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]

Regardless of (your) view, it still suggests problem(s). I will lay out a series of some answered questions, some unanswered questions, along with logical observations.

Okay, let me try again, and where relevant I'll illustrate both my scientific and biblical views since they are different and it can get confusing.

1. You assert one of the roles of humans is to be caretakers for the animals. Who assigned this role exactly? I'll answer for you, YHWH.

Scientifically speaking? No such role exists apart from what we assign ourselves. Biblically speaking? God calls us to this role in Gen 1 and 2 (or more precisely, it is implied as part of our broader calling in these seminal chapters).

2. Do you acknowledge animals existed millions of years before humans? I'll answer for you, yes.

Scientifically speaking? Sure. Biblically speaking? It's what, a 'day' of God-time between us and the animals?

3. Who created humans? YHWH or other? Assuming YHWH, let's proceed. If 'other', then does god have a God? Or are you trying to escape the 'problem', due to a 'technicality'? (please answer here).

Scientifically speaking? Probably something more like natural selection over the course of millions of years. Biblically speaking? I would suggest a joint effort between God, the deep, and the other elements of creation (e.g., the earth). With God directing the whole affair much like a conductor, say, or a master artist who has assistants do all the real work.

4. But still, if your assertion is that YHWH deems humans to be animal caretakers, then this must mean god cares about animals. Even if "He can't do anything about it". Which is an odd thing to state; being that He did "do something about it," He assigned humans to accept the task much later.

God does what I said God can do. i.e., God calls, or tries to persuade us, to take on the role. This role is a calling, whether we accept it or not. (You keep raising this as if it's an inconsistency in my thinking, but it's not: I've been consistent all along that God has the power to call.)

But yes, this must mean God cares about animals. I agree.

5. If animals are worthy of being taken care of, then it seems quite vexing you assert that (the creator of humans) allowed animal 'suffering', for millions of years, prior to them being taken care of...

Millions of years in our reckoning of time, sure. A day in God-time. (Which makes it sound like God acted pretty quickly, right?)

But that aside, you never addressed my earlier response on this. (Maybe I said it to someone else?)

To restate, I agree that a day of 'God-time' marked millions of years (by our reckoning) of animals living in a wild state of nature. And that there is suffering in such a state. But my question is, is it really that bad? You keep suggesting it was morally reprehensible for God to 'allow' such a state to persist for so long. Yet even in today's world for example, we lament the loss of our wildernesses, and see it as a good thing when we restore animal life to its natural habitat. Even though we are knowingly exposing it to the suffering that comes with it.

So I find this line of reasoning very confusing. You're being critical because God didn't create a perfect world to begin with, to which I say no, it's not perfect (that was never the point), but it's a good start. i.e., God left us with an earth capable of hosting swarms of plant and animal life... Beautiful ecosystems in relative balance more or less taking care of themselves... With the whole point being for us to continue the work that God started and to make it even better.

6. You assert that God saw that it was good. If many/most animals are immediately subject to perpetual terror, disease, starvation, predation, handicaps, floods, etc., without any caretaker(s) to intervene, how exactly is this deemed 'good'? Before you answer, please remember, YHWH MUCH later assigns the caretaker responsibility to humans. Hence, it would seem it's 'good' to take care of animals. Thus, if it's 'good' to take care of the animal population, then neglecting to do so would be "bad"? If neglecting to do so is 'bad', then (the creator) neglected to do so for millions of years, while calling it 'good'?

I feel like I've more or less answered this in the preceding, but let me summarize. 'Good' is not the same as 'perfect.' A 'wild state of nature' is not bad in itself, and is actually pretty darn good even by modern estimates (compared to, say, the depleted state of nature we've made on earth today...).

So you need to recognize there's a progression at work here. Our job as caretakers isn't just to maintain the status quo of Gen 1, but to make the whole thing better. To take control of weather patterns, for instance, so that we can prevent drought and animal famine. To understand biology so we can eradicate animal disease. To restore animal populations and help new kinds of animal life thrive in the mix of nature...

