'good' I think, i.e., the earth's remaining wildernesses).

Also my point stands that if God saw the animal suffering I'm pretty sure God would call for the suffering to be addressed. Case and point, why God creates us to take care of it all...

Sure, the theist can argue animals are 'instinctual', and 'respond' to pain. However, I doubt the conventional 'problem of evil', as it relates to 'free will' really pertains to animals, does it?

If God is not watching, how will He account for one's actions?

And like I stated prior, if "God creates us to take care of it all", why was it not important enough to do so for millions of years prior? God only wants to assure animals are addressed, millions of years later?

I already said God can't do anything about it. Not directly at least in the way you're thinking. But I'm sure other non-human agents could fill the role. I don't think that's out of the question by any means.

But you already said God did do something about it. He created us to be animal caretakers.

And to dig into your assertion...

Why can't God do anything about it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Its not talking about what they personally experienced, but this is a very good point: it was good.

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.


Peace again to you!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong. It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it, in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything? The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

What I am arguing is not unrelated to the thread topic. My first comment in this thread was about the mistake sceptics make in going along with the idea that there actually is a 'problem of evil' - maybe materialists created that phrase to begin with, as a way of arguing something that shouldn't be argued from folk who are materialists.

The only problem of evil is that we either believe or we pretend that evil is an actual problem.

Nature doesn't work that way. If nature does it, then it is not 'evil'. That is the same as the bible saying God said "It is Good".

So none of the 'terror' is evil, no matter how bad it gets, and as we know - it does get so bad.

I agree. Secular humanism is beginning to realise that 'evil' is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nature. That isn't the point here. It is that religion, claiming that morality Is a matter of religion has to deal with the question of the Problem of evil, and the fall and destruction of the animals (in the Flood) and indeed the condition of animals thereafter - given that Bible -God made everything (and presumably can do anything), and is Good and would not allow evil (unless it was deserved or it would nullify free will) to happen. So how can Believers explain the evil to happen to animals who committed no sin?

I don't know how you managed to interpret what I wrote, in the back-the-front manner you have, but that is NOT what I am saying at all.
"Secular humanism is beginning to realise that 'evil' is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nature."

I am saying evil is more the invention of religion and has nothing to do with the attributions of nature/natural process.

Dead dinosaurs have nothing to do with evil. They died due to the nature of nature, which - according to the biblical creation story was seen as 'good' in the mind of the BG - not 'Evil' and not even 'bad'.

Good.

Thus, explaining the suffering of animals before the so-named 'fall of man' is really just a trick-question asked by those who should already understand that such a natural thing is NOT evil, while it is clearly written that the BG did not see such as being 'evil'.

I agree and really I just do not get why you have a problem with what I posted.

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Its not talking about what they personally experienced, but this is a very good point: it was good.

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.


Peace again to you!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong.

Well, neither did Adam's offspring do anything wrong (at least not yet). But what we do affects our children (and their children), and what we do affects those things that we are in charge of.

Adam was given the earth and all in it.

Adam subjected/sold the earth and all in it (even his own offspring not yet born) to Death.

It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it,

There is nothing He could do about it UNLESS he reneged on His word (which God does not do)... or unless He didn't care if Adam (and Eve, and their offspring) learned love, empathy, consequences to actions, etc. God gave everything to Adam and Adam sold it to Death. It was done. God ensured that the death Adam took into himself would not be permanent (by confining that death to the flesh and not the spirit - hence God gave Adam and Eve those long garments of skin, which is not clothing, but is the body that we currently possess with sin and death in it). God also made certain that all life (including humans, even Adam and Eve) could return to God and eat from the Tree of Life and receive eternal life.

So God did do something about what happened.

in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything?

The kind of God who keeps His word, who ensures that His children are able to repent, to learn actual wisdom and love, and to be able to be free (knowing to choose the right and reject the wrong). The kind of God who did not give up on his human son (Adam), and did not shun him or kill him for what he did (even ensured that he did not die on that very day), but instead disciplined that child so that he might learn and also be saved.

The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

The flood was necessary to protect life (specifically the seed). Damage control, sure, but the alternative would have been much much worse, if we even survived to see it.


Peace again to you.

