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?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #34]

Says who?

Anyone with a lick of common sense

In other words, it was just an opinion with nothing to back it.

You mentioned God as being all-knowing. Well, an all knowing God means that He knows what is yet to come and what is needed (and when).

Yes, I mentioned some believe that though it's not been proven as factually accurate.

This is what you actually said:

This is the world god allowed simply by being god and all knowing - nobspeople

I responded to that.

This doesn't mean god is doing anything to end suffering.

It does mean that He knows what is needed (and when) to bring about His promise (which is no more suffering, or mourning, or death).

God is also said to be all powerful, which means it could end suffering without changing its precious outcome OR change the outcome (after all, who will complain if god changes the outcome?!? Literally NO ONE).
Yet it doesn't. So this means only a couple of things:
1) it can't, which would mean it's not all powerful and thus, brings into question literally EVERYTHING that's been said about it

I think when people say this they are speaking more of a fantasy genie in a bottle, where nothing is connected to anything else, there is no such thing as 'cause and effect' or 'action and reaction'.

That is not the reality that we live in. In fact, who would want to live in that reality? There would be no order, no security, no reason, even God's promises and covenants could not be trusted.

That reality would be chaos. How would that chaotic reality teach anyone to love others, to have a care for how one treats others, to be responsible, to be 'your brother's keeper'?


But if you recognize that we do exist in a world that does have order, that actions do have reactions, that there is such a thing as cause and effect, that our actions do affect others, and theirs affect us... and you add in that God is all-knowing, then as stated at the start, God knows what needs to be done (and when) to bring about His plan, His promises, including bringing us to be mature and empathetic and wise beings.

Because it is not an opinion that the earth is different now than when it was created.

Irrelevant.

It is relevant to the points brought up in the OP.

Not only that, but you said 'lets assume that is true'.

For most, if not all, of your arguments, we have to assume they're true for them to work.

You don't 'have' to do anything. You didn't even have to respond. You chose to respond and you chose how to respond.

The point was about truth not being an excuse, and it followed your words 'lets assume that is true'. Not to mention that it is written that the earth underwent a change from how it was created. And if you (or someone else) wishes to say 'the bible is not considered authoritative here', then there really is no OP to begin with.

Considering the three options you supplied, what you just said makes no sense.

Only a closed mind would make that determination.

Nope. You gave three options that only work for someone who is trying to convince others not to believe. An open mind would have included the possibility that God is doing what is needed to bring about 'no more suffering, mourning or death'.

If you have children...

The whole 'compare god to parent' mantra is so trite and old.

That does not mean it is not valid. Someone not liking it also does not mean it is not valid.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Parents aren't all knowing, all powerful, all creating, the 'beginning and the end', the 'alpha and omega'

Which really just works more in God's favor, since He does know what is needed.

If you had not cut the sentence off halfway through you might have noticed that the timeline is for our benefit.

I hald to 'cut the sentence ½ way through' to concisely respond to your deluge of thought.

This sentence?

But on His timeline, which HE knows is needed so as to bring about the promises that He has made, and to protect life (including eternal life).

That is a deluge?

I saw the whole sentence (miraculously as there were so, so many) and the 'to our benefit' is an OPINION, not a fact.

You mean like this opinion: We're all slaves to its timeline, ego tripping needs and its wants.

Where is your evidence that the timeline is about ego-tripping or any other opinions you gave?

An opinion force fed to you by dogma, lacking all common sense, that you accepted that fits your chosen lifestyle agenda.

This is quite the opinion in and of itself.

No one force fed me the knowledge that the timeline is to our benefit, and I have no idea what you mean by 'chosen lifestyle agenda'. What I shared is what I have learned from my Lord. That God acts out of love is what Christ reveals of God.

What can we do about it? Maybe satan was right to tell humanity the truth god tried (not so hard) to hide? Hmmm....
What a strange comment.

I'm sorry you don't understand that, but II understand why.

It is a strange comment. That God tried "not so hard" to hide something, might be a good indication that he wasn't hiding something to begin with.

