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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #319]

With humans I can also talk to them.

Are the humans you can't talk to not suffering?

If they are not capable of communication in anyway, then I can only go by their actions. Do you have some other way of measuring how much a human is suffering? Perhaps, some brain scanning technology will show us for sure they are suffering?

You can only go by their actions, but not when it comes to animals. I sense a struggle to simply whitewash God in all of this.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems a bit weird that what suffering is or comparing animal with human suffering is being dissected. It seems pretty clear; we are programmed by evolution to abreact to unpleasantries and favorably to good (for us) things. Suffering is just another survival mechanism and in fact no different from that of bugs, buffalo and billy -goats, other than humans can think about it, philosophise about it and mystify it. It is just like an inherent instinct like flinching from dangers to learned instincts like tying knots without having to think about it.

For this reason alone it seems absurd to me to associate suffering with some divine plan as evolution explains it well enough, and thankfully, I don't have to try to reconcile the inflicted suffering from a natural world and universe that doesn't care whether we survive or not with some sort of divine plan.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #332]

I have already responded to everything. If you feel something is not responded to, you can make a new post and I will address anything that needs to be addressed.

No, you did not response to post 317. But that's okay. And no, making a new thread about the same topic would be silly. Allow me to try and push this forward a bit....

I'm going to steelman the $h1+ out of your argument in bold blue, from post 301 and beyond.... You are welcome.....

Animals do not actually suffer. They appear to, via human 'observation', but we are flat out wrong. Due to the topic of divine hiddenness, god's plan is to create the illusion of animal suffering, to stay in line with divine hiddenness. If we humans "observed" that animals did not suffer, we would get too suspicious.

Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further.

If you think that is a steelman of my view, then you are showing how much you lack reading comprehension because that is not what I wrote. I merely offered the possibility that animals might not actually suffer. You haven't done anything to show for sure they do suffer, either.

Surely, there is better than this offered here, right?

Nonetheless, I will continue to respond to threads made that are not well thought out.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #332]

I have already responded to everything. If you feel something is not responded to, you can make a new post and I will address anything that needs to be addressed.

No, you did not response to post 317. But that's okay. And no, making a new thread about the same topic would be silly. Allow me to try and push this forward a bit....

I'm going to steelman the $h1+ out of your argument in bold blue, from post 301 and beyond.... You are welcome.....

Animals do not actually suffer. They appear to, via human 'observation', but we are flat out wrong. Due to the topic of divine hiddenness, god's plan is to create the illusion of animal suffering, to stay in line with divine hiddenness. If we humans "observed" that animals did not suffer, we would get too suspicious.

Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further.

If you think that is a steelman of my view, then you are showing how much you lack reading comprehension because that is not what I wrote. I merely offered the possibility that animals might not actually suffer. You haven't done anything to show for sure they do suffer, either.

Surely, there is better than this offered here, right?

Nonetheless, I will continue to respond to threads made that are not well thought out.

LOL! Speaking of "reading comprehension", you might want to read (again), what I wrote at the bottom of my last response. Allow me to spoon feed it to you:

"Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further."

So, if we just completely concede, and establish that animals do not suffer, why do animals <appear> to suffer? Please tell us? Does it have to do with 'divine hiddenness', or is it other?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #332]

I have already responded to everything. If you feel something is not responded to, you can make a new post and I will address anything that needs to be addressed.

No, you did not response to post 317. But that's okay. And no, making a new thread about the same topic would be silly. Allow me to try and push this forward a bit....

I'm going to steelman the $h1+ out of your argument in bold blue, from post 301 and beyond.... You are welcome.....

Animals do not actually suffer. They appear to, via human 'observation', but we are flat out wrong. Due to the topic of divine hiddenness, god's plan is to create the illusion of animal suffering, to stay in line with divine hiddenness. If we humans "observed" that animals did not suffer, we would get too suspicious.

Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further.

If you think that is a steelman of my view, then you are showing how much you lack reading comprehension because that is not what I wrote. I merely offered the possibility that animals might not actually suffer. You haven't done anything to show for sure they do suffer, either.

Surely, there is better than this offered here, right?

Nonetheless, I will continue to respond to threads made that are not well thought out.

