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?

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #60]
While I can accept your personal POV, there are other POVs that's just as 'correct', as it's all personal (not that you were saying anything else - just an observation on my part)

I do think there is a correct answer, by which I mean interpretation of biblical texts. It may not be true, in the sense of having any real-world correspondence, but there is something the writers meant to convey and that is incumbent on us as readers to understand and evaluate.

Hypothetically speaking, if we could bring the writer(s) into a room, I'm pretty sure they would set the record straight one way or another on what they intended. But that aside, so long as they were good enough at their craft we should be able to decipher the meaning of the text with some degree of confidence. We might not be able to agree on it, but that is another matter entirely.

TBH, I've never encountered a christian in person that didn't think god was all powerful, knowing, creating, present, whatever. I find it fascinating those people exist!!

Definitely not a mainstream idea but there is an undercurrent. You should check out John Caputo's Weakness of God if you're interested. He uses Derridean concepts (e.g., deconstruction) as a theological cypher, perhaps being a bit truer to Derrida than the bible at times, but super helpful and insightful for the 'third way' he opens between theism and atheism.

Have faith in the writers. But I would say it is more a matter of everyone doing their homework.

People have said this before (the homework). But I can't agree simply because not everyone has the same access to references. It seems to me, a supreme being (all knowing for those who wish it) would know this and make an effort to counteract that. In other words, it would provide to everyone all that's needed - no 'homework' required.

Yah. I may have some strong views on this one.

1. The source text alone should be sufficient. I agree with that 100% but I also think that it is. I don't think anyone needs anything beyond the bible to figure out what the bible is saying. Other studies / commentaries are certainly helpful, but not a necessity... (Hell, I could live off of Gen 1 alone! The rest of the bible, IMO, just elaborates on what it says in endless detail and doesn't really add anything new. It's the perfect summation in my view.)

The only exception to that is translation. I think you can get by with the English if you're careful, but so much is lost in translation. So let's say a good interlinear bible with ancient Hebrew / Aramaic / Greek dictionary is all that you need!

2. More importantly though, or of interest to me, is the purpose of the bible (which is where the homework comes in). That's a bad way of framing it though. What I mean is, why isn't the bible written in such a way as to be as transparent as possible to its readers? Clearly defined terms, clearly stated intent, clear logic, etc., to convey its intended meaning.

Instead you have stories, poems, ambiguous word choices, etc., all resulting in confusion and a proliferation of interpretations.

Here is where I would argue the bible is intentionally opaque, and where homework is required, the reason being that it's purpose is to be didactic. It is meant to edify us and strengthen our moral sensibilities by confounding us and opening up different paths of interpretation. It wants us to debate and discuss, to challenge us and have us challenge each other, to provoke deeper understandings. It forces us to weigh in and think about what is really going on...

For example, Gen 3:1 (sticking with the theme of animals in the bible): "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Sounds simple, right? But wait. The word 'crafty' (Hebrew arum) is misleading. The source word arum has a range of meanings from positive to negative. It is commonly translated here as 'crafty' or 'cunning' (in more of a negative mode) because everyone thinks the serpent is a trickster or precursor / placeholder for Satan. But it can also be translated as 'prudent' or 'sensible' or 'wise', and this is in fact how the word gets translated elsewhere in the bible more often than not.

And it makes a big difference! Either the serpent is the craftiest of wild creatures, or it is the wisest... Either it is coming to Eve with bad intentions, or good!

The plot thickens even more when we recognize there is a word play going on with the previous verse, where Adam and Eve are described as "naked and unashamed." The Hebrew word for 'naked' is arom, so you have arom / arum set against each other in close proximity which the original reader would have caught but which is mostly lost on us. But it gives us a clue to decipher the serpent's intent and adds yet an additional layer of complexity to the whole thing that we need to work through.

All of this is clearly intentional in nature and suggests an intent that we can and should try to discern. But only possible through a lot of hard work and study.

