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?

[POI]

Attention all Christians. I want to thank you for your participation, thus far. However, I have scene no true headway (yet), for this seemingly 'large problem for the Christian'? I would like to issue a recap, in the hopes that Christians can rationally resolve this presented 'problem', or instead reconcile possible defeat.

WLC: Argues that animals "do not experience 3rd order pain".

1213: Post #42. Looks to be a science denier. Does '1213" deny all science, or just the parts which defy Biblical assertion(s)?

Tam: Post #96. Her translation(s) also want to deny scientific discovery.

JW: Post #106. His specific doctrine looks to impose contradiction - regarding "Paradise".

Venom: Post #147. Doesn't look to have even tried to resolve the presented issue.

As the video says, near the end.....

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'.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #111]

From a biblical point of view, death entered the world through sin, which entered the world through the one man (Adam).

Biblically speaking, death entered the world because Adam was not given any more access to the fruit which would allow him to live forever.

That doesn't make sense. Denying Adam access to the Tree of Life doesn't equate to death entering the world.


Also, biblically speaking, death entered the world as that biblical quote states.

His sin was disobeying a god who forewarned him of the consequence, and part of that consequence was for the god to send Adam away from the garden so that Adam couldn't use the one way in which the prophecy "you shall surely die" wouldn't be able to be fulfilled.

The whole thing was set up that way. "Do what I tell you or I will make sure that you die."

No, definitely not. I get that is what some sects of a religion state, but that is not at all what was set up. That is not God (the God and Father of Christ) at all.


God told them not to eat from that tree or they would die. A warning against doing something that would harm them. That is something one does from love.


Had Adam repented and shown love at all, he could have been forgiven, embraced, his sin covered over, and he might have then been permitted to reach out and eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. But Adam did not repent or show love toward anyone else (not at that time at least). He in fact blamed his wife and God. That doesn't mean he did not later learn love and empathy and repentance.


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

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #162]

Had Adam repented and shown love at all, he could have been forgiven, embraced, his sin covered over, and he might have then been permitted to reach out and eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.

No.

The command was clear and the consequence for breaking the command is also clear.

"You Shall Surely Die."

While it is understandable that someone who has invested their faith in the theology, would want to add that clause, that is NOT what the bible says.

There was no "if you do disobey me, I can still forgive you if you repent." As far as Adam was concerned, he would surely die if he did it. He did it. He would die for doing so.

I am calling this the "Almighty Afterthought" since the writer wrote it that way...

The Almighty Afterthought:
Genesis 3:22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

Clearly the intention to kick Adam out of the garden and away from access to the fruit which would render the prophesy null and also show the Serpent lied [Genesis 3:4
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die] was pre-thought as the only way in which it would be assured that Adam did indeed, die.

That is what killed him.

Not Sin. Not Eating the forbidden fruit. But the God making sure Adam did not have access to the tree of life.

It is all there in black and white Tammy.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #162]

Had Adam repented and shown love at all, he could have been forgiven, embraced, his sin covered over, and he might have then been permitted to reach out and eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.

No.

The command was clear and the consequence for breaking the command is also clear.

"You Shall Surely Die."

Indeed.

Eat and you will die.

Not... "eat and I will cause you to die." Not... "eat and I will kill you." Not... "eat and I will make sure you die."

Eat and you will die.

Cause and effect.

While it is understandable that someone who has invested their faith in the theology, would want to add that clause, that is NOT what the bible says.

There was no "if you do disobey me, I can still forgive you if you repent." As far as Adam was concerned, he would surely die if he did it. He did it. He would die for doing so.

The bible also does not say "Disobey me and I will make sure you die." <-Nor is that the God that Christ shows us (and Christ is the Truth and Image of His Father).

I am calling this the "Almighty Afterthought" since the writer wrote it that way...

The Almighty Afterthought:
Genesis 3:22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

Clearly the intention to kick Adam out of the garden and away from access to the fruit which would render the prophesy null and also show the Serpent lied [Genesis 3:4
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die] was pre-thought as the only way in which it would be assured that Adam did indeed, die.

I don't know what you are trying to say in that last sentence.

That is what killed him.

Not Sin. Not Eating the forbidden fruit. But the God making sure Adam did not have access to the tree of life.

That might be your personal theology, William, but Adam died from eating the fruit of the tree of knowing good and bad/life and death. You cannot eat of death... and yet live.


UNLESS... you are then permitted to reach out and eat from the Tree of Life. Unfortunately, Adam had proven that he could not be trusted with that gift (at that time). It would have been irresponsible to make the problem Adam caused go away with no consequences at all. What would Adam have learned? What would have stopped him from continuing to act callously toward other life and even his own offspring - now for all eternity?




Eat and you will die... cause and effect... that is what is there in black and white.



Peace again to you!

[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.

[POI]

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?