(And Satan deceived Eve - that is what he does. People are yet deceived. One of the things Satan uses to deceive people IS religion. Many people IN and OUT of religion have been deceived about God (and His Son) by religion.)

Promises made to US.

None that I've seen have some to fruition.

I have seen promises come to fruition.

But hope springs eternal! And allows others to control people, get their money and time. I guess it's not all bad, depending on whom is asked.

You're speaking of religion (not faith, but organized, institutionalized religion). I don't disagree with you that religion has and does prey upon people's hope and fear, using fear especially to control people, get their money and time.

That is religion though. Not God. Not Christ.

I am for Christ (and so also, His Father). I am not for religion.

The timeline does. Too soon could be catastrophic. Too late as well. Everything must be just so.

That's literally not what you said.

This is literally what I said:

1) God does care, 2) does not enjoy the suffering, and 3) has done something about it. But on His timeline, which HE knows is needed so as to bring about the promises that He has made, and to protect life (including eternal life).

Nothing your god does is evil to you, it's probably always just and right and perfect (with enough excuses you can make anything 'work'). But not everyone shares that slanted and biased, religiously closed POV.

Not everyone knows my God, the God and Father of Christ.

(If one knows Christ, one knows His Father as well.)




Peace again.

[POI]

...
Your response creates curious question(s). Are you an OEC (old earth creationist) or a YEC (young earth creationist)?

Your assertion, that the 'Garden of Eden', is what set off such chain of events, assumes that either:

a. animals only started to exist when humans started to exist, or...
b. that the current observed animal nature, that we see today, and also explained in the video, only began to exist after the "fall'? That animals experienced no 'suffering' before the fall?

I don't know is earth old or young. I believe animals were created as the Bible tells, before humans. And I think it is possible that animals experienced no suffering before things were corrupted.

So before "the fall', all carnivores were vegetarians, volcanoes did not erupt, no hurricanes, no forest fires, all animals only died peacefully in their sleep at a right old age, none died from starvation, no animal ever injured themselves, male animals never physically competed with each other for mates, Adam and and Eve would not have been scared of any predators - (because there weren't any), no extreme heat or cold temperatures, etc.......?

What did parasites eat?
What did dinosaurs eat?
What did large wild cats eat?
What did snakes eat?
What did insects eat?
Who created disease?

I'll stop here....

[POI]

Peace to you both,

...
Your response creates curious question(s). Are you an OEC (old earth creationist) or a YEC (young earth creationist)?

Your assertion, that the 'Garden of Eden', is what set off such chain of events, assumes that either:

a. animals only started to exist when humans started to exist, or...
b. that the current observed animal nature, that we see today, and also explained in the video, only began to exist after the "fall'? That animals experienced no 'suffering' before the fall?

I don't know is earth old or young. I believe animals were created as the Bible tells, before humans. And I think it is possible that animals experienced no suffering before things were corrupted.

In answer to the questions from POI, I accept that the earth is old (I have no reason not to accept that). For the rest I agree with what 1213 has said here.


Peace again!

I find your answer curious, in that you likely find that the earth is old due to the corresponding evidence. Thus, I now again issue the same response I gave to 1213:

So before "the fall', all carnivores were vegetarians, volcanoes did not erupt, no hurricanes, no forest fires, all animals only died peacefully in their sleep at a right old age, none died from starvation, no animal ever injured themselves, male animals never physically competed with each other for mates, Adam and and Eve would not have been scared of any predators - (because there weren't any), no extreme heat or cold temperatures, etc.......?

What did parasites eat?
What did dinosaurs eat?
What did large wild cats eat?
What did snakes eat?
What did insects eat?
Who created disease?

I'll stop here....

[tam]

Peace again to you.

[Replying to POI in post #43]

The world was different before the fall, before the world and all in it was made subject to Death. Not sure how that would have looked (or how long before sin and death entered the world affecting the evolution of creatures that now had to compete for survival, with limited resources).


As for volcanoes, hurricanes, and the like... these are not bad. These are just part of a living, moving planet/universe. The only reason people deem them 'bad' is if they can currently cause loss of life/suffering. But if we knew how to avoid such things - such as get on an ark that we knew ahead of time to build or any other early warning system - these would not be an issue at all. In fact, we would just be able to appreciate how cool they are, without worrying about loss of life or limb. It would also not be an issue if our flesh was not subject to death (or could be healed, or if we were like the angels... able to move between spiritual and physical).