Well, imagine you now have a world filled with all kinds of life as Gen 1 depicts. It's going to get a bit unruly, right? Some plant species (what we classify as weeds for example) may start to strangle out others. Some animal species may become invasive in an area to the detriment of others. So there is real work involved in ruling over it all to ensure that a balance and peace takes hold. Where lions can lay down with lambs, so to speak, and different kinds of life can simply be, in relative harmony.

One would say that. And the logical person would think that. But many believers say that was only an issue after the fall.

Why would God make us with the explicit purpose of taking care of things if things didn't need to be taken care of? Even in Gen 2 (still pre-fall) this gets repeated when God tasks us with tending / keeping the garden. i.e., to be a gardener. i.e., to weed the garden, water and feed it, cut back overgrowth, and ensure everything is living in harmony...

So I would agree. I can't see any way to read it otherwise.

And this is God's plan. God is the one who says to us in Gen 1 to fill the earth and subdue it. That is our overarching mandate and goal, and what we should evaluate all action against. (Anything contrary to this, I would argue, is evil.)

Again, appreciate your well worded response and POV.
Personally, I don't see any plan (or at least, a good one, as I'd expect from a god). That's not saying there isn't one, of course. I try to remain open to possibilities. From the dogma I had shoved down my throat for years and years, this isn't the case. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, just making a statement. I find it interesting the POV of others.

Thanks for the discussion! It was enjoyable (which isn't something I can say often here).

Thank-you too. Always appreciate openness to ideas and willingness to engage with them. We all need to resist the urges to lock down in our positions. (Frankly, there's nothing I want more than for someone to blow my mind / blow my ideas apart.)

On the plan though, sure. It's definitely more visionary / directional / strategic than it is tactical. You're not going to find a 1000 line workplan for how to get the job done because I don't think that's even possible. The path to the stated end (i.e., a world filled with life of every kind living in harmony) is not a straightforward, linear process. It requires active and ongoing discernment. Hence the purpose of the bible and the need to edify ourselves for the journey...

[POI]

Would it be possible to pick up where we left off, in post #42 (i.e.):

So before "the fall', all carnivores were vegetarians ... all animals only died peacefully in their sleep at a right old age .. none died from starvation[/color], no animal ever injured themselves, male animals never physically competed with each other for mates, Adam and Eve would not have been scared of any predators - (because there weren't any ......?

If we for the sake of argument begin with the supposition of the existence of YHWH which I presume we are since his decisions are the basis for the original question, then I see no reason to doubt He was capable of originally putting in order a world where animals did not needlessly suffer due to sickness, disease or lack of resources.

As for what animals ate we can but speculate, but even today many wild animals are in fact herbores (as were a number of the huge dinasaurs). All kinds of species are capable of living togeter in harmony, and many species of animals we generally fear such as sharks and snakes are in fact quite harmless. Whatever the situation was in Eden the bible narrative has Adam and Eve showing no fear of any of the animals they came in contact with.

ISAIAH 11: 6-9

The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb, And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,And the calf and the lion* and the fattened animal will all be together; And a little boy will lead them. The cow and the bear will feed together, and their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra, and a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake. They will not cause any harm Or any ruin in all my holy mountain ....

RELATED POSTS

Will there be pets in heaven?
viewtopic.php?p=1027090#p1027090

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

.THE PURPOSE OF LIFE, ANIMALS and ... CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Repeat from post #70, (before your edit to the response I answered prior). (i.e.):

2nd response to JW:

In case you do not respond, regarding YEC/OEC, which I'm starting to notice you often do not; allow me to take the liberty in forwarding this discussion along:

http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses ... sm-belief/ (i.e.):

"Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible."

Hence, if you are not antiscience, then paleontology alone demonstrates that plenty of 'natural evil' prevailed, prior to the onset of humans. How would this be possible if the Bible tells us the 'fall of man' is what caused "evil" to enter into the world?