Your whole argument (so far as I can tell) is tantamount to criticizing the human inventor of the computer because that first machine could only do so much and was probably riddled with faults. I say that first machine was good, and the beginning of something with the potential to be so much more... (Thank God for all those who answered the call to get us where we are.)

[JoeyKnothead]

Okay, let me try again, and where relevant I'll illustrate both my scientific and biblical views since they are different and it can get confusing.
...

Oh man, I can't do nothing with reasonable and rational. Say something goofy so I got something to complain about.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #231]

Your whole argument (so far as I can tell) is tantamount to criticizing the human inventor of the computer because that first machine could only do so much and was probably riddled with faults. I say that first machine was good, and the beginning of something with the potential to be so much more... (Thank God for all those who answered the call to get us where we are.)

Perhaps part of the problem re this way of looking at things is that human beings informed themselves that perfection was missing, and it was somehow left to humans to 'make it so'.

With the invention of the lathe, humans began to find ways in which to make things exact, even at very tiny measurements.

But while there may be exactness which allows for perfect engineering, this in itself has not proven to have been helpful in relation to making the world a perfect place to exist in for everyone.

Perfectly built structures reaching for the sky, might provide shade for the homeless, but they are still homeless.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #231]

Your whole argument (so far as I can tell) is tantamount to criticizing the human inventor of the computer because that first machine could only do so much and was probably riddled with faults. I say that first machine was good, and the beginning of something with the potential to be so much more... (Thank God for all those who answered the call to get us where we are.)

Perhaps part of the problem re this way of looking at things is that human beings informed themselves that perfection was missing, and it was somehow left to humans to 'make it so'.

With the invention of the lathe, humans began to find ways in which to make things exact, even at very tiny measurements.

But while there may be exactness which allows for perfect engineering, this in itself has not proven to have been helpful in relation to making the world a perfect place to exist in for everyone.

Perfectly built structures reaching for the sky, might provide shade for the homeless, but they are still homeless.

I think this is right. Human endeavor (including science) is in the spirit of what we need to do to take care of this earth. (The Bible and science should not be treated as enemies but as friends...)

Now if only we did it, to your point.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #231]

Your whole argument (so far as I can tell) is tantamount to criticizing the human inventor of the computer because that first machine could only do so much and was probably riddled with faults. I say that first machine was good, and the beginning of something with the potential to be so much more... (Thank God for all those who answered the call to get us where we are.)

Perhaps part of the problem re this way of looking at things is that human beings informed themselves that perfection was missing, and it was somehow left to humans to 'make it so'.

With the invention of the lathe, humans began to find ways in which to make things exact, even at very tiny measurements.

But while there may be exactness which allows for perfect engineering, this in itself has not proven to have been helpful in relation to making the world a perfect place to exist in for everyone.

Perfectly built structures reaching for the sky, might provide shade for the homeless, but they are still homeless.

I think this is right. Human endeavor (including science) is in the spirit of what we need to do to take care of this earth. (The Bible and science should not be treated as enemies but as friends...)

Now if only we did it, to your point.

Wishful thinking has its place.

I used to believe in the human potential coupled with the realization that there is purpose to being where we currently are, could change the way humans go about things.

But with 2'2 billion Christians more interested "heaven" than in Earth, and who knows how many materialists happy to engage in their freedom to take advantage of the opportunity to see primary purpose in the material reality as 'not needing god', I have to accept the realization that things might never change for the better where religious/materialists come together for a common purpose and create a system which incorporates definitive moves away from ancient world-views and accompanying practices.

I am even not sad about that anymore.

[POI]

1. You assert one of the roles of humans is to be caretakers for the animals. Who assigned this role exactly? I'll answer for you, YHWH.

Biblically speaking? God calls us to this role in Gen 1 and 2 (or more precisely, it is implied as part of our broader calling in these seminal chapters).

Thank you for confirming my pre-answered question.

2. Do you acknowledge animals existed millions of years before humans? I'll answer for you, yes.

Scientifically speaking? Sure. Biblically speaking? It's what, a 'day' of God-time between us and the animals?

Thank you again for confirming my pre-answered question.

