Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores.

[Diogenes]

Most of the arguments against the idea of a loving god who created the planet Earth and its creatures are so obvious they occur to a child. One of them is, 'Why would a caring, loving god create a world where so many organisms can only survive only by killing and eating others? Christians usually fall back on the old "Original Sin" argument, that everything was perfect until "The Fall."

Is "The Fall" a reasonable argument to explain the existence of God-created organisms that can only survive by tearing the flesh off other organisms? . . . or by consuming and torturing them to death like brainless cancer cells, viruses and bacteria?

When God made his creation and called it 'good.' then called it evil and drowned 99.9999 percent of his 'creation,' why didn't that 'New Start' fix everything? Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God have known all this would transpire before 'He' created the first clod of earth, the first drop of water, the first atom of 'the firmament?'

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #250]

In an effort to propel this conversation forward, allow me to present the following. We seem to have (3) positions available?:

1) The claim to an 'omni' god, with this topic, is logically impossible?
2) The atheist actually has no say here, if nature is merely a product of 'chaos'?
3) A non-omni god can be accounted for, (in another topic), but is not applicable in this topic, as 'evil' is irrelevant?

Did I miss anything?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #251]

You've laid out three options. I don't fit neatly into any of them, but if forced to choose: #3 comes closest, with a caveat. 'Evil' isn't irrelevant - it's just not the right category for evaluating a God who never claimed to be omnibenevolent. The Hebrew God ordains both good and evil (Isaiah 45:7). The question isn't 'is he evil?' but 'what is he?' And that question takes us beyond your three boxes.

The OP asks "Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores." and then examines this question through the lens of an Omni Entity.

Does that mean one cannot examine the question through another lens?

Does that mean onus is not relevant to an Omni-creator?

Has it been shown that the OP is correct in defining the Bible God as "omni"? If not, does this mean that the thread itself is pointless because these things have not been established first - even that Tanager as a proponent of the Omni-God idea and argues this is what the bible God is?

On the focus of "pointless" does my inserted observation that the argument between two opposing positions which each start from irreconcilable frameworks which when prolonged produces the YAWN due to the looping which always occurs and in this case even had members asking AI who has won and or/who argued best - signifying the unspoken yet significant observation that neither opponent seemed to notice - preoccupied as they were - that the dynamic was looping... iow going nowhere - something either opponent can agree with?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

Here is one of your direct quotes from the given link:

"animals undergo a form of development that prepares them for an existence beyond their earthly life."

Are you pulling stuff out of your keister?

The Bible does not explicitly teach that animals undergo "developmental preparation" for an existence beyond earthly life, as they are generally presented as lacking the immortal soul and capacity for redemption attributed to humans. While animals are part of a creation described as awaiting liberation (Romans 8) and feature in visions of a restored, peaceful future kingdom, they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it.

Theology extends beyond the bible. Philosophy is not dependent upon the bible. I am Catholic, not a Bible-only believer.

The least you could do is respond to what I stated. Here, I highlighted the part in red, (for which you skipped).

I did answer, though. I don't go by the bible alone. In other words, I don't need to show where in the bible it says animals are going through their own kind of refining to be worthy of heaven. It is based on philosophy and theology. they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it. << doesn't matter for the reason I just stated.

[POI]

The OP asks "Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores." and then examines this question through the lens of an Omni Entity.

Does that mean one cannot examine the question through another lens?

It depends. I'm here to debate Christians. Are you a Christian who does not deem the Christian god an 'omni' god?

[POI]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

Here is one of your direct quotes from the given link:

"animals undergo a form of development that prepares them for an existence beyond their earthly life."

Are you pulling stuff out of your keister?

The Bible does not explicitly teach that animals undergo "developmental preparation" for an existence beyond earthly life, as they are generally presented as lacking the immortal soul and capacity for redemption attributed to humans. While animals are part of a creation described as awaiting liberation (Romans 8) and feature in visions of a restored, peaceful future kingdom, they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it.

Theology extends beyond the bible. Philosophy is not dependent upon the bible. I am Catholic, not a Bible-only believer.

The least you could do is respond to what I stated. Here, I highlighted the part in red, (for which you skipped).