[theophile]

On POIs question, the answer is simple. We were made in Gen 1 to take care of it all and continue God's work. To take on the mantle so to speak

This does not address my question. My question was (paraphrased) - Why did God create other 'creatures' millions/billions of years before 'man', if humans are the 'focus'? --- By 'focus', I mean humans are the ones for which God will interact, and later come back in 'human form', to 'save'? Humans cannot do "god's word", as you put it, if we did not arrive on the scene until a billion(s) of years later. Prior to this, it's safe to assume animals were subject to 'natural evil', which is curious as many here are arguing that 'evil' was not introduced until the fall of man?.?.?.?.?

Gen 1 isn't science / history, so I'm not going to touch the millions/billions of years bit. But my response did address your question, i.e., humankind is not needed until the world is filled with different kinds of life and in need of a caretaker. Hence we are last in the order. We aren't needed until there is a world to manage.

Better to think of the ordering in Gen 1 like an artist painting. First God puts the foundation layers in place. Then God overlays it with plants and animals. Then God adds humans to take care of it all...

This is why I asked Tam, 1213, and JW if they ascribed to OEC or YEC? Which one do you ascribe to? I have a hunch it's the former (OEC), meaning you too reference science -- and all science comes to the same conclusion that the earth is 'old' and animals lived a long time, prior to intelligent humans. Assuming you ARE an OEC, I will proceed with my response...

I don't ascribe to either. I think they're both false views resulting from either forcing the bible onto science (YEC), or science onto the bible (OEC).

Do I believe in a scientific view of things? 100%. I am sufficiently versed in science, how it works, and what it says about the world, and I would never argue the truth of it. (Or rather, what the evidence gathered so far suggests as the truth.)

Do I also believe in a biblical view of things? 100%. But I'm not one to claim that before the big bang was God. Or to twist what the bible says to match latest scientific theories. Or to go out looking across the earth for evidence of the great global flood. You can call the whole bible a story and I wouldn't put up much of a fight. (I don't think this diminishes its value.)

I can rationalize these views because I think that science and the bible convey different truths. It's not one versus the other, but rather they're relatively perpendicular to each other if you want to think of it that way. Some overlap, granted, but not in their main objectives.

In regards to you stating "Gen 1 isn't science"... I would agree, it's anti-science, in that the assertions made there contradict the later discoveries made by science. You may argue the authors didn't write these Verses to demonstrate how the world was formed, for which I then ask... Which parts are meant to be taken at face value, verses not?

Do you want the short answer, or the long one? The short answer is, don't take anything the bible says at 'face value.'

The long answer? This is going to get fuzzy, but let me put it this way. There are hard truths in this world, and there are soft truths. The latter tend to be more squishy in nature, and far more difficult to measure or observe, at least in part because of what tends to be their divergent focus, i.e., on what could be versus what is.

Hard truth is the domain of (physical) science and history, and would include such things as the structure of the universe and the matter composing it. The physical laws that more or less govern all motion. Specific entities or events that can be shown to have existed or occurred. That kind of thing. I don't think the bible should ever be taken at face value on such matters. It may touch on these domains, such as in Gen 1, but even then I think it's at most a secondary concern.

Soft truth is more the domain of ethics, politics, or economics, and would include such things as what the meaning of human life could be and how we could comport ourselves. How we could treat animals and the environment. How we could organize ourselves into larger units. What systems of interaction and exchange we could setup. That kind of thing. This is where the bible should be taken at 'face value', which I put in quotes and said above not to do because its teachings on such matters are not always obvious. i.e., There is a lot below the surface that also needs to be understood.

The overarching claim of the bible, if you think about it, is the relationship between a certain way of life that it calls us to and the benefits that it says will follow from it. It is essentially an ethico-economic promise of what could be, i.e., if we do what the bible says, we will be rewarded with eternal life and all kinds of other good stuff.

This relationship more than anything else is what the bible should live or die by, and it can and should be tested as best as we are able.

And in your response to "humankind is not needed until the world is filled with different kinds of life and in need of a caretaker."...

1. Were these creatures subjected to any 'evil' before the fall of man? If so, did God take care of them in the interim?
2. I doubt humans can be caretakers to the planet without God's help? Sure, I see we help some, but what about the ones for which we cannot, due to 'natural or moral evil'? Does God fill in where we fall short? If not, then I guess God set a failed system into place; IF the objective is for humans to be 'caretakers'. Unintended negligence, due to being unaware of many 'evil' situations, hardly qualifies.... Or does it?