But just so we are clear, many many many many generations of animals knew nothing but suffering, from birth to death. Such suffering would had happened for many many many many complete life cycles, priors to the onset of humans. To mention that a 'god day' and a 'animal/human day' are different, seems irrelevant.

3. Who created humans? YHWH or other? Assuming YHWH, let's proceed. If 'other', then does god have a God? Or are you trying to escape the 'problem', due to a 'technicality'? (please answer here).

Scientifically speaking? Probably something more like natural selection over the course of millions of years. Biblically speaking? I would suggest a joint effort between God, the deep, and the other elements of creation (e.g., the earth). With God directing the whole affair much like a conductor, say, or a master artist who has assistants do all the real work.

Okay?

4. But still, if your assertion is that YHWH deems humans to be animal caretakers, then this must mean god cares about animals. Even if "He can't do anything about it". Which is an odd thing to state; being that He did "do something about it," He assigned humans to accept the task much later.

God does what I said God can do. i.e., God calls, or tries to persuade us, to take on the role. This role is a calling, whether we accept it or not. (You keep raising this as if it's an inconsistency in my thinking, but it's not: I've been consistent all along that God has the power to call.)

But yes, this must mean God cares about animals. I agree.

Okay?

5. If animals are worthy of being taken care of, then it seems quite vexing you assert that (the creator of humans) allowed animal 'suffering', for millions of years, prior to them being taken care of...

Millions of years in our reckoning of time, sure. A day in God-time. (Which makes it sound like God acted pretty quickly, right?)

But that aside, you never addressed my earlier response on this. (Maybe I said it to someone else?)

To restate, I agree that a day of 'God-time' marked millions of years (by our reckoning) of animals living in a wild state of nature. And that there is suffering in such a state. But my question is, is it really that bad? You keep suggesting it was morally reprehensible for God to 'allow' such a state to persist for so long. Yet even in today's world for example, we lament the loss of our wildernesses, and see it as a good thing when we restore animal life to its natural habitat. Even though we are knowingly exposing it to the suffering that comes with it.

So I find this line of reasoning very confusing. You're being critical because God didn't create a perfect world to begin with, to which I say no, it's not perfect (that was never the point), but it's a good start. i.e., God left us with an earth capable of hosting swarms of plant and animal life... Beautiful ecosystems in relative balance more or less taking care of themselves... With the whole point being for us to continue the work that God started and to make it even better.

Well, as I stated above, a 'god day' and a 'human day' seems irrelevant. Countless generations will have lived/died in nothing but complete suffering, prior to possible human intervention.

My critique here is that a countless number of generations of animals suffered and then died, and God did nothing about it. But later, He did? Which-is-to-mean, He assigns humans to be caretakers, when humans finally came onto the scene. If you are a Bible believer, then you most likely also believe that 'God/Jesus' has the power to bend science. Meaning, God has the power to perform tasks outside the the scope and limitations of 'nature'. Hence, if God sees that animal suffering is 'bad', and opts to do something about it, why still wait until humans?

Your rationale becomes confusing, since you are a Bible believer. The Bible has no shortage of acts, which apparently transcend physics. And yet, you make it out to be that God could not have assigned mere 'caretakership' for the countless suffering of animals before humans?

So again, if God does not like animal suffering, and later assigned humans to do it; how do you also square this with the notion that God can bend physics and nature, to taste, anytime He chooses? (i.e.) in the Bible (OT/NT).....

Was He simply not willing, but then later was?

Something has to give, for you to remain consistent

6. You assert that God saw that it was good. If many/most animals are immediately subject to perpetual terror, disease, starvation, predation, handicaps, floods, etc., without any caretaker(s) to intervene, how exactly is this deemed 'good'? Before you answer, please remember, YHWH MUCH later assigns the caretaker responsibility to humans. Hence, it would seem it's 'good' to take care of animals. Thus, if it's 'good' to take care of the animal population, then neglecting to do so would be "bad"? If neglecting to do so is 'bad', then (the creator) neglected to do so for millions of years, while calling it 'good'?