I did answer, though. I don't go by the bible alone. In other words, I don't need to show where in the bible it says animals are going through their own kind of refining to be worthy of heaven. It is based on philosophy and theology. they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it. << doesn't matter for the reason I just stated.

Ahh, it's based on philosophy and theology. Got it. I guess you do not need to explian then.

[William]

The OP asks "Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores." and then examines this question through the lens of an Omni Entity.

Does that mean one cannot examine the question through another lens?

It depends. I'm here to debate Christians. Are you a Christian who does not deem the Christian god an 'omni' god?

What is "a Christian" in your estimate? Depending on how you answer, then if I were to answer that with "no", would you stop debating with me?

I do not pronounce the Hebrew God "omni" - because clearly in the reading - it is apparent He is not. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?

Also, do you think the Hebrew/Christian God places onus on the individual or not, re my mention of that aspect in my last 2 posts?

[POI]

What is "a Christian" in your estimate?

Someone who believes in the Bible god, that Jesus both died and rose for them, and also, worships them accordingly. Is this you in any capacity?

Depending on how you answer, then if I were to answer that with "no", would you stop debating with me?

No. But bear in mind my focus is on Christians. Individuals who believe in alternative invisible agencies currently fascinate me less ATM. Don't take it personally. Debating/engaging with you is less 'interesting' because we may share more similar views (here and there), when it comes to certain things. It is less interesting for me to exchange with someone who does not share a completely opposite worldview. Case/point... My current worldview is as follows... I have no idea why we are here, if there is even a "why" to begin with? But I'm pretty confident that Christianity does not fit into the puzzle or equation as to the answer. And hence, I remain fascinated as to how others still believe this to be the case. Further, I used to be a Christian myself, so I can more-so directly relate to some and how they currently feel. I hope this clears some things up?

Alternately, you are a very bright individual and are too very interesting to exchange with. However, in this platform, my focus is on Christians.

I do not pronounce the Hebrew God "omni" - because clearly in the reading - it is apparent He is not. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?

I do not think he exists. Such a question is instead a mere thought experiment. Much like asking me about the attributes of any other perceived factitious invisible agency (in which we both agree likely don't exist). But sure, the Bible seems to present the bible god as a fumbling buffoon, as he endorses racial preferences, male preferences, and other purely human-like archaic preferences, who stated something to the affect of..., 'look what I did folks, worship me or else.' But I digress here as this is not the topic for addressing this...

Also, do you think the Hebrew/Christian God places onus on the individual or not, re my mention of that aspect in my last 2 posts?

Again, I do not think he exists, and I doubt you do either. Hence, these are merely hypothetical questions for both of us, not just one of us.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #257]

Someone who believes the Bible god, and/or Jesus both died and rose for them and also worships them accordingly. Is this you in any capacity?

This is a narrow, creedal definition. It excludes anyone who doesn't fit that particular mold. Perhaps you find these ones more appealing because your strategy (motivated by winning perhaps?) depends on focusing debating on these types. Is that a fair assessment?

bear in mind my focus is on Christians. Individuals who believe in alternative invisible agencies currently fascinate me less ATM.

You joined this forum Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:22 pm
There are 583 pages of posts you have made, including threads you have created. Given your record, would it be fair to say you are looking for a certain type of "prey" to feed on re your "fascination"? Easier even? Something which might keep the notion alive in you that you are "winning" more than you are "losing"?
(Just trying to understand your motives here. Don't take it personally.)

My currently worldview is as follows... I have no idea why we are here, if there is even a "why" to begin with? But I'm pretty confident that Christianity does not fit into the puzzle or equation as to the answer. And hence, I remain fascinated as to how others still believe this to be the case.

I don't see how those two add up. If you are pretty confident about Christianity, what motivates your interest to want to debate with them? To convert/de-convert them? Something else? You seem less confident re the "why" which would signify you are searching but this is contradicted by the rule you have in place which makes me a less interesting opponent.

Further, I used to be a Christian myself, so I can more-so directly relate to some and how they currently feel.