These are strange questions to me. Perhaps more appropriate for OEC/YEC communities given what I just said about not taking the bible at face value.

They also require some unpacking, e.g., the nature of God. For instance, you're talking as if God is some great Being out there, like an old man in the sky watching over us. I don't think that's accurate. I think I said this before, but if not I'll say it again: God is first depicted in the bible (Gen 1:2) as a spirit. A wispy thing. Which I can't imagine is capable of much of anything on its own. So for what it's worth, I think God depends way more on us than we do on God. At least at the beginning. But there is also a movement described in the bible towards an end state when God is at last "all in all" (Corinthians 15:28).

Happy to go more into what that means for some of your questions here, but first point is that God is not so straightforward a concept as I think you're making out. The lines start to blur in terms of what exactly God is, as we see with Jesus for instance. A human being who was also 'God'.

- And yes, we do apparently receive 'special privileges'. We can be saved. Others are not

Where are animals excluded from salvation? I'm not immediately aware of any verses to that effect, so please provide them if you have any.

- Did 'natural evil' exist before humans? If so, this also contradicts Genesis, unless you wish to ignore this part too?

What do you mean 'natural evil'? Destruction of life due to storms and such? I would imagine so. But why is that a contradiction of Genesis?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to theophile in post #71]

I do think there is a correct answer, by which I mean interpretation of biblical texts.

Surely, everyone's interpretation is correct to them. One may fault them for making that observation, but, IMO, it's unfair to fault them for accepting their observation as true to them. In other words: "That's the stupidest observation ever, but I see why you made it!" (said as an example, not directed at you).

but there is something the writers meant to convey and that is incumbent on us as readers to understand and evaluate.

Surely, it was written to convey a message. Rather or not that message is relevant today is another matter.

Hypothetically speaking, if we could bring the writer(s) into a room, I'm pretty sure they would set the record straight one way or another on what they intended.

Surely. But they may not all agree with each others' work(s).

so long as they were good enough at their craft we should be able to decipher the meaning of the text with some degree of confidence.

We have no way of KNOWING if they were good or not, much less how to define what 'good' means here. But I get your meaning, even though I don't agree with it.

Definitely not a mainstream idea but there is an undercurrent. You should check out John Caputo's Weakness of God if you're interested. He uses Derridean concepts (e.g., deconstruction) as a theological cypher, perhaps being a bit truer to Derrida than the bible at times, but super helpful and insightful for the 'third way' he opens between theism and atheism.

Thanks for that!

I may have some strong views on this one.

To your points #1 & #2 (didn't want to take space by providing them here) I'd agree.

Instead you have stories, poems, ambiguous word choices, etc., all resulting in confusion and a proliferation of interpretations.

Here is where I would argue the bible is intentionally opaque, and where homework is required, the reason being that it's purpose is to be didactic. It is meant to edify us and strengthen our moral sensibilities by confounding us and opening up different paths of interpretation. It wants us to debate and discuss, to challenge us and have us challenge each other, to provoke deeper understandings. It forces us to weigh in and think about what is really going on...

Seems relatively reasonable approach. But so often, it's taken verbatim and exact with no room to move, which seems cumbersome, especially as things evolve.

Why would God make us with the explicit purpose of taking care of things if things didn't need to be taken care of?

To answer that, we'd have to come to a conclusion as to why god made people to take care of anything at all. While some biblical interpretations may point at that, not all would agree. And we're back to understanding the bible.

On the plan though, sure. It's definitely more visionary / directional / strategic than it is tactical. You're not going to find a 1000 line workplan for how to get the job done because I don't think that's even possible. The path to the stated end (i.e., a world filled with life of every kind living in harmony) is not a straightforward, linear process. It requires active and ongoing discernment. Hence the purpose of the bible and the need to edify ourselves for the journey...

