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]

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.

I already touched on this...

Animals were around well before humans, unless you wish to dispute this discovery? Did animals suffer before humans were around to 'do something about it"? If so, who was there to 'do something about it'? And did they?

Thus, did animals suffer/die prior to humans? If so, why?

[POI]

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.

Sure, and we could live in the Matrix. Let's just wave our hands up in the air, and claim solipsism Nothing is for certain.

It looks to be, that for your current view to 'fit', you must challenge the established fossil record.

- Fossils demonstrate these creatures are dead.
- Many existing methods confirm their ages, It's not just a blind guess that many of these fossil predate humans.
- Fossils demonstrate injury.

Your claim is that death entered into the world, with the fall. Your claim is also that this death includes animals. How is this possible to continue with your current position, without raising doubts to the credibility of the fossil record?

Hence, are you a science denier?

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?

Science does not make a claim to know how things 'began'. Your believed Book does. And yet, when we explore these assertions, they do not appear to hold water. So, about the fossil record....

[tam]

Peace to you,

Hence, are you a science denier?

Does accepting that science (or scientists) can make mistakes equate to a person being a science-denier?

Because science (or scientists) do make mistakes.

Science also makes room for possibilities in the face of things it might not understand or have enough evidence to draw a concrete conclusion upon. Science even makes room for the possibilities of its current theories and hypotheses to change in the face of new evidence. (Scientists aren't always so open to change, mind you.)

So if you have an issue with someone listing 'possibilities' (including to account for the chance that their understanding of a particular detail is incorrect or incomplete), does that mean you are a science denier?

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?

Science does not make a claim to know how things 'began'. Your believed Book does. And yet, when we explore these assertions, they do not appear to hold water. So, about the fossil record....

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall.



Peace again.

[William]

My current position on this matter is that death has always been a part of the process of nature, whether that is death of Galaxies, Stars or down-to-Earth biological critters.

I think that the idea of death being the result of punishment cripples an otherwise healthy individual, psychologically, emotionally, and even physically.

Crippling folk in this manner allows for the tellers of such stories to have an edge over those who believe said stories are true.

The Garden of Eden story is a classic example of how to instill self loathing and cripple an otherwise naturally healthy human being.

Guilt et al, is a powerful device one can use in order to cripple humans, and leave them unable to obtain their full potential, becoming needy and accepting 'help' from those very ones who instilled that into their system in the first place.

Ingenious or diabolical, the trick works.

[William]

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[nobspeople]

My current position on this matter is that death has always been a part of the process of nature, whether that is death of Galaxies, Stars or down-to-Earth biological critters.

I think that the idea of death being the result of punishment cripples an otherwise healthy individual, psychologically, emotionally, and even physically.

Crippling folk in this manner allows for the tellers of such stories to have an edge over those who believe said stories are true.

The Garden of Eden story is a classic example of how to instill self loathing and cripple an otherwise naturally healthy human being.

Guilt et al, is a powerful device one can use in order to cripple humans, and leave them unable to obtain their full potential, becoming needy and accepting 'help' from those very ones who instilled that into their system in the first place.

Ingenious or diabolical, the trick works.

I would say much of, in this case, christianity, cripples humanity overall - at least how it's practiced now.
Gone is the 'live and let live' concept for many replaced, instead, by the 'god says this so do it!' concept or, at times, the 'god said this and if you disagree you're wrong and a terrible human being'.
I'm sure that's not the intent of the biblical jesus.
For christianity, it's about power and influence over others - control - and, in many cases, money (which, itself, denotes control) hidden behind 'love'. And many christians have been so browbeaten by their dogma they don't see it while others see it, and don't much care.
To the 'death' concept here:
it's interesting that, in order to get some people to do its bidding, god is said to offer a means to elude ultimate death or, if you don't bow down and worship him, eternal death (according to some, anyway).
Fear, guilt and threats oft times net results. Here, it does as well. At least from many.

[nobspeople]

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

But that doesn't stop some from coming up with concepts about what 'really' was experienced (even though they weren't there and, at best, relying on what some dead man said another man said that another man heard) and stating it as fact.
But that's the bible: ambiguousness enough to recruit some and turn others.

[POI]

Peace to you,

Hence, are you a science denier?

Does accepting that science (or scientists) can make mistakes equate to a person being a science-denier?

Because science (or scientists) do make mistakes.

Science also makes room for possibilities in the face of things it might not understand or have enough evidence to draw a concrete conclusion upon. Science even makes room for the possibilities of its current theories and hypotheses to change in the face of new evidence. (Scientists aren't always so open to change, mind you.)

So if you have an issue with someone listing 'possibilities' (including to account for the chance that their understanding of a particular detail is incorrect or incomplete), does that mean you are a science denier?

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?

Science does not make a claim to know how things 'began'. Your believed Book does. And yet, when we explore these assertions, they do not appear to hold water. So, about the fossil record....

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall.

In your suggestion, you would need to 'assume' that all types of independent dating, which all collaborate fossils predating humans, are all vastly incorrect. By incorrect, I mean they would NOT or could NOT predate humans. Thus, it's a little more than questioning their exact age. It's more-so that you are questioning all of it's credibility, all together.

Like i told you before, in post #96:

"5,000 years ago, common consensus was a 'flat earth'. 75 years ago, the earth is a 'perfect sphere'. 30 years ago, the earth is 'pear-shaped'. So we can ask ourselves.... Do we YET know the true shape of the earth? Maybe not, but are we getting closer to the 'truth' of the matter? I would say so?"

So no, I'm not a 'science denier'. I'm now asking if you are? I acknowledge that science may or may not know the EXACT shape of the earth. But if I wanted to subscribe to the idea that the earth is flat, I would need to do a little more than question the exact shape. I would need to instead assume all processes will some day later conclude that the earth is really flat. Hence, it's a little more than just some doubt, isn't it?

So, did death and suffering exist before the fall or not? You already asserted that animal/human death started with the onset of man. If you want to continue holding to this assumption, you must then reject the vast findings of the fossil record.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The bible does not make a statement about what animals experienced before the fall?

Genesis 1:21...
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Its not talking about what they personally experienced, but this is a very good point: it was good.

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.


Peace again to you!

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #177]

The only purpose of my post was to point at something someone said - claiming the bible doesn't mention animals when it obviously does - and showing therein that misinformation was being perpetuated by the claimant.

Furthermore, the claimant is not only a Christian but claims to be the very idea of what a 'true Christian' is - that her claimed "LORD The Christ" would never misdirect with misinformation, apparently his "Sheep" are permitted to do so...or maybe they are not of They Christ as they claim?

[I am still attempting work work that one out. ]

It may not be purposeful/willful misinformation [unscrupulous misdirection device] but clever leading into where the True Christian wants us to look.