I think you are wrong. The evidence is that animals suffer. Some even know they suffer or exhibit reactions that parallel human suffering. Such actions are quite commensurate with a more advanced evolutionary strategy of social groups, pack and tribal structure and those as an aid to survival. I see no need to deny one and elevate the other to some divine plan. This is the human idea that we are specially created for a Purpose, and that is partly instinct too. But I had a discussion on my former board shortly after I joined it about a Plantinga -based argument that human instinct (I think the poster said evolution, too) tells us truth because we believe in a god. I argued (and this has remained a rebuttal of a basic Christian apologetic), that if we cannot trust science because of 'imperfect human perception', then we certainly can't trust human faith - claims, especially about the supernatural.

I also (stick with me, this does get relevant) argue that evolution produces instincts that are for survival - they serve that purpose and if they did not, we wouldn't have them. And thus the religious instinct is equally well explained as an evolved survival - instinct but not necessarily telling us what's true. We are familiar with fear of the dark and startling at nocturnal vegetation - growth. It makes sense that this is a survival instinct but does not mean the threat is real. I hypothesise that the religious instinct is a survival instinct, too (we have seen how easily it gets mixed up with ruling authority and political and even military initiatives) and there is absolutely no reason to think it is telling us fact.

So this argues that giving instincts such as likes and dislikes and socially evolved pack - behaviour called 'Ethics' and Law - codes is better explained by evolution; Suffering (human and animal) is better explained by biological evolution and there is no call or basis for mystifying it by the imperfect human reaction called 'Godfaith'.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #332]

I have already responded to everything. If you feel something is not responded to, you can make a new post and I will address anything that needs to be addressed.

No, you did not response to post 317. But that's okay. And no, making a new thread about the same topic would be silly. Allow me to try and push this forward a bit....

I'm going to steelman the $h1+ out of your argument in bold blue, from post 301 and beyond.... You are welcome.....

Animals do not actually suffer. They appear to, via human 'observation', but we are flat out wrong. Due to the topic of divine hiddenness, god's plan is to create the illusion of animal suffering, to stay in line with divine hiddenness. If we humans "observed" that animals did not suffer, we would get too suspicious.

Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further.

If you think that is a steelman of my view, then you are showing how much you lack reading comprehension because that is not what I wrote. I merely offered the possibility that animals might not actually suffer. You haven't done anything to show for sure they do suffer, either.

Surely, there is better than this offered here, right?

Nonetheless, I will continue to respond to threads made that are not well thought out.

I think you are wrong. The evidence is that animals suffer. Some even know they suffer or exhibit reactions that parallel human suffering. Such actions are quite commensurate with a more advanced evolutionary strategy of social groups, pack and tribal structure and those as an aid to survival. I see no need to deny one and elevate the other to some divine plan. This is the human idea that we are specially created for a Purpose, and that is partly instinct too. But I had a discussion on my former board shortly after I joined it about a Plantinga -based argument that human instinct (I think the poster said evolution, too) tells us truth because we believe in a god. I argued (and this has remained a rebuttal of a basic Christian apologetic), that if we cannot trust science because of 'imperfect human perception', then we certainly can't trust human faith - claims, especially about the supernatural.

I also (stick with me, this does get relevant) argue that evolution produces instincts that are for survival - they serve that purpose and if they did not, we wouldn't have them. And thus the religious instinct is equally well explained as an evolved survival - instinct but not necessarily telling us what's true. We are familiar with fear of the dark and startling at nocturnal vegetation - growth. It makes sense that this is a survival instinct but does not mean the threat is real. I hypothesise that the religious instinct is a survival instinct, too (we have seen how easily it gets mixed up with ruling authority and political and even military initiatives) and there is absolutely no reason to think it is telling us fact.

So this argues that giving instincts such as likes and dislikes and socially evolved pack - behaviour called 'Ethics' and Law - codes is better explained by evolution; Suffering (human and animal) is better explained by biological evolution and there is no call or basis for mystifying it by the imperfect human reaction called 'Godfaith'.

I'm wanting AFG to finish what he started. So I'm giving him everything he asserts, to see if it makes sense in the end. Is 'the problem of animal suffering" Christianity's biggest problem? Or, are we completely mistaken. Meaning, not only is it not the biggest problem, but, maybe NO problem at all? We shall see, if he cares to actually engage further?

When I have time, I might start a new thread; touching on what you have spoke about in this response....

[kjw47]

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?

Mortals asked for this sick satan ruled system of things in the Eden rebellion. It was they who brought the knowledge of both good and bad into this world. Nothing is immune. God created mortals to know only good. Thatis his will. Mortals caused this by kicking God in the teeth believing a lie from one who did 0 for them. Where as God handed all of it to them free of charge. God is letting it be proved once and for all time. Is it best mortals know only good, or is it best to know both good and bad. God was 100% correct-bad sucks.