Well said.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to POI in post #59]

A) If the fall of man, is what brought evil into the world, then did natural evil exist prior to man?

I've always wondered if the fall create evil and 'jack up' god's perfect world (as many claim) how can humanity be this powerful? To 'jack up' a supreme being's/creator's world?
If humanity DIDN'T create evil with the fall, then god did. But some say that's not possible.
So we're left with humanity being powerful enough to create evil and interrupt (at the very least) god's plan, god allowed humanity to create evil and interrupt its plan, or god directly created evil.
In any option, this, to me, doesn't promote a worthy being to be worshipped in any way. Feared yes. Loved and worshipped? Not even remotely.

B) Since humans are the focus, via Gen 1:26-28, why only bring them into the mix billions of years later?

Some wouldn't likely say billion, but days or hours. That aside, I've always wondered if god is 'so great' (perfect, many would say) why did create animals first then people? Seems like its focus was, well, out of focus. Why not make people first? And then nothing after that? Especially if god knew suffering would eventually come thanks to humanity's fall. That is, assuming it knew. Which, if it didn't, doesn't make that as impressive of a deity as people would like it to be. God would be nothing but a more advanced, likely mortal, creature. Not a god.

Or maybe when you read the Bible, the authors for which one reads, demonstrates they might have merely interjected their own limited thoughts. Which would account for why one can come to the conclusion that 'God" is nothing more than a powerful mortal.

It would be foolish, IMO, for anyone who believes in 'free will' and 'god didn't make people to be robots' to think the writers didn't interject some of their own ideas and write in a biased fashion.
But alas, some christians want their cake and eat it, too. Seems, for many, god can do anything anytime, except when it can't do anything at certain times, be right and wrong, left and right, up and down, black and white, male and female.... all at the same yet different times.
If that's the case, there's no need to try to understand god; just 'lay back and take it' like a good servant.

[JehovahsWitness]

... paleontology alone demonstrates that plenty of 'natural evil' prevailed, prior to the onset of humans

I was not aware that paleontology addressed the question of evil. To my knowledge paleontology is "the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants" . Evil is a philosophical /theological question related to morals.

Perhaps you can clarify your claim and support it with some evidence.



Thanks


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[POI]

... paleontology alone demonstrates that plenty of 'natural evil' prevailed, prior to the onset of humans

I was not aware that paleontology addressed the question of evil. To my knowledge paleontology is "the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants" . Evil is a philosophical /theological question related to morals.

Perhaps you can clarify your claim and support it with some evidence.



Thanks


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Your 'picking and choosing', as to what you decide to actually respond/answer to, is not going unnoticed by all who view these threads.

Recap: I have to fill in the blanks for you..... As you have purposefully evaded these questions.

I would first assess that you believe dinosaurs existed millions of years prior to humans.

I would then also assess that you think when 'heaven on earth' finally happens, it will be a place where all animals and all humans will all get along together in harmony.

I would imagine you also agree, that dinosaurs killing their intended prey 65 million years ago, would not qualify under the scope of this future heavenly realm, because this would be a form of 'evil'. Otherwise, it would be allowed in this heaven you think is going to happen. (i.e. Paleontology at work) --> https://www.livescience.com/33060-what- ... osaur.html

Thus, I ask you anew....

Genesis states that "evil" entered into the world at the onset of Adam and Eve. Hence....

How could 'natural evil' occur before Adam and Eve, when the Bible tells it's readers that 'evil' did not enter into the world until Adam and Eve?

[POI]

On POIs question, the answer is simple. We were made in Gen 1 to take care of it all and continue God's work. To take on the mantle so to speak

This does not address my question. My question was (paraphrased) - Why did God create other 'creatures' millions/billions of years before 'man', if humans are the 'focus'? --- By 'focus', I mean humans are the ones for which God will interact, and later come back in 'human form', to 'save'? Humans cannot do "god's word", as you put it, if we did not arrive on the scene until a billion(s) of years later. Prior to this, it's safe to assume animals were subject to 'natural evil', which is curious as many here are arguing that 'evil' was not introduced until the fall of man?.?.?.?.?