When you say this are you meaning you used to be someone who believed the Bible god, and/or Jesus both died and rose for them and also worshiped them accordingly? If so, then this does touch on the "onus" I continue to mention.
My question to you re this is - what was the type of worship you did "accordingly"? I ask because I understand there are many types of Christians - including Mystic Christians.
Naturally I would ask what it was that made you quit that path - and whether that has any bearing on how you interact with and who you prefer to interact with re debate and choosing types of opponents. Did you consider examining other forms of Christianity or simple tell yourself something like "the Christianity I tried ( and perhaps believed was true) didn't work so my only alternative is to become an atheist"?

Also, do you think the Hebrew/Christian God places onus on the individual or not, re my mention of that aspect in my last 2 posts?

Again, I do not think he exists, and I doubt you do either. Hence, these are merely hypothetical questions for both of us, not just one of us.

Yet surely you can agree that answering a hypothetical question is still doable? After all, you seem okay with arguing with particular Christians about hypotheticals...

I agree that I can also be asked the question and my answer would be "yes". What is your answer?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #257]

Someone who believes the Bible god, and/or Jesus both died and rose for them and also worships them accordingly. Is this you in any capacity?

This is a narrow, creedal definition. It excludes anyone who doesn't fit that particular mold. Perhaps you find these ones more appealing because your strategy (motivated by winning perhaps?) depends on focusing debating on these types. Is that a fair assessment?

You never answered my straightforward question(s). Do you believe that the Bible god exists, and that the Bible god died for you? Also, do you also worship him for doing so? Yes or no?

In the meantime, I'm here because the website is called 'DebatingChristianity', and not "DebatingOther". If you are not a Christian, then my interest lessens. I've given plenty of reason(s) as to why I'm here, (in detail), already for you in the past. Do I need to repeat them all again?

And no, as stated in the past, I am surrounded by Christians. It is a perpetual topic worthy of frequent discussion. Which is why I exercise frequent exchange here, as to avoid discord with friends and family.

You joined this forum Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:22 pm
There are 583 pages of posts you have made, including threads you have created.

Wow! Stock much?

Given your record, would it be fair to say you are looking for a certain type of "prey" to feed on re your "fascination"? Easier even? Something which might keep the notion alive in you that you are "winning" more than you are "losing"?

LOL! I'm sorry, but you are too funny. Maybe you are instead projecting your own viewpoint regarding the ones I debate here? Again, if you would again like the laundry list of reason(s) I frequent this sight, let me know?

I don't see how those two add up. If you are pretty confident about Christianity, what motivates your interest to want to debate with them? To convert/de-convert them? Something else?

I know I will not convert anyone. I have never witnessed a debate (in religion or politics) where the opponent throws up their hands and states, "you are right, I'm now on your side." Deeply held beliefs are harder to sway. It's a topic of interest because SO many folks believe it. It's fascinating to understand why and what justification(s) they sight for believing. Religions like Scientology (for instance), though also fascinating to dissect or deconstruct, garner little to no traction among the community. Christianity is instead imbedded into many people and many things deeply.

When you say this are you meaning you used to be someone who believed the Bible god, and/or Jesus both died and rose for them and also worshiped them accordingly?

Yes.

My question to you re this is - what was the type of worship you did "accordingly"?

I was a believer who prayed to the Christian god both inside and outside of church. I attended Bible study and the like.

I ask because I understand there are many types of Christians - including Mystic Christians.

I was a Catholic and then converted to Protestant (non-denominational) as a young adult.

Naturally I would ask what it was that made you quit that path - and whether that has any bearing on how you interact with and who you prefer to interact with re debate and choosing types of opponents. Did you consider examining other forms of Christianity or simple tell yourself something like "the Christianity I tried ( and perhaps believed was true) didn't work so my only alternative is to become an atheist"?

This needs a new topic created, otherwise, it's going to get quite in depth and way off the current topic. Even more-so than it already is.

Yet surely you can agree that answering a hypothetical question is still doable? After all, you seem okay with arguing with particular Christians about hypotheticals...

Yes, and I explained why. One of us, my opponent specifically, usually does not believe it is a hypothetical.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #259]

Thanks.

Are you a meat eater?