[brunumb]

Mortals asked for this sick satan ruled system of things in the Eden rebellion.

Like the man beating his wife and saying "You asked for this".

It was they who brought the knowledge of both good and bad into this world. Nothing is immune. God created mortals to know only good. Thatis his will.

He wanted them to only know good so he planted a tree whose fruit allowed them to know evil. Way to go God.

Mortals caused this by kicking God in the teeth believing a lie from one who did 0 for them. Where as God handed all of it to them free of charge.

Had they known about evil then they might not have been deceived by the evil one. You also have to wonder about God letting the most evil creature to wander around freely in his garden with a couple of innocents easy prey to his wiles. Where was God when all this happened anyway? What happened to duty of care? This God is a first class doofus.

God is letting it be proved once and for all time. Is it best mortals know only good, or is it best to know both good and bad. God was 100% correct-bad sucks.

Or, there is no God and this was all a pathetic attempt by primitive people to rationalise bad things happening while their God was supposed to be benevolent and caring.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #358]

Or, there is no God and this was all a pathetic attempt by primitive people to rationalise bad things happening while their God was supposed to be benevolent and caring.

My position on this idea is as follows.

1: I am nigh on 100% convinced that we exist within a created thing.
2: 1: implies therefore, that a creator or group of creator Minds are involved.
3: I think of the Bible as unlikely an accurate depiction of said Mind(s)
4: Some things in the Bible may be an accurate or close proximity depiction of the nature of said Mind(s)
5: I think that I engage with said Mind(s) on almost a daily basis, which is - imho - the equivalent of 'hearing voices' in similar manner as Joey Knothead and Tam have borne their own witness - except that the voice(s) are words written down and read - so I hear them in my thoughts in that manner.
6: 5: isn't overly relevant, but a case of me taking opportunity of confessing my sins/hidden things going on re me as an individual personality.
7: I like the idea of being within a created thing as it gives me opportunity to make things up as I work things out, as I go along.
8: I think any creative being(s) involved in the creation of this Universe, are amazing and I want to get to know more of them.
9: Christian Lousiness - or for that matter - the lousiness of any religion, does not prevent me from wanting to know more of them, re 8:
10: There is probably a 10:

[kjw47]

Mortals asked for this sick satan ruled system of things in the Eden rebellion.

Like the man beating his wife and saying "You asked for this".

It was they who brought the knowledge of both good and bad into this world. Nothing is immune. God created mortals to know only good. Thatis his will.

He wanted them to only know good so he planted a tree whose fruit allowed them to know evil. Way to go God.

Mortals caused this by kicking God in the teeth believing a lie from one who did 0 for them. Where as God handed all of it to them free of charge.

Had they known about evil then they might not have been deceived by the evil one. You also have to wonder about God letting the most evil creature to wander around freely in his garden with a couple of innocents easy prey to his wiles. Where was God when all this happened anyway? What happened to duty of care? This God is a first class doofus.

God is letting it be proved once and for all time. Is it best mortals know only good, or is it best to know both good and bad. God was 100% correct-bad sucks.

Or, there is no God and this was all a pathetic attempt by primitive people to rationalise bad things happening while their God was supposed to be benevolent and caring.

You seem confused on the matter. The angel being who came to be known as satan and devil, was good, a loving servant of the true God. God placed him over the garden( earth) he got jealous and wanted worship, thus he rebelled and lied to Eve to screw it all up. God handed Adam and Eve-everlasting life, never sick, never without with an abundance of beauty and variety in everything he created.( more value than all the wealth on earth combined a gazillion x over) He asked in return not to do 1 single thing. That way they could choose out of love and respect with free will to listen to Gods advice on matters. Otherwise they would just be robots forced to do all God advised.
What satan did was a direct challenge in front of all creation to Gods universal sovereignty. So once and for all time God is letting it be proved--was he correct? Mortal knowing only good, or was the devil correct, its best for mortals to know both good and bad and choose for themselves the best path to happiness. There is no path to happiness knowing bad. Even the animals, birds etc suffer with bad in the world. Thus all rebels are being rooted out so it never can happen again.
God was 100% correct with 0 doubt. Gods kingdom will put it back as God willed to start with. Its worth every sacrifice now of self to live for entrance into Gods kingdom. This is how it begins--Matt 6:33--Therefore, keep on seeking-FIRST- the kingdom and his YHWH(Jehovah)righteousness and all these things will be added( sustenance, covering, spirituality)