Gen 1 isn't science / history, so I'm not going to touch the millions/billions of years bit. But my response did address your question, i.e., humankind is not needed until the world is filled with different kinds of life and in need of a caretaker. Hence we are last in the order. We aren't needed until there is a world to manage.

Better to think of the ordering in Gen 1 like an artist painting. First God puts the foundation layers in place. Then God overlays it with plants and animals. Then God adds humans to take care of it all...

This is why I asked Tam, 1213, and JW if they ascribed to OEC or YEC? Which one do you ascribe to? I have a hunch it's the former (OEC), meaning you too reference science -- and all science comes to the same conclusion that the earth is 'old' and animals lived a long time, prior to intelligent humans. Assuming you ARE an OEC, I will proceed with my response...

I don't ascribe to either. I think they're both false views resulting from either forcing the bible onto science (YEC), or science onto the bible (OEC).

Do I believe in a scientific view of things? 100%. I am sufficiently versed in science, how it works, and what it says about the world, and I would never argue the truth of it. (Or rather, what the evidence gathered so far suggests as the truth.)

Do I also believe in a biblical view of things? 100%. But I'm not one to claim that before the big bang was God. Or to twist what the bible says to match latest scientific theories. Or to go out looking across the earth for evidence of the great global flood. You can call the whole bible a story and I wouldn't put up much of a fight. (I don't think this diminishes its value.)

I can rationalize these views because I think that science and the bible convey different truths. It's not one versus the other, but rather they're relatively perpendicular to each other if you want to think of it that way. Some overlap, granted, but not in their main objectives.

In regards to you stating "Gen 1 isn't science"... I would agree, it's anti-science, in that the assertions made there contradict the later discoveries made by science. You may argue the authors didn't write these Verses to demonstrate how the world was formed, for which I then ask... Which parts are meant to be taken at face value, verses not?

Do you want the short answer, or the long one? The short answer is, don't take anything the bible says at 'face value.'

The long answer? This is going to get fuzzy, but let me put it this way. There are hard truths in this world, and there are soft truths. The latter tend to be more squishy in nature, and far more difficult to measure or observe, at least in part because of what tends to be their divergent focus, i.e., on what could be versus what is.

Hard truth is the domain of (physical) science and history, and would include such things as the structure of the universe and the matter composing it. The physical laws that more or less govern all motion. Specific entities or events that can be shown to have existed or occurred. That kind of thing. I don't think the bible should ever be taken at face value on such matters. It may touch on these domains, such as in Gen 1, but even then I think it's at most a secondary concern.

Soft truth is more the domain of ethics, politics, or economics, and would include such things as what the meaning of human life could be and how we could comport ourselves. How we could treat animals and the environment. How we could organize ourselves into larger units. What systems of interaction and exchange we could setup. That kind of thing. This is where the bible should be taken at 'face value', which I put in quotes and said above not to do because its teachings on such matters are not always obvious. i.e., There is a lot below the surface that also needs to be understood.

The overarching claim of the bible, if you think about it, is the relationship between a certain way of life that it calls us to and the benefits that it says will follow from it. It is essentially an ethico-economic promise of what could be, i.e., if we do what the bible says, we will be rewarded with eternal life and all kinds of other good stuff.

This relationship more than anything else is what the bible should live or die by, and it can and should be tested as best as we are able.

And in your response to "humankind is not needed until the world is filled with different kinds of life and in need of a caretaker."...

1. Were these creatures subjected to any 'evil' before the fall of man? If so, did God take care of them in the interim?
2. I doubt humans can be caretakers to the planet without God's help? Sure, I see we help some, but what about the ones for which we cannot, due to 'natural or moral evil'? Does God fill in where we fall short? If not, then I guess God set a failed system into place; IF the objective is for humans to be 'caretakers'. Unintended negligence, due to being unaware of many 'evil' situations, hardly qualifies.... Or does it?

These are strange questions to me. Perhaps more appropriate for OEC/YEC communities given what I just said about not taking the bible at face value.

