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?

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #179]

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

Not bad. Not terrifying.

Good.

Well now hang on there a minute Lassy!
Who died and left you in charge of sayin' what runs around in the BG's head?
What do you know about BG that you can tell what it is that he regards as 'good'?

Given the evidence of science, scary monsters were around long before humans became a thought in anyone's head.

ITs not called "Terror Earth" for nothing.

And here on Tera-Earth the programing [seed] was set up for the evaluation of a freak show, and 'it was good."

It was very good.

[TRANSPONDER]

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!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong. It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it, in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything? The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Well....yeah. You dismiss the conclusions of science regarding the fossil record (as well as morphology and DNA evidence) and you are a science -denier. I really don't want this to divert into debating evolution - we already have one thread that derailed into debating Flood geology versus deep time geology - but all the evidence is that evolution happened and Genesis didn't.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #180]

claiming the bible doesn't mention animals when it obviously does - and showing therein that misinformation was being perpetuated by the claimant.

Anyone making that claim clearly hasn't read much of the bible, no matter if one believes in it or not!

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 can claim I'm Judge Judy - don't mean that I am. I guess making such claims makes people feel better about themselves...? Ironically, god only knows!

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

I wish you good hunting!

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

Or it may be purposeful. Believe it true or not, the bible has inspired a whole lotta'....stuff

[tam]

Peace to you,

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!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong.

Well, neither did Adam's offspring do anything wrong (at least not yet). But what we do affects our children (and their children), and what we do affects those things that we are in charge of.

Adam was given the earth and all in it.

Adam subjected/sold the earth and all in it (even his own offspring not yet born) to Death.

It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it,

There is nothing He could do about it UNLESS he reneged on His word (which God does not do)... or unless He didn't care if Adam (and Eve, and their offspring) learned love, empathy, consequences to actions, etc. God gave everything to Adam and Adam sold it to Death. It was done. God ensured that the death Adam took into himself would not be permanent (by confining that death to the flesh and not the spirit - hence God gave Adam and Eve those long garments of skin, which is not clothing, but is the body that we currently possess with sin and death in it). God also made certain that all life (including humans, even Adam and Eve) could return to God and eat from the Tree of Life and receive eternal life.

So God did do something about what happened.

in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything?

The kind of God who keeps His word, who ensures that His children are able to repent, to learn actual wisdom and love, and to be able to be free (knowing to choose the right and reject the wrong). The kind of God who did not give up on his human son (Adam), and did not shun him or kill him for what he did (even ensured that he did not die on that very day), but instead disciplined that child so that he might learn and also be saved.

The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

The flood was necessary to protect life (specifically the seed). Damage control, sure, but the alternative would have been much much worse, if we even survived to see it.


Peace again to you.

[William]

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!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong. It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it, in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything? The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

What I am arguing is not unrelated to the thread topic. My first comment in this thread was about the mistake sceptics make in going along with the idea that there actually is a 'problem of evil' - maybe materialists created that phrase to begin with, as a way of arguing something that shouldn't be argued from folk who are materialists.

The only problem of evil is that we either believe or we pretend that evil is an actual problem.

Nature doesn't work that way. If nature does it, then it is not 'evil'. That is the same as the bible saying God said "It is Good".

So none of the 'terror' is evil, no matter how bad it gets, and as we know - it does get so bad.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[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.

I never claimed the bible didn't mention animals, William. I never even claimed the bible didn't mention animals before the fall. Perhaps you need to take a second read at what I did state.

Edited to add:

Please see post 167 for some context, in addition to reviewing what I actually did state:

viewtopic.php?p=1058810#p1058810

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.

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?

See above.

[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.

See above.

(Though a Christian can make a mistake; I don't know who has EVER claimed otherwise; but since I never made the statement you are claiming, even that does not apply in this instance).

Peace again.

[TRANSPONDER]

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!

it seems to me that the point of the thread has been lost. Which is, sure, according to the Bible (so denying evolution is not the point) everything was good before the Fall. But why would God allow allow the fall of Man to take the animals down as well. They did nothing wrong. It makes no moral sense that God would allow that to happen, unless there was nothing he could do about it, in which case, what sort of God can't control everything when He made everything? The Fall of animals into evil' and the destruction in the Flood of animals all part of the 'problem of evil' arguments is reason to doubt that Genesis can be true, along of course with the scientific evidence that it isn't.

What I am arguing is not unrelated to the thread topic. My first comment in this thread was about the mistake sceptics make in going along with the idea that there actually is a 'problem of evil' - maybe materialists created that phrase to begin with, as a way of arguing something that shouldn't be argued from folk who are materialists.

The only problem of evil is that we either believe or we pretend that evil is an actual problem.

Nature doesn't work that way. If nature does it, then it is not 'evil'. That is the same as the bible saying God said "It is Good".

So none of the 'terror' is evil, no matter how bad it gets, and as we know - it does get so bad.

I agree. Secular humanism is beginning to realise that 'evil' is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nature. That isn't the point here. It is that religion, claiming that morality Is a matter of religion has to deal with the question of the Problem of evil, and the fall and destruction of the animals (in the Flood) and indeed the condition of animals thereafter - given that Bible -God made everything (and presumably can do anything), and is Good and would not allow evil (unless it was deserved or it would nullify free will) to happen. So how can Believers explain the evil to happen to animals who committed no sin?

[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.

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?

These are not the questions in the OP. The question in the OP was specifically why God would allow animal suffering.

I have no proof but it seems pretty obvious to me that animals suffered before humans existed (just as they continue to suffer now). What does that have to do with the question posed in the OP?

[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?

These are not the questions in the OP. The question in the OP was specifically why God would allow animal suffering.

I have no proof but it seems pretty obvious to me that animals suffered before humans existed (just as they continue to suffer now). What does that have to do with the question posed in the OP?

I ask the follow up question(s) based upon your prior response. In post #171, you states "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."

If God's power is merely "persuasive in nature", who the heck would He be granting the powers of 'persuasion' to before humans? What is the point for animal suffering, for millions of years, if there is no one to stop it? Further, if animals cannot learn from such "suffering", your response suggests that God just really likes to watch animal suffering? So, did God do anything about it, or were other 'agents' responsible for the care of all animals, prior to humans? If there was no responsibility, then this means that animals suffered for millions of years. So why take care of them later, if it did not matter before?