[tam]

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.

Indeed, I think it is also unjustified to assume that the bible is even supposed to resolve every problem presented. Especially when there is almost nothing written about the time before Adam and Eve. So we don't have a description of suffering and pain (for any living thing) before the 'fall'. We don't have much of a description of anything at all before that time.

We can know (from Christ, as is also written in the bible) that the time is coming when there will be no more pain or suffering or mourning or death. There's no 'except for animals' qualifier in that promise. As far as I have learned from my Lord, animals can also receive a resurrection, and what would be the point of that if they are just going to get sick or old and die again? No more death means no more death. So if it can happen in the future when everything is set aright, it could have been possible in the past before things got messed up.

Does that bring up some questions? Yes. If those questions are not fully resolved, does that mean we should toss faith, Christ, God, etc, out? Well, if science does not have all the answers to the questions it raises, should we toss everything we have learned from science out? Or do we accept that there may be some things we have yet to learn? Knowledge and evidence that we have yet to uncover?



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

[POI]

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.

Indeed, I think it is also unjustified to assume that the bible is even supposed to resolve every problem presented. Especially when there is almost nothing written about the time before Adam and Eve. So we don't have a description of suffering and pain (for any living thing) before the 'fall'. We don't have much of a description of anything at all before that time.

We can know (from Christ, as is also written in the bible) that the time is coming when there will be no more pain or suffering or mourning or death. There's no 'except for animals' qualifier in that promise. As far as I have learned from my Lord, animals can also receive a resurrection, and what would be the point of that if they are just going to get sick or old and die again? No more death means no more death. So if it can happen in the future when everything is set aright, it could have been possible in the past before things got messed up.

Does that bring up some questions? Yes. If those questions are not fully resolved, does that mean we should toss faith, Christ, God, etc, out? Well, if science does not have all the answers to the questions it raises, should we toss everything we have learned from science out? Or do we accept that there may be some things we have yet to learn? Knowledge and evidence that we have yet to uncover?



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

Your response would be accepted, except for the fact that we appear to have some issues, via post #96:

(You) I lean toward 'not'. Though physical pain is an effective warning sign to keep away from something harmful, so in that sense it is not bad.

(Me) So your argument is that prior to "the fall", animals did not experience pain and suffering? (Even though we have the fossil record?) Interesting.... So when these animals perished, millions of years ago (based upon fossils), which already contradicts your view of no death prior to the fall, these creatures also were always and completely benign (or) enjoyed their demise? None of them suffered from pain?

The fossil record demonstrates animal injury. Many of these fossils are millions of years old. Older than any human. Moving forward....

Please pick one....

A) Animals did experience suffering and/or die before the fall?
B) Animals did not experience suffering and/or die before the fall?

Please pick one? We can then go from there.... If you instead plead that you do not know, then we might even be able to go from there...? However, I would then suggest that I find it 'convenient' to use the "I don't know' excuse, when a problem is brought forth.?.?.?

[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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Indeed, I think it is also unjustified to assume that the bible is even supposed to resolve every problem presented. Especially when there is almost nothing written about the time before Adam and Eve. So we don't have a description of suffering and pain (for any living thing) before the 'fall'. We don't have much of a description of anything at all before that time.

We can know (from Christ, as is also written in the bible) that the time is coming when there will be no more pain or suffering or mourning or death. There's no 'except for animals' qualifier in that promise. As far as I have learned from my Lord, animals can also receive a resurrection, and what would be the point of that if they are just going to get sick or old and die again? No more death means no more death. So if it can happen in the future when everything is set aright, it could have been possible in the past before things got messed up.

Does that bring up some questions? Yes. If those questions are not fully resolved, does that mean we should toss faith, Christ, God, etc, out? Well, if science does not have all the answers to the questions it raises, should we toss everything we have learned from science out? Or do we accept that there may be some things we have yet to learn? Knowledge and evidence that we have yet to uncover?



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

Your response would be accepted, except for the fact that we appear to have some issues, via post #96:

(You) I lean toward 'not'. Though physical pain is an effective warning sign to keep away from something harmful, so in that sense it is not bad.

(Me) So your argument is that prior to "the fall", animals did not experience pain and suffering?

My answer to your question was that I 'lean toward not'.


As for the fossil record, the data could be misconstrued, there could be something off with what we know of the timing (including the timing of what happened in the spiritual realm), or - though I don't lean toward this - if there was pain and predation, perhaps pain and/or the circle of life is just a natural consequences of the evolutionary process (a process which allows for life to adapt and survive and even thrive in changing conditions), until the time in which everything was going to be complete.

However, I would then suggest that I find it 'convenient' to use the "I don't know' excuse, when a problem is brought forth.?.?.?

Is it equally convenient when a person says "I don't know" as to how the universe came into existence?



Peace again to you.