They also require some unpacking, e.g., the nature of God. For instance, you're talking as if God is some great Being out there, like an old man in the sky watching over us. I don't think that's accurate. I think I said this before, but if not I'll say it again: God is first depicted in the bible (Gen 1:2) as a spirit. A wispy thing. Which I can't imagine is capable of much of anything on its own. So for what it's worth, I think God depends way more on us than we do on God. At least at the beginning. But there is also a movement described in the bible towards an end state when God is at last "all in all" (Corinthians 15:28).

Happy to go more into what that means for some of your questions here, but first point is that God is not so straightforward a concept as I think you're making out. The lines start to blur in terms of what exactly God is, as we see with Jesus for instance. A human being who was also 'God'.

- And yes, we do apparently receive 'special privileges'. We can be saved. Others are not

Where are animals excluded from salvation? I'm not immediately aware of any verses to that effect, so please provide them if you have any.

- Did 'natural evil' exist before humans? If so, this also contradicts Genesis, unless you wish to ignore this part too?

What do you mean 'natural evil'? Destruction of life due to storms and such? I would imagine so. But why is that a contradiction of Genesis?

I'm afraid that addressing these concerns with you further, would be much similar to trying to kick the football through the uprights of a perpetually moving goalpost. No disrespect intended....

Thanks for your time though

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #72]

Hence, if you are not antiscience, then paleontology alone demonstrates that plenty of 'natural evil' prevailed, prior to the onset of humans. How would this be possible if the Bible tells us the 'fall of man' is what caused "evil" to enter into the world?

Where did the concept of natural evil come into the debate, and what does it mean? Is it an actual thing?

Also: The doctrine of the 'fall of man' appears to claim how evil came to be a real thing, and also appears to point to humans as the vessels through which this evil happens, which would mean that other animal behaviors are not considered evil, even after the fall of man.

Primarily the doctrine sees it that way because of the extra capabilities humans have which other animals do not have.

The is why - as an example - while we might observe dolphins actively raping other dolphins, we do not think of this as evil. We recognize the act as the same act, but the act itself takes on the quality of being evil, only when it is done by humans, and specifically by humans who are aware that the act is evil but do it anyway.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #72]

Hence, if you are not antiscience, then paleontology alone demonstrates that plenty of 'natural evil' prevailed, prior to the onset of humans. How would this be possible if the Bible tells us the 'fall of man' is what caused "evil" to enter into the world?

Where did the concept of natural evil come into the debate, and what does it mean? Is it an actual thing?

Also: The doctrine of the 'fall of man' appears to claim how evil came to be a real thing, and also appears to point to humans as the vessels through which this evil happens, which would mean that other animal behaviors are not considered evil, even after the fall of man.

Primarily the doctrine sees it that way because of the extra capabilities humans have which other animals do not have.

The is why - as an example - while we might observe dolphins actively raping other dolphins, we do not think of this as evil. We recognize the act as the same act, but the act itself takes on the quality of being evil, only when it is done by humans, and specifically by humans who are aware that the act is evil but do it anyway.

Please notice that I try to be careful with the use of such words/phrases, and I often sight them in 'quotes' and/or italics. I'm honestly surprised no one questioned me sooner? Thank you... I was awaiting followup from one of the directly contacted interlocutors, but I guess it is what it is.... And here we go...

Yes, it appears to be an actual thing: (i.e.):

Moral evil - This covers the willful acts of human beings (such as murder, rape, etc.)
Natural evil - This refers to natural disasters (such as famines, floods, etc.)

Thus far, the topic has gravitated towards the Bible believers, who also recognize scientific discovery. This means they have to reconcile that (some form of evil) took place prior to "Adam". Now... You wish to argue that starvation, predator/prey, animal rape, tar pits, forest fires, parasites feasting, etc., are benign or amoral.... Okay, tell that to (Jehovaswitness), who is under the assumption humans, and all other animals/creatures, will all live with one another in perfect harmony. If such non-human 'nature' was instead considered moral, God would not need to MODIFY such actions/activities in this imagined Heaven, would we?