[POI]

Peace again to you.

[Replying to POI in post #43]

The world was different before the fall, before the world and all in it was made subject to Death.

Are you saying:

1. All 'creatures' lived until (the fall)? or....
2. They all eventually died, but only peacefully in their sleep of old age?

Option 1. would mean some 'creatures' lived for possibly millions of years, before they perished, because death was nonexistent until Adam? The world must have been completely over-ran by insects alone...
Option 2. is just as absurd to assume, as some mammals don't sleep.

I'm presenting a true dichotomy to you... Did all creatures live up to the point of Adam and Eve's existence, (and subsequent fall), or not?

Not sure how that would have looked (or how long before sin and death entered the world affecting the evolution of creatures that now had to compete for survival, with limited resources).

Well, if you accept that the earth is old, and you also mention evolution, this would suggest 'creatures' were around for millions of years, or more, before 'Adam' would have ever entered the scene.

As for volcanoes, hurricanes, and the like... these are not bad. These are just part of a living, moving planet/universe. The only reason people deem them 'bad' is if they can currently cause loss of life/suffering. But if we knew how to avoid such things - such as get on an ark that we knew ahead of time to build or any other early warning system - these would not be an issue at all. In fact, we would just be able to appreciate how cool they are, without worrying about loss of life or limb. It would also not be an issue if our flesh was not subject to death (or could be healed, or if we were like the angels... able to move between spiritual and physical).

I agree 'bad' is subjective. But it brings up the topic of (natural evil) vs (moral evil)... I also understand that the word 'evil' can be subjective. However, in this case, we can speak about both natural evil and moral evil all-the-same. I would imagine you agree that all 'creatures' feel 'pain', can experience 'suffering', can experience 'terror', etc? If these 'creatures' had the ability to experience these attributes before Adam, did they ever?

I can also imagine you agree that many/most 'creatures' do not possess the intellectual capacity to always plan for (natural evil), and always completely avoid them?

Also, no animal ever suffered from smoke inhalation (forest fire), got caught/injured in an earth quake, was subject to falling lava (volcano), etc? If none of them died, did they at least enjoy these experiences which happened to them by random chance???? If they felt the pain, suffered, and/or did not enjoy them, wouldn't this be categorized as 'natural evil'?

I also notices you skipped my other questions. Here they are again:

Before (the fall):

What did parasites eat?
What did dinosaurs eat?
What did large wild cats eat?
What did snakes eat?
What did insects eat?
Who created disease?

[brunumb]

I do believe I made the point that animal suffering is ON US.

Animals have to kill and eat each other to survive. That is not on us!

[TRANSPONDER]

It looks to me as though the Problem is being skilfully evaded. Either by making everything he fault and responsibility of humanity (even natural disasters, apparently) and God is powerless to do anything but desperately hopes that humans will achieve the perfect world. He intended.

If God is willing but not able, why call him God? (Euthyphro dilemma). Palaeontology makes it very clear that things were never perfect and animals competed predated and often died unpleasantly in natural disasters. Carnivores did not eat grass and many that did would not die peacefully of old age. Herds would die in floods or landslides. That is what animals did and still do. This is not the fault of man and to make him responsible for lions hunting wildebeeste is nonsensical or craftily trying to get God off the hook for the flaws and evil in what is supposedly His creation, because if it isn't what the heck is God wanted for?

The Bible is clearly not true because it claims that God made all this and can and did interfere in human affairs, causing a global extinction, stopping the sun, parting the sea, destroying armies, creating magical feasts driving herds of pigs hither and thither, and assuring us that with faith we can reshape the landscape. And yet while those of good will would love to make things better for animals and humans, miracles don't happen and prayers are not answered in any way indistinguishable from normal coincidence or noting the hits and ignoring the misses. This supposed god won't even appear on Tv and tell us exactly what we should be doing, and we are told he can't do anything like that, for some none too clear reason.