I feel like I've more or less answered this in the preceding, but let me summarize. 'Good' is not the same as 'perfect.' A 'wild state of nature' is not bad in itself, and is actually pretty darn good even by modern estimates (compared to, say, the depleted state of nature we've made on earth today...).

So you need to recognize there's a progression at work here. Our job as caretakers isn't just to maintain the status quo of Gen 1, but to make the whole thing better. To take control of weather patterns, for instance, so that we can prevent drought and animal famine. To understand biology so we can eradicate animal disease. To restore animal populations and help new kinds of animal life thrive in the mix of nature...

Your whole argument (so far as I can tell) is tantamount to criticizing the human inventor of the computer because that first machine could only do so much and was probably riddled with faults. I say that first machine was good, and the beginning of something with the potential to be so much more... (Thank God for all those who answered the call to get us where we are.)

You already admitted that God deems animal suffering bad. If you are a Bible believer, God could have done something about it.

[POI]

I'm not satisfied as to how this thread ended. Why do animals have to suffer?

[theophile]

I'm not satisfied as to how this thread ended. Why do animals have to suffer?

My critique here is that a countless number of generations of animals suffered and then died, and God did nothing about it. But later, He did? Which-is-to-mean, He assigns humans to be caretakers, when humans finally came onto the scene. If you are a Bible believer, then you most likely also believe that 'God/Jesus' has the power to bend science. Meaning, God has the power to perform tasks outside the the scope and limitations of 'nature'. Hence, if God sees that animal suffering is 'bad', and opts to do something about it, why still wait until humans?

Your rationale becomes confusing, since you are a Bible believer. The Bible has no shortage of acts, which apparently transcend physics. And yet, you make it out to be that God could not have assigned mere 'caretakership' for the countless suffering of animals before humans?

So again, if God does not like animal suffering, and later assigned humans to do it; how do you also square this with the notion that God can bend physics and nature, to taste, anytime He chooses? (i.e.) in the Bible (OT/NT).....

Was He simply not willing, but then later was?

Something has to give, for you to remain consistent

The problem is in your assumptions regarding God's power. I get that traditional creationism involves acts of unbelievable power on God's part, like creatio ex nihilo for example. But I don't think that's the nature of God's power, at least not originally. Nor the situation that Genesis 1 sets up.

So if you're willing to rethink those assumptions and what's really going on in the bible, then we might be able to work this out. If you refuse, there's no point, since I would agree with you that this is a problem if your assumptions are held up.

In terms of God's power (as a bit of an advance), perhaps helpful to borrow a bit from Greek theology, i.e., Aristotle's unmoved mover. I'm not saying the biblical God is such (far from it), but an important part of this God-concept is how it moves things in the world, and on this point I think that Greek and biblical theology agree. i.e., God (at least originally) moves the world through persuasion and influence alone. Which means there must first be something in the world that is so moved and initiates said movement for anything to actually happen. Including the care of animals.

So it's the nature of God's power that explains animal suffering. It's not that God wants animals to suffer, or that God could even do anything about it on God's own, but that we weren't moved to act. Like pharaoh, our hearts were (and still are) too hard.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not satisfied as to how this thread ended. Why do animals have to suffer?

A valid question. While the problem of Evil is a telling one (over many deconversion stories, it was cited as often as reading the Bible with an open mind) and our pal is starting from the logically wrong position of assuming there is a god, and then explaining away the problems.

Aside that the correct logic is to not assume any god (let alone Biblegod) and see whether the world makes more sense if there is no god there than if there was one, the problem of evil is not explained by Bible, God - given morality or Free will. That's just for man. Natural disasters which are not our fault (though debunked theology used to say it was) looks even more like there is no god intervening, which is the same as one not being there, and as you say, 'evil' coming to animals makes even less sense, and has not ever since Genesis had God destroy inoffensive creation along with the only offender, men (babies being innocent apart from theology that has them sinners, worthy of eternal torture, even before they threw their first rattle out of the pram, and women of course never doing anything wrong.)

[PolytheistWitch]

God doesn't much deal with the natural order of things. Nature is as it does. Even pagan gods work to preserve the order of nature.