Good effort. But I must disagree. While it is perfectly true that Adam's sin dragging down all his descendants with him is indeed immoral, God said that was what he was going to do.

I have no problem if we disagree. I am not sure what you are saying, however (in the underlined part)... God said 'what' was what he was going to do?

However,while God gave command over the animals he also gave Adam life, but if sinning lost him life, surely it lost him command, or at least would give God reason to take the command away so that animals would not fall as well, which is what any moral being would have done. If God's morality at all resembled the one he supposedly gave us.

But it was already done.

If you gave someone an island and everything on that island (and since humans lie, lets say this is all done via written contract), they then have the authority to give/sell that island (and everything in that island) to someone else. Or even let in an element that you warned them would be bad.

The animals live on the island.

The Flood was NOT necessary. God could easily have found another method that did not take out all the animals, if he cared about them as much as sinful humans are able to do today.

You can't know something like that. Do you know how the spiritual works? Do you know what might have been required to stop the offspring of angels and humans? Do you know what might have been required to stop those spirit beings who had offspring with women?

And I haven't even started on the snake,

Okay, lol. But it wasn't a snake. It was a serpent/drakon/seraph. A spirit being. The Adversary (the one called Satan) to be precise.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Obviously God said that Adam's sin would drag his descendants down with him.
"It was already done?" What was already done and why do you think God couldn't undo it?

You can't know it could Not be like that. How do you know anything about the spiritual way things work? How can you suppose that the being who made everything couldn't do anything once it had been made? Are you telling me that God who had Jesus drive spirits out of the afflicted couldn't do anything to stop other spirits having offspring with women? Admittedly repenting after the Flood but not putting it right implies that tis god is rather limited, but do we have a being that does not know what is going to happen?

It was a serpent. That is what it says. That means a snake and especially that it's legs were taken away so it had to go on it's belly shows that means a snake. Where is your justification for claiming it to be a 'drakon/seraph?'

Peace, of course, taken for granted. You may assume that without me having to tell you every time.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #197]

I agree and really I just do not get why you have a problem with what I posted.

"Secular humanism is beginning to realise that 'evil' is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nature."

What are you saying therein that agrees with what I am also saying?

[theophile]

And to dig into your assertion...

Why can't God do anything about it?

God can't do anything about it because God doesn't have the power. That's been my point all along

So what are you trying to get at here? e.g., What power does God have? What leads me to the conclusion that God doesn't have the power? ...

I'll assume these are what you're trying to get at. If so, I tend to rely on a couple key data points:

1. Gen 1:2. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Here God is described as a spirit, i.e., as some kind of wispy, hovering thing. Not at all a powerful image... But as we see in subsequent verses, God definitely has the power to call. To issue calls like "Let there be light." Which makes me think of something like 'justice.' Justice has no power in itself (it is a wispy thing like God), but it can call upon us. It has an uncanny ability to disrupt us and shake our conscience...

That's the first data point: At the beginning, God is powerless. Or has no real power except the persuasive power of a call.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:28. "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

Here God is described as becoming all in all, with all things at last being made subject to God. It's only at this point (the end point), that God has power over all things, including death. Which means God currently does not. Which means any suggestion that God is (currently) omnipotent are in direct contradiction with Paul. (Who I tend to think is a much better authority than later Christian theologians.)

That's the second data point: At the end, God is all powerful.

***

So the question is, what happens in between? What power does God have at any point in time?

I'm sure we could debate this endlessly, but to me it's pretty straightforward: God's power at any point in time is a function of those who have answered the call.

To stick with the justice example, the total power justice has at any point in time is a function of those who heard and answered the call for justice. It is the sum total of the power that each being has committed to its cause. If nobody commits their power to justice, then justice has no power and there is no real justice in the world.

Same for God. Hence we can rightly say that God may be completely powerless (in any real sense), or that God may be capable of great and wonderful things, including saving / redeeming all animal life.

It's only at the beginning and (maybe) the end that we know for sure.

[POI]

And to dig into your assertion...

Why can't God do anything about it?

God can't do anything about it because God doesn't have the power. That's been my point all along

Yea, this is why I originally opted not to engage your response(s)... But I digress....

Did God have the power to create the scenario He created, or did someone else create the scenario which exists?