Evidence and logic does not support a god in any form other than credit given to another name for 'natural events'.

And the problem, as I said, was neatly evaded. If everything was perfect in Eden and only Adam was to blame, once he'd been kicked out why did all the animals fall with him? The animals may have spread beyond Eden but why did they suddenly become subject to evil once they passed the sign saying "You are now leaving Eden, everything now happens is your own problem". It's like the god that made the rules now makes bad rules and protests that it's not his fault and he's powerless to put them right. The whole problem of blanket condemnation, not only of all Jews because a bunch of priests got Jesus killed, that all mankind got condemned because of what their ancestor did, or all creation was made subject to evil because Adam scrumped an apple, is not just and is either incompetency or evil in itself.

But I don't of course think that God - or any other god - is either incompetent or Evil. I think on reason and evidence there cannot be any god as described in the Bible, or any god that can do anything indistinguishable from natural events and at best can only be cosmic ordered processes of a kind that we might consider reasoning.

Anything more than that is Myth, delusion and faith -claims, and you may bet your Bitcoin on it.

[brunumb]

I believe animals were created as the Bible tells, before humans. And I think it is possible that animals experienced no suffering before things were corrupted.

Irrelevant. Anything is possible within the imagination. What basis do you have for saying that animals did not experience suffering before things were corrupted, apart from wishful thinking? Please explain specifically the mechanism by which you propose things actually got corrupted. Surely the only way would be for God to redesign everything himself.

[theophile]

It looks to me as though the Problem is being skilfully evaded. Either by making everything he fault and responsibility of humanity (even natural disasters, apparently) and God is powerless to do anything but desperately hopes that humans will achieve the perfect world. He intended.

Just to be clear, I never meant to suggest that suffering related to, say, natural disasters, is the fault of human beings. More that if there is preventable / stoppable suffering (be it of animals or whatever else), then it is on us to make it happen. Which includes any suffering related to natural disasters or whatever else.

If God is willing but not able, why call him God?

God is God because of what God calls us to, not because of what God is able to do. Things like life, love, and justice.

Also, who made power / ability a defining feature of God?... God is first described in the bible (Gen 1:2) as a spirit hovering over the deep. Not exactly a powerful image, like it or not.

The Bible is clearly not true because it claims that God made all this and can and did interfere in human affairs, causing a global extinction, stopping the sun, parting the sea, destroying armies, creating magical feasts driving herds of pigs hither and thither, and assuring us that with faith we can reshape the landscape. And yet while those of good will would love to make things better for animals and humans, miracles don't happen and prayers are not answered in any way indistinguishable from normal coincidence or noting the hits and ignoring the misses.

Your facts are fuzzier than you think when it comes to who is doing what and where the real power lies. For example, in Gen 1:11-12 it is the earth that produces vegetation in answer to God's call, meaning God is not the only active force in creation and perhaps has no real force at all...

But maybe you're right, and the spirit of God in Gen 1 is actually covering up a divine power source ready and able to do all things. Or maybe Gen 1 is spot on in its depiction of God in wispy terms at the beginning, with no real power to speak of until someone / something (like the earth or Jesus) steps up in response.

The same fuzziness applies to everything you cited, e.g., when the sea parted. Was that God / Moses parting the sea or the sea answering God's / Moses' call to part? ...

Note that with the latter approach, those who answer the call and call others to the same (like Jesus) are arguably participating in God and could even be described as (part of) God. God's real world presence and force. Which blurs the lines even more of who is doing what and where the real power lies...

[brunumb]

The world was different before the fall, before the world and all in it was made subject to Death. Not sure how that would have looked (or how long before sin and death entered the world affecting the evolution of creatures that now had to compete for survival, with limited resources).

Assumes facts not in evidence. All you have presented is nothing more than speculation. The only way death became a natural part of this world from a biblical point of view would have been through the direct intervention of God. He did not behave as a loving and caring parent in any part of the garden of Eden scenario. So everything we get in response to the question of pain and suffering is just rhetoric designed to whitewash God's character. Your religion of 'knowing Christ' or whatever is no different from any other branch of Christianity and is based on the same flawed source, the Bible.